SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (1147)5/29/2003 5:47:20 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
May 28, 2003, 3:40 p.m.
Conservatives in the Mist
A media theme.

URL:http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052803.asp

I was recently watching a BBC wildlife documentary on the Discovery Channel. The narrator — a British fellow with an accent like Gandalf the White — described the scene:

The male approaches the pack. His intentions are clear: assert dominance, conquer, rule. Sensing trepidation from the younger males and curiosity from the bitches — who at this age are in a perpetual state of heat — the would-be leader-of-the-pack seizes his opportunity. He puffs out his chest and lets loose with a booming roar: "Hey, have you read the latest issue of National Review?"











Okay, I'm lying. Or, as Steve Glass or Jayson Blair might say, I'm "fabulating." (My couch just yelled from the other room: "Actually, Jonah, technically speaking Blair would say he's 'stickin' it to Whitey!' but I get your drift.") But, my point is, whenever I read liberals reporting about the goings-on of conservatives I always get the nature-documentary vibe. A liberal reporter puts on his or her Dian Fossey hat in order to attempt to write another installment of Conservatives in the Mist. I've followed this particular brand of reporting for years, it's almost a fetish of mine. Most attempts fail. Of these lesser varieties, there's fear ("Troglodytes!"), mockery ("Irrelevant troglodytes!"), condescension ("I had to explain to them they're troglodytes."), bewilderment ("Why don't they understand they're troglodytes?"), astonishment (Dear God, they're not all troglodytes!"), and a few combinations of all the above.

But sometimes they even succeed, to a point. Thus, like the real Dian Fossey, they manage to saunter into the leafy thickets of conservatism, and are welcomed into a band of gorillas. They hold out the equivalent of a banana or maybe a fistful of grubs for long enough and eventually we come sniffing around. We're intrigued by the creature lavishing attention on us. And the reporter eventually begins to feel as though he has been accepted into the band. Eventually, we conservatives grow comfortable enough around them to return to our old patterns. We scratch and fight and do our gorilla things and the chronicler dutifully takes notes. The notes eventually make their way into an article for the New York Times or The New Yorker or Vanity Fair.

"Who knew?" the readers will say over their morning bagels and coffee in Southampton or Fire Island, "I had no idea conservatives were such intelligent creatures. Why they even have the capacity for emotion and even some rudimentary forms of kindness."

Okay, this metaphor has gone on too long already. But there are a couple of points worth making before we abandon it. No matter how hard Dian Fossey tried, she was never actually a gorilla. Second, no matter how much attention she paid, it's doubtful she understood what the gorillas were doing the way the gorillas themselves did. She may have gotten it right that BoBo was trying to woo Sally (or whatever the apes names were). But she probably could never understand the quality of the affection BoBo felt for Sally, in much the same way that an anthropologist or biologist can assert that you got married out of a natural human instinct to procreate but can't tell you how you feel about your wife.

Oh, and one last thing: Conservatives aren't gorillas, damnit!

HIPUBLICANS — GET IT?
I guess this is as good a time as any to introduce the article which got me going on all of this. In last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, John Colapinto wrote an article, "The Young Hipublicans," focusing mainly on the conservative kids at Bucknell University.

It is difficult for me to convey how much I dreaded reading this article. First of all, there's the title, "Hipublicans," which is so simultaneously derogatorily ironic and unclever it merits no further comment. Then there's the cover: five students, grey-skinned and unsmiling, shot from below with a bank of clouds riding in behind them as if to warn: "Something wicked this way comes." Each kid wears an identical George W. Bush T-shirt. As David Frum noted Tuesday, the Times has kept alive its tradition of undermining any text flattering to conservatives — should there be any — by depicting conservatives as joyless jerks or psychos. David says the Times made these kids into clones, a la The Boys From Brazil. They look more like Children of the Corn to me, but on this point reasonable men may differ. The effect is the same: Conservative kids are automatons — creepy automatons.

Then there was the teaser tagline:

No taxes, no gun control — but these days blue blazers and gay bashing are not required. College conservatives have learned that by acting like everybody else, they can sway their peers and become the most influential political act on campus.

