Is a party under attack obligated to engage its attacker? Lately
the right has been criticized for refusing to respond according to
the left’s prescriptions. In the Middle East, for instance, the
government of Ariel Sharon has refused to respond to suicide
bombings by sitting down and talking peace with the sponsors of the
bombings, as the “whole world” would have it do. Instead, it has
done what any other normal government would do, and asserted its
nation’s right to self-defense. The left cries foul, which is why
it’s the left. But in important matters prudence requires it be
ignored.
Actually, there’s every reason to ignore it in trivial matters
as well. Champions of David Brock’s recent confessional, for
instance, continue to squawk that the right has largely ignored the
book and failed to respond to its many wild charges which they all
insist are true. Gee, they say, what are conservatives afraid of?
Or as a “Press Clips” critic recently put it in the
Los Angeles Times, “The right’s relative hush on Brock’s book
suggests that he’s telling the truth.” No, it suggests something
else entirely. The right is under no obligation to respond to
someone who has simply switched sides. When Jim Jeffords flipped,
were all Republicans honor-bound to renounce their party as well
and declare themselves followers of Tom Daschle? Brock, among other
things, is playing a political game, in which a staunch
anti-Clintonite turn into an even stauncher Clintonite. That might
qualify Brock for the Guinness Book. But it doesn’t mean the right
has hold his hand one last time.
It’s amusing to see the left taunting the right to engage a book
it has already pronounced unimpeachable. Why don’t its adherents
just come out with it and ask the right to turn itself in? Surely
they don’t expect any response from the right would change their
minds? But then again, arguing under false pretense is what makes
the left the left.
Moving into an area of even greater triviality, there have been
several reports this week that Republicans are boycotting or
planning or thinking of boycotting the new, hopped-up version of
CNN’s “Crossfire.” Why should they participate in a cheap show
co-hosted by very active Clinton-Gore Democrats? The same question
perhaps could have been raised during the show’s previous
incarnation, though hosts like Bill Press or Geraldine Ferraro or
even Bob Beckel were relative Democratic has-beens compared to the
Begala-Carville duo that succeeded them.
What’s more Begala-Carville have long been a pair, their
opposites Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson hardly so. But more
importantly, Novak and Carlson speak for themselves, not the RNC,
the White House, or the GOP Congressional Leadership, all of which
they might criticize not infrequently. Maybe not as often as
Begala-Carville, but more often than those two will ever utter an
unsupportive word for Democratic Party top dogs. In this respect,
may Republicans should demand that the show’s conservative hosts be
Karen Hughes and Grover Norquist, people who will defend their side
politically no matter what. Such a pairing would at least somewhat
neutralize the biggest reason to distrust Begala-Carville: they’re
as actively engaged in promoting the current Democratic agenda as
Terry McAuliffe.
Of course, with Begala-Carville the problem doesn’t stop there.
Everyone knows that Carville put the “vile” in “Car-vile,” as one
Kultursmog watcher has put it. But who could have thought that
Begala would turn out the more vile of the two? His recent
outbursts have made headlines (and adoring approval from his
groupies at Media Whores Online), whether for calling Hugo Chavez
more legitimate than George W. Bush or declaring Al Gore to be his
president. It’s only natural that well-mannered Republicans would
rather not appear in the company of a man who asks questions as
graceless as this one:
“Miss Pieczynski, I want to bring Mr. Kane in by asking you this
question: One hundred years ago, women were not allowed to receive
communion during your menstrual cycle…”
On the other hand, the trashy television trappings
notwithstanding, it is a political show, and for all the fanaticism
and bullying that emanates from Begala-Carville, the twosome can be
neutralized. The key is send on the right guests. Tell the
politicians to stay home; they don’t need the abuse. Instead, bring
on someone like Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent
Women’s Forum.
Ms. Pfotenhauer was a guest on the April 16
show, brought on to discuss wage discrimination against women,
just the sort of topic Begala loves to champion. On this day,
though, he picked the wrong opponent. Here’s how it started:
BEGALA: …Take a look at these statistics. Back in 1963, I’m
sure you’re familiar with this, the pay gap between men and women
was 59 cents. The latest data that we have from today is 73 cents.
Well, my goodness…
PFOTENHAUER: The latest data from where?
BEGALA: That’s progress. From the Census Bureau.
PFOTENHAUER: No, it’s not from the Census Bureau.
BEGALA: Actually, we got this from NOW. Let me…
Pretty soon Pfotenhauer was talking circles around an overmatched
Begala:
BEGALA: At this pace, you’ll achieve full quality in the year
2080. So let’s just be calm and…
PFOTENHAUER: That’s a total, false construct. First of all,
equal pay for equal work is something I think both the
congresswoman and I fully support. It has been the law of the land
since the early 1960s.
Anybody who practices discrimination on an individual basis
should be prosecuted to the fullest. We all support that. What I
take issue with, and what the Independent Women’s Forum takes issue
with, are these so-called studies, not academic research, not peer
reviewed that are so methodologically flawed, as to be misleading
that report to represent a huge gap in pay between similarly
qualified men and women.
BEGALA: Oh, so there’s no gap.
PFOTENHAUER: No.
BEGALA: Everything’s just fine, right?
PFOTENHAUER: Paul, let’s go back here. Let’s look at the actual
studies that are peer reviewed, where you can replicate the
analysis and decide whether it withstands scrutiny. What you find
out is that if you look at men and women, and you adjust for basic
things, things that Statistics 101 students would have to adjust
for, age, experience, continuous years in the workforce, and
position in the company.
And what you find out is there is no wage gap. The recent study
that’s come out that purports that it’s by the way…
BEGALA: So we’re just victims of mass hysteria and
self-delusion.
PFOTENHAUER: No, no, what it is is, if you see differences in
relative compensation because of choices that people make. If you
want to have a conversation about that, we can.
At that point, a chastened Begala disappeared from the
conversation, as Pfotenhauer turned her expertise against her badly
overmatched opposite, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D - N.Y.), who could
only fall back on what the National Organization for Women had told
her.
When Begala did resurface, it was to reply to Carlson. But again
Pfotenhauer weighed in:
“Why don’t we actually look at research, not political spin? And
if you look at studies put forward by Cornell University, these are
not politicians with a bill on the floor of the House. These are
academicians and scholars who have to face boards and review. And
college campuses tend to be liberal, not conservative. Www.iwf.org,
that’s all I have to say.”
A commercial break saved Begala from any immediate further
damage, but afteward Pfotenhauer continued to dominate the
conversation, of which the following was merely one of her many
impressive flourishes:
“Why are[n’t] we talking about the success story that we’ve got
here? Women, right now, earn the majority of undergraduate degrees.
We earn the majority of Masters degrees. We outperform men in high
school and college.
“Within the next generation, we are expected to earn the
majority of Ph.D.s. Education is one of the primary drivers of
income. The other is continuous years in the workforce. If we want
to talk about the decisions that are made societally for women to
take time out, that’s an interesting conversation.”
Begala could barely get a word in edgewise, unless it was to
quip, in response to Pfotenhauer’s comment that the Supreme Court
has eroded self-governance, that the high court had done so “by
stealing the election.”
The lesson: Send in the right Republican and soon enough Begala
will be threatening to boycott his own show. The only question now
is whether someone like Nancy Pfotenhauer will ever be asked
back.
