Never Mind the 50 Most Influential Pundits—Here Are 10 of the Best

After the success of its “Top 100 Liberals” and “Top 100 Conservatives,” the UK’s Telegraph has now unveiled its “Top 50 Political Pundits.” All three lists have had many in the media buzzing (like flies around a fresh, steaming cow patty.)

Before you check the lists out, a warning: they’re broken down into mini-lists of 10 or 20, so that to peruse them all, you’ll wind up clicking on 17 separate web pages—a cynical ploy aimed at maximizing the Telegraph’s web traffic to drive up advertising rates.

So never mind the Telegraph’s gimmicky lists, which confuse popularity with influence. Influence is a poor measure in the first place, especially when the news media have become more oriented towards entertainment than analysis. By what criteria are comics like Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh, or a superficial confrontationalist like Hack Hannity, or Glenn Beck, considered alongside the best journalists and political pundits of our time?

For what it’s worth, here are Newsprism’s Ten of the Best Political Pundits in America, all on the same page and commercialism free:

10. Michael Kinsley—while he occasionally veers off into liberal la-la land, Kinsley is thoughtful, lucid, and incisive. He’s the most reasonable voice from the far left, idealistic yet practical in a Pat Moynihan sort of way.

9. Charles Krauthammer—a solid bedrock conservative with unmatched acumen in foreign policy, Krauthammer’s analysis of the Middle East is spot-on. He’s as hard-nosed as Bush is hard-headed, staunchly nationalistic without succombing to the naive idealism of the neocons.

8.  Christopher Hitchens—an exceptional writer, Hitchens is also stubbornly independent. He defies categorization in an era marked by polarization; he’s loyal only to his own judgment, never taking sides or pulling his punches, lefts or rights.

7. Dick Morris—he’s as sleazy as the Clintons, and as brilliant, a Karl Rove without the charm (or loyalty.) His cynicism is matched by his insightfulness. A mean streak and his hatred for his former employers make him fun to follow.

6. David Brooks—while the market rewards extremism, especially on the right, Brooks is a moderate conservative devoted to what’s best for the country rather than winning an argument. Brooks is highly intelligent and knowledgeable, and his columns range across critical social and political issues.

5. Frank Rich—a writer on par with Hitchens, Rich anchors the New York Times opinion pages and has the ear of journalists left and right. His background as a critic of culture adds depth and dimension to his political analysis.

4. Karl Rove—the man got George Bush elected. Twice. George Bush. He’s been demonized by the left and stained by his association with the policies of his most famous client, but Rove understands American politics as well as anyone. He’s been outthinking the pack for nearly thirty years.

3. Peggy Noonan—both the woman and her writing are graceful and wise. Never pretentious, she has a way of making profound points effortlessly. Her wit is elegant, simple but never simplistic. Noonan may seem as soft as a feather, but that feather cuts like a scalpel. Her criticisms of George Bush, for example, go right to the heart of a presidency with no moral or philosophical foundation.

2. Pat Buchanan—with the best grasp of history in the business, Buchanan puts contemporary issues into a sweeping historical context. His perspective spans the breadth of Western civilization in an era whose memory barely reaches beyond the 24-hour news cycle. To “get” Buchanan, you should read his books and columns; his appearances on MSNBC don’t do him justice.

1. George Will—nobody connects the dots like Will. His commentary reflects attention to the highest principles while at the same time being grounded firmly in contemporary American culture and history. Will compares favorably with William F. Buckley and Walter Lippmann. His wit isn’t dry, it’s arid, a droll sarcasm befitting his bemusement at our increasingly uncivil society. A collection of his columns like The Leveling Wind transcends punditry; he’s a philosopher who happens to write columns.

Newsprism

Telegoguery—Bill O’Reilly and Hack Hannity Pass Judgment, Fail Test

Televangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker demonstrated how Christianity can’t be forced into the “logic” of commercial broadcasting without being perverted in the process.

Telegogues Bill O’Reilly and Sean “Hack” Hannity—the Swaggart and Bakker of pop culture conservatism—demonstrate how conservatism can’t be forced into that “logic” without being perverted, either.

Both O’Reilly and Hannity have roundly condemned Barack Obama for remaining a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ despite the anti-American ravings of its former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, from the pulpit. Obama should have left his church of twenty years, they say, because Jeremiah Wright is too radical.

Would O’Reilly and Hannity, both of whom are Catholics, agree that Wright’s rants pale in comparison to the sexual molestation of thousands of children in the Catholic Church? Since when is criticizing America more deserving of censure and apostasy than serial child molestation?

Besides, have O’Reilly and Hannity heard of the scathing condemnations of American culture and media made by Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II?

What O’Reilly and Hannity are completely ignorant of is that Liberation Theology, the Marxist doctrine Wright was advocating when he cursed America, was developed in and disseminated from the Catholic Church. Exactly what Reverend Wright was preaching, though repudiated by John Paul II, has been preached in Catholic churches for thirty-five years.

Which do these telegogues worship first—the cross, the flag, or the Neilson ratings? If the cross, then by their own logic they should probably renounce and leave the Catholic Church (which would, of course, be absurd.) If the flag, they should temper their demogoguery and be less divisive. If the Neilson ratings, they should keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing.

Wright addressed O’Reilly and Hannity’s perverse conflation of politics and religion during an April 12 eulogy for a friend (yet another example of his narcissism and lack of boundaries) when he criticized their

jingoistic, chauvinistic ‘you’re either with us or against us’ demonizing kind of faith…O’Reilly will never get that. Sean Hannity’s stupid fantasy will keep him forever stuck on stupid when it comes to comprehending how you can love a brother who does not believe what you believe.

