Unserious: How conservative pundits keep churning out books of the type no liberal would get caught dead writing
Every time fresh evidence presents itself, I manage to be amazed at how transparently hackish conservative "pundits" are (and I'm talking about the ones who presumably aren't directly on the take from the White House). Case in point: Bill Sammon has a new book out. It's called... Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media. Just to give a little context, Sammon's last two books were called Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters and At Any Cost : How Al Gore Tried to Steal the [2000] Election.
Honestly, is there a centrist or liberal pundit alive who would have published a book called Hope's Man: How Bill Clinton Pacified the Balkans, Broke the Gingrich Revolution and Restored American Greatness for mainstream consumption in, say, 1999? What do you think would happen to such a pundit's career? Try to imagine any of the comparable hacks of the center-left -- Sidney Blumenthal, Joe Conason, James Carville, Paul Begala -- stooping to publish such a thing. Carville's Stickin', which is really more a dumb autobiographical ponderance on political loyalty than a valetine to Bill Clinton, is the closest thing I can come up with right now. The Clinton Wars was retrospective and a stab at serious, if slanted, analysis of the battles that consumed the poltical decade from an insider's perspective. Ditto, say, Waldman's Potus Speaks, though it at least was published just before the 2000 election. Conservatives justifably accused Brinkley's Tour of Duty of being intended to influence the 2004 campaign, but it was also a fairly serious work of history from a man who had built a career writing serious political history, and was undertaken long before Kerry became the Democratic nominee.
Sure, there are hack authors on the left pumping out viciously anti-Bush books by the month, alleging Diebold-stolen elections and the whatnot. (There are plenty of serious liberal writers who write these sorts of books and do it well.) But even the most devoted hacks on the left geneally feel they need some actual, like, ideas, some critical distance, to fill out their manifestos. There really are no Democratic Bill Sammons. I'm not sure if this is a blessing or a curse.
Honestly, is there a centrist or liberal pundit alive who would have published a book called Hope's Man: How Bill Clinton Pacified the Balkans, Broke the Gingrich Revolution and Restored American Greatness for mainstream consumption in, say, 1999? What do you think would happen to such a pundit's career? Try to imagine any of the comparable hacks of the center-left -- Sidney Blumenthal, Joe Conason, James Carville, Paul Begala -- stooping to publish such a thing. Carville's Stickin', which is really more a dumb autobiographical ponderance on political loyalty than a valetine to Bill Clinton, is the closest thing I can come up with right now. The Clinton Wars was retrospective and a stab at serious, if slanted, analysis of the battles that consumed the poltical decade from an insider's perspective. Ditto, say, Waldman's Potus Speaks, though it at least was published just before the 2000 election. Conservatives justifably accused Brinkley's Tour of Duty of being intended to influence the 2004 campaign, but it was also a fairly serious work of history from a man who had built a career writing serious political history, and was undertaken long before Kerry became the Democratic nominee.
Sure, there are hack authors on the left pumping out viciously anti-Bush books by the month, alleging Diebold-stolen elections and the whatnot. (There are plenty of serious liberal writers who write these sorts of books and do it well.) But even the most devoted hacks on the left geneally feel they need some actual, like, ideas, some critical distance, to fill out their manifestos. There really are no Democratic Bill Sammons. I'm not sure if this is a blessing or a curse.
4 Comments:
I think it goes to academic conditioning. I'm not saying the writers on the right are dummies, but, as you have pointed out, they engage in hackery. As you read through some of these "pieces of work" there is an underlying theme: defence of the absurd.
I think it speaks to the ongoing bifurcation of the country. Most pundits now act as though they are entitled to their own facts, not just their own opinions. Given the financial rewards that are built-in for such people (Coulter & Limbaugh are prime examples), it is no wonder that propaganda passes for analysis.
Also, I'm not as willing to let the left slide on this. The furthest right 10% in the USA will make their whores wealthy, but there is a mirror image 10% on the left who do the same for their own. Hackery is not a partisan phenomenon. A supply will arise for almost any demand, and the demand from many quarters these days is to have yourself vindicated and supported, not to actually learn something or deal with reality.
FWIW, I agree nightshift. The punditocracy is entitled to their own set of facts and both sides are guilty of double standards, though some are really blatant about it. The ongoing bifurcation (props!) has created two competing realities, neither of which can any longer meet in the middle.
I used to think the behavior was intentional and devious; I don't anymore. Mostly I think it's just an [inevitable?] blind spot in the middle of one's vision, the proverbial to-a-hammer-everything-looks-like-a-nail syndrome.
At least there are two kinds of sinners: those who mean to get it right but don't because the gain on their "bias filter" is set too high (and so they get a distorted picture); and the other group, those who truly are hacks and quacks. IMHO the 2nd group is too lazy / apathetic to marry its comfortable opinions with facts that emerge to falsify them.
Here's what I *really* detest about some pundits on the right, they know who they are: many of their books are ridiculously lightweight. Big type, thick paper, 8th-grade reading level, barely 150 pages - it's almost comical. Are these authors trying to target morons? Do they have a different standard than the rest of the world as to how much material is required for a book? Or both?
One other thing: IMO Carville and Begala are so unlikely compared to a Sammon because they are political operators, not print journalists or "scholars" at think-tank book mills, and don't see themselves in the same role to begin with. (In that respect they're more analogous to Dick Morris or Mary Matalin.)
But I'd agree that Margaret Carlson wouldn't be caught dead publishing "Misunderestimated: How Bill Clinton Pacified the Balkans, Restored American Prosperity and Drove the Right Wing Batty While Eating a Pizza and Getting [censored] by Monica..."
Post a Comment
<< Home