Let’s Play “SPOT THE RINO!”: Jonah Goldberg On That Other Roger Simon
Via the BlogFather:
JONAH GOLDBERG: ON THAT OTHER ROGER SIMON “Simon’s column reminds me of a point I’ve been making for years. Most mainstream journalists roll their eyes at the idea the MSM is biased. It’s a tired argument, I know. But it’s simply remarkable that when supposedly objective reporters move on to the opinion column racket they reveal themselves as utterly conventional liberal Democrats. When any longtime New York Times reporter rewarded with a column at the Times or elsewhere — Nick Kristoff, Bill Keller, Maureen Dowd, Anthony Lewis, EJ Dionne et al. — rips off the mask it turns out that they were exactly as liberal as conservatives suspected. . . . Just going by the law of averages, some of these reporters should turn out to be conservative or libertarian or at least ideologically heterodox. But it almost never happens. Indeed, when the Times needs to find a conservative columnist (Bill Safire, David Brooks, Ross Douthat) it always has to hire outside its own shop. Jay Carney got his job working for Joe Biden, and later, Barack Obama because his employers knew from the get-go that the Time reporter was ideologically simpatico with the administration. The same goes for Linda Douglas, not to mention Richard Stengel, Shailagh Murray, and many others. I wonder if any of them ever feel insulted when Democratic politicians just assume that supposedly objective reporters would make great partisan hacks?”
Excuse us, Jonah, but “a point we’ve been making for years” is that you, sir, are a symptom of your Editors’ “ideological heterodoxy.” I’ve not read your column for almost a decade because of your lack of conservative depth. Sure, you’re clever and funny – and wickedly sharp – but you’ve accepted a few too many ‘progressive’ assumptions to provoke us or inform us from a ‘conservative’ viewpoint. Your premises are squishy and so your conclusions are kaleidoscopic. For example, you style as “conservative” columnists William Safire, David Brooks and Ross Douthat. What!? Hell, by that standard you’ll be claiming next that Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and Conor (only one N) Friedersdorf are ‘conservatives’ as well.
Sir… I, a rank amateur, am embarrassed to have to tell you, but the aforementioned are all of them rather more accurately described as of the Fabian persuasion. (The 20th century Italians had a different word for Fabian pro-business collectivists… Farcicals, if memory serves? – Ed.)
It seems today that anyone can take pot-shots at the hard Left and wrap themselves in the banner of ‘Conservatism.’ (Why is it Boris Karloff pops to mind? -Ed)
Your editors would do us all a favor and re-read Mr. Buckley’s Credenda for National Review and this time take it – all of it – to heart. The entire point of WFB’s enmity towards the Fabian ‘progressive’ movement was that it was ideologically antithetical to the libertarian principals of the American Constitution – principals, values and an exceptional American way of life he’d hoped to conserve.
19:22 UPDATE Just heard Goldberg on Hewitt‘s show telling of Jonah’s being a regular Fox panelist… and how Boehner and Co. are far! more! Conservative! than a Rockefeller Republican. BFD, so is my neighbor’s parrot. Goldberg fails, with some difficult irony, to note that Fox is not a Conservative medium. Note to Jonah: Like it’s parent company Dow Jones and it’s owners, Fox avoids principled Conservative commentators like vampires do crosses. – Yos