You know those pictures of Indians or Pakistanis crammed into, onto, and on the sides of a train? You know, with hundreds of them clinging to the roof? The above line is like the locomotive in one of those pictures, but instead of poor third-worlders, the train is festooned with B.S. Let's see, can someone tell me when gay bashing and blue blazers were required? I know that anti-Communism really was required for most of the last 50 years — because anti-Communism defined conservatism — but just because the Times and the Left generally have decided that sexual orientation and gay rights are the more important and interesting themes of the 20th century, please don't rewrite the past to fit it. Then there's the assertion that conservatives "learned" that "by acting like everybody else" they can achieve their goals. I see. In other words, if conservatives had their druthers they'd still be fag-bashers who shop at Brooks Brothers, but instead they have to wear the uniform of the lumpen liberals.

Is it so inconceivable that maybe, just maybe, they aren't "acting like everyone else" so much as simply being "like everyone else." No, these kids are like missionaries wearing the garb and aping the lingo of the normals, simply to convert them. And, once they do, they'll put on some chinos and slap around the local florist just like the good old days.

This is how I felt before I read the first word of the article.

THE INGÉNUE
Now, I have something of an ethical quandary about the article itself. Tuesday I mentioned in The Corner that National Review Online got "screwed" by the Hipublicans piece. It did. If a conservative, or someone who follows conservatism, were going to a write a serious piece on the next generation of conservatism, the uses of humor to get a point across, etc., he would have to mention NRO. I don't say this in order to peddle the product I've invested so much of the last five years in. I say this simply as a fact, recognized by pretty much every conservative I know and numerous mainstream-media outlets — including the ones who despise NRO and all it stands for. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure I'm capable of exaggerating the significance of NRO, but the truth is NRO has had a real impact.

Anyway, in response to that Corner post, I received lots of nice e-mail from leaders and members of conservative campus organizations — all agreeing with me. But I also received a snarky e-mail from Mr. Colapinto, the author of the article himself. He says that no one brought up NRO in his reporting and, "Oh — and what is NRO?" I wrote back a pretty snarky e-mail myself, saying that if he didn't know NRO, that just proves he was unqualified to write the article in the first place. Additionally, I noted, if he thinks David Frum came up with the term "paleoconservative" and that he did so only a few months ago, as he suggests in the "Hipublicans" article, his ignorance of conservatives is extensive. I suggested that maybe no one mentioned NRO to him because he's too ignorant to even ask the right questions. And so on.

So, there I was ready to tear Colapinto a new one in this column; not only was he wrong, but he'd smacked me with a wet fish. But then Charles Mitchell — the Bucknell student most prominently profiled in the piece — wrote me several notes detailing what an honest guy Colapinto is and what an unfortunate but unintended oversight the non-mention of NRO was.

Fine, fine, though Mitchell would hardly be the first conservative, young or otherwise, to have been Jedi-mind-tricked by a liberal trying to use him — how do you think charmers like Jane Mayer and Bob Woodward can afford their summer homes? But then Colapinto wrote me again. He politely explained that "on reasoned reflection" it probably was an oversight and how his follow-up revealed NRO really is "crucial reading" for young conservatives, etc. His initial snarkiness was the result of frustration with other critics of his article. It was a decent and honest and fair note, and while it inconveniently bled out the bile I was going to use for this column, I'm glad he wrote it. His book was excellent and when I saw him at a panel at the Independent Women's Forum he seemed like an entirely decent guy. I take him at his word that he was doing his best to be an honest reporter and I think the article reflects that.

But this doesn't mean I liked his article. I think Colapinto is fair. And let's be honest: Fairness is a huge step up for the Times. But there's a big difference between being fair and being right. Addressing my point that maybe he's the wrong man for the article, Colapinto surmises that maybe the Times was looking for a "fresh face" to write about conservatives. Fine. But this is still Dian Fosseyism with a new gorilla scientist. There's still this fascination with the conservative-as-other. There's still this condescending sense that what makes them tick, let alone what makes them successful, has to be based in either their ignorance or their iniquity. Sure, Colapinto is honestly conveying his astonishment that young conservatives are people, but that astonishment is still insulting and old news. It is inconceivable, truly unimaginable, that the Times would describe young gay, black, or green student activists as the sort of robotic or cynical creatures they assume conservative activists must be. Throughout the Hipublicans piece, we're introduced to what must sound to the layman like an alphabet soup of right-wing groups responsible for alienating the youngsters from the natural liberalism all baby boomers ascribe to youth and the college experience, never mind humanity.

