First....
The Washington Free Beacon's Matthew Continetti is joining Charlie Cooke and Kevin Williamson as my favorite NR contributors. Today, he writes about the Dem's crack-up.
The Dems are following the path the GOP was on pre-2016, without the benefit of a thriving base to their party, which the GOP had in the post Tea Party era. That base, and a generally unifying vision (opposition to Dems, but generally limited government and fiscal conservatism) led to the landslide that is GOP control of everything today.
The Dems have no such base, and much of that is because at the local level, what they are selling has no market. We see the results of long-term progressivism in places like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, and only Silicon Valley permits the morons in California from destroying their state, and even that may not save it in the end.
At the national level, it's all ancient leaders beholden to their own donor class. It's generally retreads and losers, who are all too happy to tell these ancient politicians what they want to hear, and take their money from them.
It's nice to see the Dems have their own little Mike Murphy's.
Next, is Jonah Goldberg's weekly newsletter, the G-File, which occupies the primary space over at National Review Online today.
This is a cautionary tale from a former #nevertrumper that we need a conservative media to be wary and honest about Trump. His position, which I share, is that Trump isn't a conservative, and while he has those tendencies, he is first and foremost a showman, and the show is Trump.
He is going to do things antithetical to the conservative movement and its principles (trade chief among them) and we need a conservative polity that calls that out and makes fair and honest distinctions. I want to protect him from his worst instincts, because those have the capability to betray all the good things I think he can do. And he is doing a ton of good things. For example:
- He will nominate a real constructionist replacement to SCOTUS to replace Scalia
- He has put in place a serious, and professional national security team, particularly at DoD
- He is going to emasculate the EPA, the DOE and the Education by sending in heads who find what these agencies have been doing deplorable.
- Obamacare is going to get replaced by something that is more market-oriented and won't destroy the lives of the middle class people who are tasked with propping it up today
- He's serious about border security and fighting Islamic Fascism
- We will see a reduction in the corporate tax rate and real reform in the tax code, as well as loosening of regulations, like Sarbanes-Oxley, the Dodd-Frank reforms, and generally reducing the burden of regulation.
All those are tremendously positive things that I believe will happen, and quickly. Make what you will of Trump, there is no "Apology Tour" to be held in the first 100 days. He's hitting the ground running, and once the Dems figure that out, they'll either get on board, or get run over. Sound familiar, Trumpistas?
Anyway, back to Jonah, while he is primarily talking to the conservative media in this week's G-File, he has some scathing things to say about the left-wing (i.e 96% of the) media:
On "Fake" news, Jonah reminds it's always been around:
No, it wasn’t all “fake news” (man, am I exhausted by the ridiculous misuse of that term), at least not most of the time [insert outrage over Duranty’s Pulitzer, Janet Cooke’s and Steve Glass’s fabulations, and of course that time Dan Rather climbed the jackass tree only to hurl himself down, hitting every branch].On Liberal Journalists, Jonah falls where many are, that they mean well, but they truly live in a bubble. This doesn't impact us on the right so much, because we live in much the same cultural bubble as the Left. We read their newspapers, we hear their "news," we watch their TV and movies. We're ensconsed in that bubble. On the contrary, they have never set foot in our churches, or attend the same sporting events as us, or know who Sean Hannity is (I am not saying that last thing is a good thing). Jonah:
Still, the more you get to know elite “objective” journalists, the more you can appreciate that they are trying to do it right. But it also becomes all the more obvious that they live in a social milieu where the borders between the Democratic party, liberal activism, and liberal experts are very, very fuzzy.He adds, talking about reporters seeking verification of "facts" and opinions they agree with:
Reporters routinely call experts they already agree with knowing that their “takes” will line up with what the reporter believes. Sometimes this is lazy or deadline-driven hackery. But more often, it’s not. And that shouldn’t surprise us. Smart liberal reporters are probably inclined to think that smart liberal experts are right when they say things the smart liberal reporters already agree with.On the right, we know Vox to be an excuse for the Left to have an echo chamber. But I love how Jonah puts this:
Think of editors like security guards at a military base. They tend to wave through the people they know and the folks with right ID badges. But when a stranger shows up, or if someone lacks the right credential, then the guards feel like they have to do their job. This is the basic modus operandi for places like Vox, which seek to explain not the facts or the news, but why liberals are right about the facts and the news. [emphasis mine]I linked on Facebook to The Atlantic's ridiculous "sciency" article on the Right-to-Life's use of ultrasound technology and abortion. This ridiculous article deserved the ridicule it received. Like Jonah, I am happy that this extremely long piece has now been equalled by the length of the retractions and corrections The Atlantic has had to issue.
From here Jonah pivots to his discussion of how the right wing journos should approach Trump, and I think fair and balanced is the best way to describe what he wants. In other words, not what the aforementioned Hannity is doing.
My observation is that Jonah's observation here is correct:
But if you actually watch the news side of Fox News, or read National Review, the Weekly Standard, Commentary (not to mention the more responsible conservative websites: The Federalist, Hot Air, etc.), you’ll find that we tend not to be swept up in the hysteria of the Left or the Right. There’s a diversity of writers and opinions to be sure, but on the whole we have praised some of what Trump has done and criticized other things. Fox reports inconvenient facts for the Democrats and inconvenient facts for the Trump administration. It’s not always easy to draw the lines — again, mixed bags and all — but so far I’m proud of the way most of my colleagues and peers have handled all of this weirdness.YOU, on the other hand, should read the entire piece.
