Dr. Kristol or: How I Learned to Stop Being Angry and Love McCain

What is the New York Times standard descriptor for conservatives? “Angry.” In the Times’ view of things, conservatives are not people who believe certain things, they are people who are “angry”—meaning irrationally angry, which is just a step away from reactionary, bigoted, and racist. The “conservative” William Kristol, who recently joined the Times’ op-ed page, has gotten right into the swing of things. His column today begins:

Dyspepsia on the Right

The prospect of John McCain as the likely Republican presidential nominee has produced a squall of anger on the right. Normally reserved columnists and usually ebullient talk-radio hosts vie to express their disgust with McCain, and their disdain for the Republicans who are about to nominate him. The conservative movement as a whole appears disgruntled and dyspeptic.

Kristol then proceeds to argue that conservatives ought to support McCain. It would be nice if Kristol used a little truth in packaging and quoted his father Irving Kristol, who wrote in 2003:

[O]ne can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.

- end of initial entry -

Alan Levine writes:

I suspected you would comment on the Kristol column in the Times! It was a perfect example of the neocon inability to come to grips with real problems. He managed to expend an entire column without ever seriously discussing why conservatives have a problem with McCain.

LA replies:

But that is right in keeping with the NY Times take on conservatives “anger.” They don’t have rational reasons, they are irrational, bigoted people. I don’t think Kristol even mentioned immigration.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 04, 2008 10:25 AM | Send