There's the clothing stuff: "Today, most campus conservatives who hope to be effective won't dress like George Bush or Dick Cheney. The idea is to dress like a young person." Hmm, does the fact that they are young people not even play into it? Yes, Colapinto finds conservative off-campus activists to back up his claim that conservative kids are operating in mufti rather than actually choosing to wear faded jeans and worn-out T-shirts. But, Colapinto makes it sound like the kids are buying secondhand clothes in order to fit in. College students don't take that kind of direction.

No, no, they do, says Colapinto. "In fact," he writes, "much of what Chaykun [a campus conservative] — and indeed most any campus conservative you meet — says is something that someone told them to say."

One need not dwell on such a cheap shot, especially when I'm running so long. But again, this highlights how otherworldly this crowd thinks conservatives are, while at the same time displaying what looks like complete ignorance of the world they themselves inhabit. The idea that conservatives are the students mindlessly repeating what others tell them — as opposed to campus leftists — is flatly absurd. This isn't an ideological point, but an empirical one. The share of liberal kids who spout Chomsky, or Katherine MacKinnon or, more often, what their own liberal professors tell them as if it is gospel dwarfs the share of conservatives who mindlessly invoke conservatives. I used to participate in something called "The Spitfire Tour" (see here and here for a taste of that buffoonery), and time and again the message was clear: Liberalism and decency are as synonymous as conservatism and bigotry. These kids got this from their teachers and their icons and whenever I questioned them about their views, the vast majority caved. Indeed, leftists on most campuses are so afraid of being challenged that it's extremely difficult to get them to debate right-wingers.

Indeed, the number and sophistication of external and internal organizations helping liberal students get their message across makes the work of conservative groups the Davids against the Goliaths. Let's see: women's-studies departments, black-studies departments, gender-studies departments, the PIRGs — which take money straight from student coffers — the campus-speaker funds, the professors, the books the professors assign, the main campus newspapers, the various ACLU-type organizations with their student-outreach offices, the Axis of Easels (the artist-actor-musician types who raise money to raise consciousness and raise consciousness to raise money), and of course the administrators themselves who bend over backwards for feminist, black, and gay activists.

All of this adds up to the real secret of campus conservatism's modest success, as Colapinto suggests. The "establishment" on campuses is thoroughly liberal or left-wing, and college kids like to challenge the establishment. The condescension and astonishment we're all used to hearing from the Times has to do with the fact that even rich, spoiled, and successful liberals — like Howell Raines, to name just one — cannot fathom that liberalism is today the atrophied status quo, and that the one-time rebels are now the silly and pompous establishment they once believed they were rebelling against.

This is simply a fact. Sure, there are college conservatives who are putzes and morons, but colleges are full of putzes and morons. That is the natural state of the universe and it would be foolish to say that conservatives don't get their natural distribution. But the difference between conservatism and liberalism, particularly on college campuses, is the difference between emotion and reason. Campus conservatives must question the conventional wisdom of the culture as well as the privileged testimony of the experts who run their classrooms and schools. You can't do this with emotion alone. But you can stifle this with emotion, which is what liberals do when they scream racism, sexism, homophobia, and the rest. Their shrieks are an attempt to stifle dissent. They say conservative ideas are "mean-spirited," as if that's the same thing as saying "you're wrong." I can call you uglier than a three-day-old tube steak. That's mean-spirited, but it's not necessarily wrong.

That's why the closing paragraph of the article strikes such a hilarious note. Colapinto quotes two professors who fear the rise of conservatism will "stifle intellectual openness among students." Colapinto understands the irony of professors who, for argument's sake, have no problem with speech codes and the totalitarian language of American academia today, fretting that a few more students disagreeing with their professors might be a threat to intellectual openness. My guess is that the editors at the Times — and far too many of their readers — do not.



To: calgal who wrote (1147)6/14/2003 1:31:04 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
Resume Imitates Life
Hillary Clinton's "Living History" shows that, to the senator and former first lady, politics isn't everything--it's the only thing.
by Matt Labash
06/12/2003 8:45:00 PM

Matt Labash, senior writer



WITH THE RELEASE this week of "Living History," it is worth noting that this title is not Hillary Rodham Clinton's first foray into children's literature. In 1996, came her blockbuster smash, "It Takes A Village," in which she condescended to parents as if they were children , by preaching the healing power of making sock puppets with teeth-grinding chapters like "An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Intensive Care." I'd share more, but it would take a village to hold me down and make me read the rest of it.

