Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Irrelevant cleverness: Hugh Hewitt batters pen-pushers on America's left
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, December 11, 2001 | Hugh Hewitt

Posted on 12/10/2001 11:46:34 PM PST by JohnHuang2

Three months ago, terrorists launched a devastating attack on America that claimed several thousand dead and thousands more wounded, and shocked and shook the entire nation. The president rallied the country and ordered the execution of the military's plan for reprisal. The plan's first stage is largely and successfully complete. There are enormous concerns, of course, and a long and dangerous struggle is still ahead. But more has been learned – relearned, actually – about this country and its people in the past three months than in the past 30 years.

So, as the 90-day anniversary of the attacks approaches, upon what are the elites of the left focused?

Run through the Sunday papers from Dec. 9: In the Washington Post, Michael Kinsley has filed an attack on Ari Fleisher for being boring and evasive. In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd is essaying on the translation of Harry Potter into Latin. The "featured writer" of the Los Angeles Times is John Balzar, and the paper has invested much in the effort to make him a "must read" on both coasts. There's a reason you haven't heard of him – he uses his column this Sunday past to extol his credentials as a "connoisseur of microbrew beer" as he defends alcohol and its users. Over at the Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman at least works the word "Afghanistan" into her big piece for the week. But the column is an attack on our military's dress code for women deployed in Saudi Arabia.

Two days after the 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor and on the eve of a national look back at a fall of savagery, fear, regrouping and bravery unlike any other in our history, and a quartet of representatives from the political and cultural left all chose to write on small matters irrelevant to the drama before us and before the world. Not only did they make these choices, their editors gave them the space to do so. I wonder what Walter Lippmann chose to write on in early March of 1942?

Whether they have nothing to say or are still stunned by their sudden and nearly complete irrelevance, this simultaneous reach for absurd subjects underscores some obvious but hard truths about the pen-pushers on America's left.

All of these people are clever writers. Once again, cleverness is revealed as unrelated to wisdom. Wars always reveal this. And it is always forgotten in a long peace. The locust years of the last presidency elevated the clever people higher than they had ever got before, because there was no substance there at all, just words. Now they are stumbling around. These folks have tried to write about the serious things, but have hit the wrong note every time. Poor Ms. Dowd may have set a record for outrageous misses. No wonder she is regressing to her high school days and writing of the difficulty she had translating Caesar's "Commentaries."

We also have to relearn that pretensions to seriousness are not the same thing as seriousness. Kinsley may never be the same since being knocked around by O'Reilly, but truth be told he's never been significant in the way that George Will or Charles Krauthammer have been. Balzar won't get out of AA ball, and if Goodman has penned a memorable column in her life, I missed it.

These and many others have risen because they share attitudes (they don't deserve the higher tag of "ideas") with the hiring editors and the column buyers. Attitude was enough during the long stretch of years after the fall of the Soviet empire when folks demanded peace dividends and argued with straight faces that HMO reform should take precedence over national defense and foreign affairs. All of a sudden, we need serious analysis from serious people and it turns out the wittiest people from the college papers are running the show. What a surprise: They have nothing to say.

It is common now to note how little time was spent on terrorism in the three presidential and one vice presidential debates last fall. Don't blame President Bush or Vice President Gore – they weren't asking the questions. And you really can't blame just Jim Lehrer. He was the perfect distillation of center-left attitude in the country, and a gentleman to boot. Go back and watch the tapes of Russert during the campaign. After Vice President Cheney's selection was announced, he made the obligatory appearance on Meet the Cuomo Aide. The first seven questions dealt with his heart condition. Not much talk of that now.

Try finding a single elite media commentator who spoke or wrote seriously about the dangers in the world and the first priorities in presidential selection during the fall or 2000. There was at least one – I thought at the time that this writer made a crucial point on the Thursday before the presidential election. In fact, rereading the last four paragraphs of Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal column of November 2, 2000, I am convinced that Noonan deserves the Nostradamus Award as well as a Pulitzer. Here is what she wrote 13 months ago:

Mr. Bush is at odds with the spirit of the past 8 years in another way. He appears to be wholly uninterested in lying, has no gift for it, thinks it's wrong.

This is important at any time, but is crucial now. The next president may well be forced to shepherd us through the first nuclear event since World War II, the first terrorist attack or missile attack. "Man has never had a weapon he didn't use," Ronald Reagan said in conversation, and we have been most fortunate man has not used these weapons to kill in the past 50 years. But half the foreign and defense policy establishment fears, legitimately, that the Big Terrible Thing is coming, whether in India-Pakistan, or in Asia or in lower Manhattan.

When it comes, if it comes, the credibility – the trustworthiness – of the American president will be the key to our national survival. We may not be able to sustain a president who is known for his tendency to tell untruths.

If we must go through a terrible time, a modest man of good faith is the one we'll need in charge. That is George Herbert Walker Bush, governor of Texas.

Yes, she really did write that more than a year ago, and it has far more relevance and power than any or all of the four offerings mentioned above which appeared on December 9, 2001. The point is, as the coach said to the sprinter who asked to be made fast in Chariots of Fire, "You can't put in what God left out."

God left seriousness, wisdom, and perspective out of most writers, as well as political judgment. A few, like Ms. Noonan, got all the gifts. We ought to read the latter, and ask the former to find a better outlet for their cleverness. We haven't the time to spare anymore.


Related offers:

In 'The Embarrassed Believer', Hugh Hewitt is reviving Christian witness in an age of unbelief and is available in WND's online store.



