Beyond the recognizable political parties, there lies a distinct division that has been brewing for sometime now. Rush often refers to it as “the internecine battles in the Republican Party.” However, I think this can be broken down further, into an even more focused base level, specifically within the realm of conservatism. As a Daily Caller piece describes, “There has always been this sort of divide between inside-the-beltway conservatives and leaders of the conservative movement who think those inside-the-beltway conservatives have been contaminated by the culture of Washington, D.C.”
What is it about renowned pundits, such as Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Bill Crystal, Carl Rove, and the like, who command our attention and respect? Is it simply the perception of their astute analyses, their intellect? And what are we to discern when their critiques turn from respectful intellectualism to vitriolic criticism, particularly of those they claim to share political philosophies with? Tom Rowan discusses the heart of this conversation in his American Thinker piece entitled, “Dr. Krauthammer and Gov. Palin: Analyzing the Analyst”:
“The most valuable characteristic an established "wise man" can have is the ability to see and tell the truth. Speaking the truth about current events is where Krauthammer seems to hit all the right notes. Only on very rare occasions does this maestro hit a decidedly sour note. And these false notes are starting to become glaringly tinny when Krauthammer opines on Sarah Palin. With Palin, Krauthammer's reliable sights become suspect. He lowers himself from wise man to wise guy. He leaves his well positioned observation post to take up a sniper's position in the mud.”
This is a disturbing trend that has become all too familiar anytime a so-called conservative member of the media discusses conservative leaders that don’t specifically adhere to the beltway etiquette. Rather than intellectually engaging their fellow conservatives one-on-one, they’d rather scoff at them on the Sunday shows…much like that of their Democrat counterparts. Honestly, it’s sometimes hard to make the distinction, and therein lies much of the problem.
Rowan suggests that in Krauthammer’s case, his ongoing effort to delegitimize Palin lies in his past, particularly with regard to his time as a speechwriter for Walter Mondale campaigning against Reagan, “Perhaps this is where Krauthammer harvests his unseemly vitriol against Palin. While the nation yearns for the "next Reagan," Krauthammer seemingly yearns to seek and destroy any true blue Reaganite.” Rowan elaborates from there, but Rush seized on this idea throughout his program today, “Why in the world do we sit here and bow down at the opinion of somebody who used to write speeches for Walter Monday?” Rush continued, “Now Rowan’s theory is that people’s pasts matter, so here you have Dr. Krauthammer – speechwriter for Mondale, who obviously at that point in his life thought that Ronald Reagan was a total idiot, you know, probably not schooled. So, Rowan’s theory is… Krauthammer sees Reagan in Palin and wasn’t particularly enamored of Reagan.” He made similar connections with George Will in that he wasn’t a fan of Reagan early on either, “But this got me to thinking about this whole notion of who earns respect and why?” This led Rush to a theory of his own, that perhaps these guys have managed to position themselves as the lone conservative on their respective programs (Krauthammer with “Inside Washington” on Friday nights in the D.C. market and “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, and the same of Will with ABC’s “This Week” and the CNN circuits), and this has become their special brand.
Rowan gives his final analysis: “…a man like Dr. Krauthammer should know that gratuitous ankle-biting is unbecoming of one who has earned our respect. Or perhaps when conservatives have thoughtful discussions of Governor Palin, we should start by asking Charles Krauthammer to leave the room.” Here, here.
This division goes hand in hand with prior discussions of demographic-politics and the ‘party over principle’ mentality. The intellectuals have garnered immense respect from those they’d now castigate, and in doing so, they’ve tarnished their conservative credentials among the boots on the ground, the grassroots, the voters, the common man, and fallen lockstep into the out-of-touch beltway establishment. This can be corrected, but it will require a civil acknowledgement that candidates of the conservative base are just a viable as the intellectual’s choice(s), and that seems to be a level that we have yet seen reached.
ADDENDUM: Levin weighs in with an interesting perspective as well...
ADDENDUM: Levin weighs in with an interesting perspective as well...