Then in 1998--Impeachment Year--Hillary took a break from hiding her head in the sand on the Lewinsky affair, and fired a shot across her critics' bow with "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy--Kids' Letters to the First Pets." To the unsophisticated reader, it might have appeared like more avoidance therapy. In actuality, it was a clever long-term political strategy. Locate people who will be of voting age in 2008 and who think that Labrador retrievers can read their letters. They'll believe anything. It was some of Hillary's ghostwriters' best work: "Socks and Buddy follow in the paw prints of many distinguished pets at the White House." Doggone great read, Hill.

In keeping with the children's theme, "Living History"--or as the gals in my Hillary reading circle call it, "Living Herstory"--is Hillary's first scratch'n'sniff book. Let me explain. Take a claim in this book, almost any claim, scratch it hard enough and it smells like BS. There's Hillary the Faux Populist telling us how back in Arkansas, she loved going to "sale barns and barbecue joints" and Razorbacks football games where she would "call the hogs." Yeah, uh-huh. There's Hillary the Paranoid, who, after the furniture had been suspiciously moved around in the White House, worried about Rush Limbaugh, who had left a message in the Lincoln Bedroom right before the Clintons moved in, saying "I was here first, and I'll be back." (Security, it turns out, had swept the room for bugging devices.)

Then, of course, there's Hillary the Naïf. Right before Bill finally fessed up about Monica Lewinsky--seven months after the story broke--she claims to have told a friend, "My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me." Which would have made her the only person in America by that time who could say the same of her husband. And then there's the least attractive Hillary, Hillary the Martyr, who in her eagerness to reach for grandiosity after her life had been turned into a sex farce, draws strength from the examples set by Harriet Tubman, Nelson Mandela, and Elie Wiesel. Wiesel survived a Nazi death camp and Mandela survived 27 years of imprisonment for opposing an unjust, racist government. Hillary survived having her husband turned into a Jay Leno monologue because he received blowjobs from an intern and lied about it. It's all the same in Hillaryland--as her staffers called their workspace.

But a responsible reviewer wouldn't merely recount the fictionalized non-fiction, self-aggrandizement, and partisan myopia that plagues this book, though there's much to recount. He would tell the reader that the most important thing they need to know about "Living History" is not to buy it. The good parts have already been dribbled out all over the media, and in any case, they don't even come until page 440. Here, "good parts" is a relative term whenever Hillary's basement full of ghostwriters churns out campaign-brochure copy (one of her ghosts, interestingly enough, got a lot of practice being Hillary's brain when she co-wrote the appropriately named "Icebound").

To label "Living History" as being merely boring would be to owe a groveling apology to Bill Bradley. By the third time I read Hillary assert that she doesn't take herself too seriously, I knew that I was seriously in for it. By the tenth time I tripped over a paragraph that read like it had been wrenched from a bad alumni magazine ("What I valued most about Wellesley were the lifelong friends I made and the opportunity that a women's college offers us to stretch our wings and minds in the ongoing journey toward self-definition and identity"), I was praying to be struck with blindness. By the fiftieth description of a meaningless foreign trip that she took, such as the one to Dhaka, Bangladesh, a place she "long wanted to visit" because of attractions like the International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research--I was begging for death. Just as you would be too, the seventieth time you read her introduce a person as if they were a State of the Union prop, a person like "Ryan Moore, a seven-year-old from South Sioux City, Nebraska, who had been born with a rare form of dwarfism," and whose story "kept our eyes on the prize throughout our struggle to bring health care coverage to all Americans."

Who talks like this, you ask? Hillary, that's who.

The conservative caricature of Hillary Clinton has always hinged on painting her as a bloodless, calculating shrew who pulled Bill's strings and regularly packed the dirty laundry off to the dry cleaners. But there is a much more prosaic explanation for why so many detractors find her even less appealing than her husband. He, for all his faults and nods to political expedience, exhibited an anti-political impulse: a scampish charm and an insatiable, often reckless appetite to live life for it's own pleasures, consequences be damned. While Bill's detractors would call this his hedonistic side and his boosters would call it his human one, Hillary, as revealed by her own ghostwriters' words, is pretty much a one-sided affair. "Living History" paints her as a purely political creature.