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: hughhewitt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last
Quote of the Day by Oldeconomybuyer
1 posted on 12/10/2001 11:46:35 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AuntB; nunya bidness; GrandmaC; Washington_minuteman; tex-oma; buffyt; Grampa Dave...
Hugh Hewitt ping...
2 posted on 12/10/2001 11:47:09 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Hugh Hewitt is too humble to say so himself, but he's another one who got all those gifts. Great column.
3 posted on 12/10/2001 11:53:33 PM PST by RichInOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
Ping... We can't argue with that....
4 posted on 12/11/2001 12:20:21 AM PST by .45MAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN
Reading what Peggy Noonan wrote a year ago gave me chills.

Yep, it's back to "bidness as usual," "the honeymoon is over," and every other sickening cliche one can come up with. The left is back on the warpath, but their words ring hollow.

We have been given two tremendously huge and important signs: 1) a man with moral convictions and the backbone of steel has struggled through the mire of lies and deception to become our leader.

2) Evil of an indescribable nature took thousands of lives and made a strong, visible icon disappear in the matter of minutes.

I believe that this was our chance to pull together as a nation and humble ourselves before God, a "last chance" to prove our worthiness, as it were.

In my estimation, except for a fleeting few moments of solidarity and religious conviction, we "blew it" big time.

5 posted on 12/11/2001 3:04:40 AM PST by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: illstillbe; Snow Bunny; kayak; OneidaM; davidosborne; JD86
***ping***
6 posted on 12/11/2001 3:06:51 AM PST by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dansangel; Hugh Akston; b4its2late; MozartLover; Dog; All-American Medic
Not only is Hugh Hewitt on the mark here, but so was Peggy Noonan, just a year ago.

Gives me goose bumps.

7 posted on 12/11/2001 3:48:05 AM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; *Hugh Hewitt
The lefties are unbelievable.... I guess they just want us to forget and move on.. sort of like the impeachment on WJC.
8 posted on 12/11/2001 4:32:41 AM PST by b4its2late
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
But half the foreign and defense policy establishment fears, legitimately, that the Big Terrible Thing is coming, whether in India-Pakistan, or in Asia or in lower Manhattan.

WOW!!! As we reflect today on the three month anniversary of the Terrible Thing, let us remember the Supreme Court members and the people who fought to get the truly Elected President into the White House. That was one short year ago.

9 posted on 12/11/2001 4:48:11 AM PST by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Peggy Noonan's prophetic words send chills up my spine. And Hugh is so on target. I had to read it all twice to savor every thought.

The total silliness of the silly out-of-touch, cutesy writers stands starkly revealed.

Thanks, John.

10 posted on 12/11/2001 4:58:29 AM PST by okimhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Mr. Bush is at odds with the spirit of the past 8 years in another way. He appears to be wholly uninterested in lying, has no gift for it, thinks it's wrong.

This is important at any time, but is crucial now. The next president may well be forced to shepherd us through the first nuclear event since World War II, the first terrorist attack or missile attack. "Man has never had a weapon he didn't use," Ronald Reagan said in conversation, and we have been most fortunate man has not used these weapons to kill in the past 50 years. But half the foreign and defense policy establishment fears, legitimately, that the Big Terrible Thing is coming, whether in India-Pakistan, or in Asia or in lower Manhattan.

When it comes, if it comes, the credibility – the trustworthiness – of the American president will be the key to our national survival. We may not be able to sustain a president who is known for his tendency to tell untruths.

If we must go through a terrible time, a modest man of good faith is the one we'll need in charge. That is George Herbert Walker Bush, governor of Texas.

That is just plain freaky.
11 posted on 12/11/2001 5:49:32 AM PST by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Mr. Bush is at odds with the spirit of the past 8 years in another way.
He appears to be wholly uninterested in lying, has no gift for it, thinks it's wrong.

One of the many reasons I'm so proud to have him as our prez.

Thanks, 'King'. : )

12 posted on 12/11/2001 5:49:55 AM PST by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
It is amazing, isn't it?
13 posted on 12/11/2001 5:52:52 AM PST by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ST.LOUIE1
Peggy Noonan nominated for Pulitzer prize. Any seconds?
14 posted on 12/11/2001 5:59:22 AM PST by JusPasenThru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Big Bump for Hugh!

g

15 posted on 12/11/2001 6:04:10 AM PST by Geezerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Sounds like sour grapes to me. He's spending his time talking about other writers. No wonder he doesn't write for the Times or the Post.
16 posted on 12/11/2001 6:42:11 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JusPasenThru
Peggy Noonan nominated for Pulitzer prize. Any seconds?

Absolutely!

Peggy Rocks!

How's that? If not great....it's big and colorful. : )

17 posted on 12/11/2001 6:43:27 AM PST by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks for the ping, John. Got the willies reading the words of Peggy Noonan from over a year ago. Amazing.
18 posted on 12/11/2001 7:14:43 AM PST by MrConfettiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrConfettiMan; RonDog
bttt
19 posted on 12/11/2001 7:43:12 AM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

God left seriousness, wisdom, and perspective out of most writers, as well as political judgment.

Irrelevant cleverness: Hugh Hewitt batters pen-pushers on America's left


Q ERTY6 bump!
'God left seriousness, wisdom, and perspective...as well as political judgment' out of most politicians, too.

 

 
THE OTHER NIXON

by Mia T

 
 
Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.
 
Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:
 
Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.
 
These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."
 
In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense.
(What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)
 
Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):
"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.
 
"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."
 
 
Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):
"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."
 
 
Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):  
"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."
 
 
Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):
"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."
 
* * * * *
 
"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."
 
If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for
perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.
 
David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.
 
The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is
three-pronged.
 
ONE:
clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."
 
This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.
 
Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.
 
TWO:
Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.
 
Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.
 
clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.
 
"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."
 
Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
 
(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)
 
Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He
imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
 
(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)
 
THREE:
The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office.
(Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)
 
This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.
 
Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate
constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.

In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.


20 posted on 12/11/2001 7:52:50 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson