The criticism
leveled against us, and by extension other conservative
magazines, by Rod Dreher, who in this context speaks for a
broader set of critics, is that by using
harsh and inflammatory language to condemn Barack Obama and
the liberals in power, we look intemperate in comparison and
thereby actually advance their cause. Furthermore, engaging in
this kind of rhetoric leaves us unable to identify the weaknesses
in our own thoughts.
Are we, in fact, too outspoken in our anti-Obama rhetoric? Now
from time to time, on the blog or in a web article, in the heat
of the moment we might call some of Obama's policies socialist,
corporatist, or even
fascist. Although there is definitely an element of truth to
all those accusations, we would probably be better off dialing it
down a bit. However, any reader who follows us would know that we
said all the same things of
Bush, too.
In the case that Rod refers to, though -- the head for James
Srodes's
piece in the May issue that said "Obama's National Socialism"
-- I don't agree that it was at all inflammatory or base-baiting.
The article laid out the case why Obama's preferred policy
mirrored that of Hjelmar Schacht's, which was I believe the first
large-scale use of Keynesian-style stimulus. The head was in
small script on the corner of the cover. It needed advertisement
on the cover because it was a feature, and I think there are
plenty of much more inflammatory ways we could have plugged it.
For instance, we could have written "Obama's Favorite Economist:
Hitler, page 22," or "Obama's Nazi Economics, 22" I really think
that writing "National Socialism" is not a particularly
provocative way to introduce such a naturally uncomfortable
topic.
Dreher premises his larger point on a statement Bob Tyrrell made
in last Saturday's New York Times
article on conservative magazines. Dreher criticized Bob's
statement that "Our major concern is that conservative philosophy
permeate the country, and if the Republican Party doesn't want to
go along with it, that's their business." In Dreher's view, this
statement reflects an unyielding dedication to Reagan-era
conservatism in the face of changing circumstances. He condemns
this attitude because
The trick is to work hard to think through our own biases and
emotions, and always to keep watch on our own minds, tongues
and consciences, so that we speak the truth that is, not the
truth that suits us emotionally, or that suits the people who
buy what we're selling.
[...]
It is more important to serve God and to save your soul than to
see your political party take power.
But Rod just quoted Bob saying, "if the Republican Party doesn't
want to go along with it [a kind of principled conservatism],
that's their business." Clearly we're not beholden to a political
party.
It might hurt the Republican Party if we were so shrill and
doctrinaire as to look like crazed wingnuts. But A) the fate of
the Republican Party is not our concern, B) we're not shrill, and
C) we're not doctrinaire -- the June issue's cover, with the
giant subtitle "Time to Be Pro-Mexico" advertising a
pro-immigration feature, I think pretty clearly shows we're not
riling up the base (in fact we've received a lot of letters from
readers outraged by that article).
Definitely there is a line to be walked to maintain our
credibility. But calling out the government's clear excesses,
even if no one in the mainstream is willing to, is not out of
bounds. If Obama -- or any Republican, for that matter -- engages
in Schacht-style stimulus, Mussolini-style corporatism, or
European-style socialism, it's up to us to call
it like we see it.
ADDED:
I guess I should make one more point regarding Dreher's specific
question, "I would be interested to hear what Lawler thinks of
the real substance of that post of mine, which was about the way
we talk about the other side in American political discourse, and
the temptations it poses."
I think credibility matters. I think it's a good thing when
liberal magazines catch the "conservatives" in Congress in
shenanigans or doing things that destroy liberty. But I can't
separate the useful criticisms from the looniness on, for
instance, the Huffington Post, so I don't read it. As long you
base your rhetoric only on ironclad fact, as was the case with
the Srodes piece, you will maintain your credibility and be
useful not only for combating the left's missteps but also for
both sides to read. Is there a danger that there will be outlets
on the right that go completely overboard a la Daily Kos during
the Bush years? Absolutely. But reasonable people on both sides
know better than to get caught up in thinking about them too
much, and I'm not sure how much value there is in launching a
crusade against them when the press on the left is providing
cover for their politicians to do some really dubious things
while they're in power.