Everything she does--no matter how pedestrian--seems to contain some golden moral or noble expression, which almost always rings false. Since it's not officially a campaign book, and contains next to no policy prescriptions, one could reasonably expect her to throw open the window and let out some of the hot air. The memoir give the impression that you are never being allowed a glimpse into her true world. Or more troubling perhaps, that you are--that Hillary's artificial world is also her real one.

Consequently, you never get the sense that she is trying to seriously arrive at the truth, but rather, that she's merely shining up her resume. She is a joiner, and an apple-polisher, the teacher's pet and the queen of the spelling bee--every twit you knew in school that was begging to be taken behind the gym for a game of full-contact dodge ball. Thus, we learn that she was president of her high school fan club for Fabian, and served as well on the Cultural Values Committee. After running successfully for student council and junior class vice-president, she tried to join NASA's astronaut training program. At the time NASA wasn't accepting girls--and even though Hillary was still in high school and wore coke-bottle glasses, this "blanket rejection" made her "more sympathetic later to anyone confronted with discrimination of any kind."

It doesn't end there. There was also her distinguished service at her church's altar guild, as well as her unsuccessful campaign for student government president, after which she settled on helming the "Organizations Committee." She was also the president of her college's Young Republicans, worked on the Steering Committee for the League of Women Voters' national conference on youth and community development, and in Arkansas, chaired the Education Standards Committee and Rural Health Committee, setting her up later for her belly-flop off the high-dive as chair of the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Lest I be accused of manipulating a few committee assignments to imply that her inner life and political life are indistinguishable, I'm implying no such thing: Who else could seriously write of her grade-school appointment as "co-captain of the safety patrol" "This was a big deal in our school. My new status provided me my first lesson in the strange ways some people respond to electoral politics."

But this trait isn't merely evidenced by her playing Quick Draw McGraw with her resume every few pages. Every detail of her life is wrapped in a tidy little pre-package--containing all sorts of do-goodnik asides ready for a campaign bio or a stump-speech moral. Conceiving Chelsea? "We weren't having any luck," she writes, "until we decided to take a vacation in Bermuda, proving once again the importance of regular time off." Most people would just be happy to be having sex in Bermuda. She has to prove the importance of taking regular time off. Her delivery of Chelsea? An excellent opportunity to work in the factlet that Bill accompanied her into the operating room for her C-section--an "unprecedented" move at Baptist Hospital, though "soon thereafter the policy was changed to permit fathers in the delivery room during cesarean operations."

A hike through Yellowstone with Chelsea and Bill? "America's national parks have provided a model and an inspiration for other nations to protect their national heritage," and oh, by the way, she almost forgot to mention: "Bill announced a historic agreement to stop a large, foreign-owned gold mine on the border of Yellowstone from threatening the pristine environment." Vince Foster, one of Hillary's best friends in the world, committing suicide? She interrupts news of his death to tell us that right before she was notified, she'd been on a trip to Japan, where she "met with a group of prominent Japanese women--the first of dozens of such meetings that I held around the world--to learn about the issues women were facing everywhere."

Even when Hillary is going through her lowest moments, she manages to find a sanctimonious silver lining. Troopergate breaking? "It was too much," writes Hillary. "I wondered if what Bill was trying to do for the country was worth the pain and humiliation our families and friends were about to suffer." Remember the Rose law firm billing records that turned up in a White House closet months after they were subpoenaed by prosecutors? They got lost in the shuffle when "we found ourselves in the midst of a major renovation of the heating and air-conditioning systems to bring the White House up to environmental energy standards."

Even the failure to stop genocide can be turned to political advantage. The death of one million Rwandans which the administration did nothing to stop? "It would have been difficult for the United States to send troops so soon after the loss of American soldiers in Somalia and when the Administration was trying to end ethnic cleansing in Bosnia," she explains. "But Bill publicly expressed regret that our country and the international community had not done more to stop the horror." Public regret? How do you say "thanks for nothing" in Tutsi?

