WILLIAM KRISTOL SUCKS

In the April 7, 2003 issue of the conservative pseudo-intellectual rag, the Weekly Standard, William Kristol analyzes liberalism which is probably good because he is such an expert. No, wait. I meant to say that he's not an expert on liberalism at all and has absolutely no business pretending to explain it. Sorry, I get a bit dazed whenever I read far right-wing lunatic rantings: Kristol's essay amounts to little more than propaganda rhetoric.

First things first. Kristol praises the American public. He bashes what Eric Alterman calls the "so called liberal media" for its doubts about Rumsfeld's war plans. He summarizes the Bush administration's rationale for the war. He comforts conservatives by letting them know that the media is not damaging the war; rather, it's just making itself look bad. He cites polls showing America's support for the war.

Kristol is nothing if not efficient. In two short paragraphs he makes five propaganda scores before he even addresses his essay's main subject. This allows him to start analyzing liberals from an ideologically constructed moral high ground.

The next paragraph presents what is essentially his thesis: there are good liberals and bad liberals; the good ones agree with conservatives about the war and the bad ones don't. But Kristol is an intellectual (oops, there I go again; I mean, pseudo-intellectual). His argumentation must be less plain. So he takes his thesis to the test of time, examining a history of liberalism through his pundit-goggles, pushing conservative buttons all the while. He first invokes the split between Wallace and Truman in 1948 using the always dependable red-baiting tactic. While it is not an original ploy to make communists of the anti-war left, Kristol deftly and back-handedly slips in the thought. His next jab stokes the fires of conservative anti-1960s hatred, identifying today's peace movement with the "poet pansy" defeated presidential candidate, George McGovern. He then reminds conservatives that they hated the smug, Democratic Congresses of the liberal 1970s, and throws in a bit of anti-French sentiment for good measure with his reference to France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.

After marginalizing the anti-war left as a bunch of homo, hippie, France-loving Communists, Kristol praises the good liberals. Good liberals understand the need for war. Good liberals are tough guys, like conservatives. It is interesting to note that his list of liberal tough guys includes Hillary Clinton.

(What's up with that? My theory is that conservatives, being perverts, secretly long for and admire the tough feminists that they despise. Rush Limbaugh, I'd bet, desperately longs for Gloria Steinam.)

Then Kristol returns his lizard-like claws to the anti-war left. He lists hated liberal icons such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hollywood, and the New York Times. He uses the flash-word "leftists." He accuses the anti-war left of hating US leaders (hmmm, he might be right about that one), and of quietly desiring an American defeat. Then, and this is pretty weird, he condemns the peace movement by comparing it to the conservative Clinton haters of the late 1990s. (What's with this Clinton stuff, anyway?) Finally, he praises the good liberals once again.

All in all, Kristol's essay is simply a propaganda statement gussied up to sound like an argument of some sort. There is no analysis. He simply defines liberalism by dividing it into two camps, a rhetorical attempt to "divide and conquer." This definition is clearly offered as what will most likely be a successful attempt to shape the boundaries and terminology of mainstream media discussion. It also serves to rally the conservative faithful. But there's no real thought, only emotionally charged images. Sad, huh? What's even worse is that so many people take this bunch of crap to be somehow legitimate. There are real ideological divisions on the left, but Kristol has no interest in that. Because his voice and the voices of so many others like him carry so much weight in the corporate news media, liberal views and arguments are not accurately portrayed. Democracy is undermined.

I guess that's just another day for the American media.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$