Willaim Kristol? Really? Sigh...

William Kristol, a founding member of Neo-Conservatism (aka Neo-Racism), wrote an article in The New York Times for today, or Monday, or whatever the hell day it is - (I think I read the article when it was Sunday here but Monday back east, but this post might be going up Monday here; got it?) - about Joe the Plumber, among other things. His thesis, it seemed, was to argue that the "common people," the Joe Plumbers et al., have done pretty well for the country. In his own words: "Needless to say, the public’s not always right, and public opinion’s not always responsible. But as publics go, the American public has a pretty good track record."

He cites a few superficially strong examples and concludes his point, thinking he has shown, explicitly, that his thesis holds. Sadly, he fails to address a number of strong examples that run counter to his thesis. But let's look at his "strong" supporting examples. He states that in the 1930's "the American people didn't fall - unlike so many of their supposed intellectual betters - for either fascism or Communism." This is true, to an extent. The American people, as a whole, leaned neither right nor left to the extreme, like so many other populaces around the world. Now, I'm not sure if those other countries were considered our intellectual superiors, but I'll let the matter slide. In fact, I'm willing to grant that this point is strong; let's say it is and move on. Next, he states that since World War II, the American public resisted isolationism and "turned their backs on a history of bigotry." I'm not sure if I can grant these two, for a) I'm not convinced that we resisted isolationism, and b) we definitely have not turned our backs on a history of bigotry. Evidence is abundant in today's world. And, Kristol implicitly (and unwittingly, I imagine) admits that these same American people have been bigots, for some meaningful period of time. How does a "history of bigotry" go unnoticed in his examination, a fact he pointed out? It's a little odd, but nothing unusual for a Kristol article. These are his "strong" supporting examples.

What if we grant that both these examples are true and strong? He still loses. For Kristol cherry picks his evidence, here. He seems to have overlooked that "history of bigotry" he briefly mentioned. For over 200 years, the American people hated minorities and allowed, through the democratic process, laws discriminating against them. How does that factor into their track record? Pretty heavily, I'd imagine. Now, Kristol could come back at me and say that he was implicitly talking about the 20th century and beyond. But those same people who resisted isolationism, fascism, and communism spent 64 years hating black people legislatively, and another 44 privately. So how does he get off saying they have a good track record? They have an awful track record. Widespread anti-minority sentiment, backed up by powerful legislation - that's their crowning achievement. On that list are other acts, too: supporting Reagan, voting for George Bush twice, voting Jimmy Carter out of office, encouraging death and destruction by submitting their will to wars in multiple countries, and paying way more attention to media outlets than they should. This is a strikingly beautiful track record.

So Kristol got it wrong, again, and in a rather lopsided manner. He's usually spinning the truth, but today/tonight/tomorrow he simply missed it; he didn't spin it because he didn't know where it was - that or he was lying through his teeth, which is a strong possibility, given the man. But in any case, I thought his attrocity of an article (which many conservatives will find enlightening and intelligently informed) deserved attention, if only to satiate my desire to crush him. Speaking of crushing, he should go back on the Colbert Report; that worked out really well last time.