"Living History" isn't all such tough sledding. There are moments of (unintentional) hilarity, such as when Hillary recounts the first words she overheard Bill utter when encountering him at Yale Law School: ". . . and not only that, we grow the biggest watermelons in the world." A friend explained to her that melons were all Clinton "ever talks about." That obsession that would haunt him throughout his presidency.

Speaking of melons, there is precious little discussion of what Clinton aide Betsey Wright famously called "bimbo eruptions." Various news outlets have already raked Hillary for her timeline stating that she believed her husband's claim that he'd had no sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky up until August, months after it was already divulged that prosecutors had seized the Gap dress with the DNA stain. (In fairness to Hillary, Monica had allowed that the stain could also be "spinach dip," a claim which immediately undermined her credibility since it's hard to imagine Lewinsky eating spinach, even in dip form.)

But while her publisher paid Hillary $8 million to come clean on her husband's infidelities, she does precious little of it. Hillary lumps the Paula Jones incident in with "the other phony scandals," without ever disclosing whether, harassment charges aside, she disbelieved that her husband had any romantic designs on Jones. Her treatment of Gennifer Flowers is even more problematic. Barely bothering to dismiss, over the course of a few paragraphs, Flowers' allegations of conducting a 12-year affair with her husband, Hillary calls it a "whale of a tale" and claims Bill told her "it wasn't true."

This is problematic for Hillary, since when Lewinsky comes around, she expects us to believe that her husband had never lied to her before. And what she fails to mention is that when her husband was deposed in the Paula Jones lawsuit, he admitted an affair with Flowers. Meaning that either Bill lied to Hillary (in which case Hillary is lying about Bill never having lied to her), or he told the truth to Hillary, and Hillary is complicit in his lying to us about Flowers.

And the Flowers episode, of course, represents just a tiny fraction of Bill's reportedly consensual alleged affairs. Marginally non-consensual brushes, such as the one Clinton was alleged to have had with Kathleen Willey, are not even mentioned. And if you're looking forward to even a cursory discussion of Juanita Broaddrick's rape charges--charges, which were feebly denied by Bill's attorney, but which have been reported by numerous reputable news organizations (and the details of which have yet to be even partially discredited)--then you'll have to read another book.

Which brings us to Monica. While it's completely believable that Hillary was angry, distraught, depressed, etc, it's a little less so when, by her own account, she was able to stand her political ground so fiercely. She concedes that her husband was guilty of "misleading the American people" and that his behavior was "morally wrong"--a major concession in a book with almost none. But she heaps double scorn on prosecutors, claiming the release of the Starr report, a report nearly pornographic precisely because it detailed the extramarital behavior of her husband, was a "low moment in American history."

While psychoanalyzing Hillary should be left to God and Gail Sheehy, one can't help but wonder how somebody so supposedly wounded could convincingly fulfill her duties both as First Lady and party-shill during impeachment. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that a president shouldn't be impeached for perjury about an extramarital affair in a civil suit and that such private misbehavior shouldn't be thrown open to public scrutiny. Even still, what shouldn't matter to us about our president, should matter to his wife. Unless the Clinton's have the sort of cynical marital arrangement that some suspect. In which case, Hillary isn't being forthright about the nature of their union--which has yielded as many political benefits as it has public humiliations.

Indeed, the notion that the political trumps the personal in the Clinton marriage is hard to dispute. Hillary herself writes that at her lowest personal point, when she most wanted to throttle Bill, "I hadn't decided whether to fight for my husband and my marriage, but I was resolved to fight for my President." This, mind you, two weeks after she supposedly found out that not only had Clinton had this disastrous affair, but that he'd lied to her and made a liar of her by extension.

What keeps Hillary married to Bill is anyone's guess, even after 534 pages. At one point, she says he has nice hands--"expressive, attractive and resilient." Her explanation: "All I know is that no one understands me better and no one can make me laugh the way Bill does. Even after all these years, he is still the most interesting, energizing and fully alive person I have ever met. Bill Clinton and I started a conversation in the spring of 1971, and more than thirty years later we're still talking." It sounds convincing, less animatronic and more flesh-and-blood. Until you realize that most of their conversations today must take place over the phone, what with them living in different states.

