Infinite MonkeysMy friend Regis alerted me to this post by the lovely and talented Aaron Barnhart. "Saw this and thought of you... in a good way," Regis wrote. Thanks, Regis. The headline of Barnhart's post is "Conservatives who defend O'Reilly -- talk about an elite few!"
I'm not one of those conservatives, but I am part of an elite few. I've been extremely lucky in my career. I've done a bit of good journalism in my day and I've been a low man on the vast-right-wing-conspiratorial totem pole, too. Let's put it this way: I've eaten plenty of chicken-n-sauce at lots of luncheons and dinners where famous people have spoken. Also, William F. Buckley, Jr. answered my e-mails a couple of times. Okay? Okay.
Anyway, Barnhart wrote a column the other day in which he took a shot at O'Reilly's viewers and made some point about armed soldiers on the U.S.-Mexico border. He thinks that's a bad idea, not that anyone has proposed it seriously. OK, fine. Anyway, Barnhart's piece elicited an indignant response from a "conservative" reader who felt the need to submit her cultured bona fides. "I frequently attend art house movies. I just finished reading a book by Annie Proulx, enjoy several plays a year at the Unicorn Theater and watch PBS."
I have no patience for conservative victims. Zero. So Rebecca from Lee's Summit, Mo., gets no particular sympathy from me, especially as she goes on to piss an moan about Barnhart's "liberal elitism."
I agree with Barnhart's reply, at least in part. I don't think he needed to rehearse his resume, but that's his prerogative. Will most Bill O'Reilly viewers care that he helped dole out Olin Foundation money? Will most O'Reilly viewers know who John Olin was or the great work his foundation did? I doubt it. Barnhart lost me with his choice of supposed "conservative" authors. Andrew Sullivan and Simon Schama aren't conservatives. Not even close. I can say, with absolute confidence, that I am much better read than Barnhart is. But the main thing is, Barnhart is entirely right when he says "many disillusioned conservatives... are praying for the sweet release of electoral defeat in November so they can have their movement back."
I'm not sure about the electoral defeat part, but George W. Bush's exit in January 2009 will be a great thing for conservatives, no matter who takes over the Oval Office. Bush has been to American conservatives what Pete Wilson was to California conservatives about a decade ago: Disastrous. Wilson, a disciple of Richard Nixon, sucked the oxygen out of the conservative movement in California. Bush has done the same for conservatism in the United States. Honest men -- no, not Scott McClellan -- have kept their mouths shut or pulled their punches for eight years. The war played a part. If not for the war, it's arguable that George W. Bush would have been a one-termer like his dad.
Look, conservatives need to come to grips with the hard fact that, whatever one may say about George W. Bush's administration of the war, he has not been especially friendly to conservative issues. Even excluding the military, government grew exponentially during the Bush years. Conservatives have a lot more work to do now than they did eight years ago.
Posted by Ben at June 26, 2008 12:18 AM