She tells us that the real thaw in their post-Lewinsky relationship seemed to come while she was deciding to run for Senate: "One benefit of my decision-making process was that Bill and I were talking again about matters other than the future of our relationship. Over time, we both began to relax. He was anxious to be helpful, and I welcomed his expertise."

Imagine that--Bill and Hillary talking politics when all else fails.

Matt Labash is senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

URL:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/792uhpgs.asp



To: calgal who wrote (1147)6/14/2003 1:32:28 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1604
 
A Laboratory for Conservatism?
Some liberals are desperate to paint post-war Iraq as conservatism's nirvana. The operative word here is "desperate."
by Lee Bockhorn
06/10/2003 12:00:00 AM

Lee Bockhorn, associate editor

NOW THAT MATTERS IN POSTWAR IRAQ have, to put it mildly, become challenging, antiwar liberals are exhibiting a new spring in their step, and a revivified eagerness to heap scorn on the Bush administration.

One of the most bizarre examples of this appears in the June 9 issue of the New Yorker, in a truly unhinged "Talk of the Town" column by Hendrik Hertzberg. The article, "Building Nations," begins with a description of the "catastrophe" that is postwar Iraq--a "Hobbesian state of nature" lacking water, phones, and electric power, and full of environmental degradation and rampant crime.

But Hertzberg isn't content to make the (defensible) argument that Iraq's current troubles result from incompetent American planning; instead, the blame lies with the administration's ideological obsession. Hertzberg writes: "It's tempting to suggest that the Bush Administration is failing to provide Iraq with functioning, efficient, reliable public services because it doesn't believe in functioning, reliable public services--doesn't believe they should exist, and doesn't really believe that they can exist."

"It's tempting to suggest" is a rhetorical trope that usually precedes some sort of measured qualification; it allows a writer to make a nasty jab before retreating at the last minute to claim, "but I'm not really making that argument--I'm just being clever!" But Hertzberg never gets around to the "however" paragraph. That's right, folks--the Bush administration: Working tirelessly to eliminate running water, phone service, police, and electricity around the globe! Yes, this is the true goal of the conservative movement! "In a way," Hertzberg snorts, "Iraq has become a theme park of conservative policy nostrums":

There are no burdensome government regulations. Health and safety inspectors and environmental busybodies are nowhere to be seen. The Ministry of Finance, Iraq's equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service, is a scorched ruin. . . . Gun control is being kept within reasonable limits. . . . And, in the absence of welfare programs and other free-lunch giveaways, faith-based initiatives are flourishing. The faith in question may be Iranian-style militant Shiism, but at least it's fundamentalist.

And the notion of lawless, dysfunctional Iraq as an incarnation of conservative policy fantasies has gained traction among saner liberals as well. Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne made a similar point (in a more muted fashion) in his April 15 tax day column.

The "basic" lesson taught by the chaos in postwar Iraq, Dionne writes, is that "the alternative to tyranny is not the abolition of government. Absent a government committed to the protection of rights, there are no rights." Now in principle, there's nothing here to which any conservative could object (excepting perhaps a few reefer-mad libertarians). But in the course of his column, Dionne manages to set up a convenient straw man: Conservatives believe that government might as well be abolished, because it is "useless, evil and unnecessary."

Both Hertzberg and Dionne claim that turbulent postwar Iraq and conservatives' fondness for limited government are merely variations on a common theme. For Hertzberg and (to a lesser extent) Dionne, the only rational middle ground between tyranny and the conservative-policy theme park that is now Iraq is--surprise!--some form of cradle-to-grave welfare state. They both imply that the current "Hobbesian state of nature" in Iraq is what conservatism, fully embraced, would lead to here in America.

But this is to assert, rather absurdly, that belief in the importance of limited government is equivalent to distaste for basic rule of law and public order. A desire for limited, constitutional government is not the same as a belief that government is intrinsically evil, as any cursory glance at the Federalist Papers will make clear. Certainly, the rhetoric of some fringe elements of the conservative movement comes close to endorsing the caricatured worldview Hertzberg and Dionne present as conservatism's essence. But to say that such fevered thought represents the conservatism that currently resides, as Hertzberg claims, "not only in the White House but also in the Republican congressional leadership, in the faction that dominates the Supreme Court, and in the conservative press and think tanks," is willfully misleading.

Lee Bockhorn is associate editor at The Weekly Standard.
URL:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/787tvhhf.asp