O’Reilly and Hannity quickly replied to Wright, as the “logic” of commercialism demands, capitalizing on a rift in the church in a way no genuinely catholic Christian would. It’s one thing to judge the words of a man, another to judge the man himself, and something else altogether to judge an entire denomination.

Wright, O’Reilly, and Hannity are three hypocritical, self-aggrandizing egomaniacs caught between the perverse logic of commercialism and the straightjacket of theological and ideological rigidity. They deserve each other.

American conservatism and a truly catholic (as in “universal”) church deserve better.

Newsprism

Here’s the Random House dictionary’s definition of catholic (small “c”): 1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal. 2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all. 3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

New Twist on an Old Joke: What Do You Call a Liberal Who’s Been Mugged?

The old joke goes like this: What do you call a liberal who’s been mugged?

A conservative.

After seven years of big-spending government and eroding civil liberties under allegedly conservative Republicans, the joke needs an update: What do you call a conservative who’s been mugged by government?

A libertarian.

Independent voters tend to decide national elections, and the largest bloc of independents are libertarian in outlook: fiscally conservative and socially liberal, in effect straddling the two major parties—which leaves them vulnerable to getting kicked in the crotch no matter whom they vote for.

This country was founded on libertarian principles—limited government, property rights, civil liberties, individual responsibility—that have been significantly eroded under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The designers of our democracy wouldn’t recognize what’s become of their experiment today; somehow a design intended to limit government has been twisted into a government with no intention of limiting its designs.

Up until the turn of the millenium, it was Democrats who considered the Constitution a “quaint document.” Now the Republican Party has betrayed its most fundamental animating principle. It is no longer a conservative party.

PJ O’Rourke puts it like this: “It’s going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans have, but if anybody can do it, it’s the Democrats.”

With a socialist Hillary Clinton or a very liberal Barack Obama set to face off against a big government Republican like John McCain, McCain would seem to be the lesser of two evils. Maybe the late great Molly Ivans had it right: for the third presidential election in a row, we’re faced with “the evil of two lessers.” The only genuine libertarian in the race is Ron Paul, and he’s way too principled, too shrill, too rough around the edges, and too ugly to win the American Idol contest we call a presidential election.

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of nation had been created. His answer: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Newsprism

Contestants in Cable News Race Run in Opposite Directions, Voters Lose

As three major cable news networks—CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews—compete for shares of the cable news audience, the result may be further polarization of the American voter. So says a new study by University of Georgia Professor Barry Hollander.

Hollander studied the news consumption of self-identified Democrats and Republicans using data from the non-partisan Pew Research Center. His findings: people gravitate towards news sources that reinforce their existing beliefs—liberals to CNN and MSNBC, and conservatives to FoxNews.

While this result is no surprise, combined with other trends in voting and media consumption it may portend further polarization among a less informed electorate.

For example, the more voters are exposed exclusively to opinions they already agree with, the more extreme their views are likely to become. In addition, the less news people watch, the less likely they are to vote. Voters who don’t identify strongly with either party are increasingly less likely to consume news, and therefore, to vote.

The trend is towards polarization and extremism in both red and blue states, while moderates give up on the political process and vote in fewer and fewer numbers.

Our democracy risks significant erosion of participation in, and faith in, the electoral process among voters in the center as two polarized, vacuous ideological camps face off over an ever-widening and increasingly empty ideological schism.

Like Nature, politics abhors a vacuum. What will fill the vacuum resulting from these trends is anybody’s guess.

Newsprism

Why Some Democrats and Republicans Should Be Barred from Voting

Have you ever wondered why some people seem impossible to reason with when conversations turn to politics?

A study conducted at Atlanta’s Emory University used sophisticated brain scans to analyze the political reasoning—or lack thereof—of voters strongly attached to one political party or the other.

The results: when faced with information that threatens their pre-existing beliefs, both staunch Democrats and Republicans turn off the rational centers in the brain and turn on the emotional ones.

According to LiveScience.com,

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making … Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

Emory University’s Director of Clinical Psychology, Drew Weston, put it this way:

The result (of the study) is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data.

The study might go far in explaining the popularity of conservative talk radio and the liberal blogosphere, where reason and evidence are as rare as an honest politician.

The old admonition may hold true that some people—the party faithful, as it turns out—just shouldn’t discuss politics.

Maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, either.

Newsprism

Which Philosophy Generates More Generosity—Liberalism or Conservatism?

Dr. Arthur Brooks, a political independent and esteemed economist specializing in public affairs, set out several years ago to figure out who are the more generous Americans—liberals, or conservatives.

His book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, published in November of 2006, has been thrust back into the limelight by a recent column in which George Will, the nation’s preeminent intellectual conservative, exposes the hypocrisy of the outspoken left in Austin, Texas, and by extension, of the left in general. Austin is the South’s version of Berkeley, California and Madison, Wisconsin—a hotbed of liberalism, and, it seems, sanctimony.

The presumption is that liberals, the champions of the poor and downtrodden, are more generous while cold-hearted, individualistic conservatives are less so. Brooks’ thoroughly reseached book proves just the opposite: conservatives give a greater percentage of their incomes to charity, are more likely to volunteer in their communities, and even donate more of their blood than liberals.

The least charitable Americans? Welfare recipients. The working poor, who are little better off than their fellow citizens who live on the public dole, are among the most generous Americans, giving more as a percentage of their incomes than those in the middle class.

At the time of its release, the results of Brooks’ research were popularized by libertarian ABC investigative reporter John Stossel and detailed in the The Chronicle of Philanthropy and at beliefnet.com.

Why is Will bringing Brooks’ work up sixteen months after its release? For one thing, its findings have stood the test of time despite a strong desire by liberal academics to discredit it. For another, we’re in the middle of a presidential race highlighting the differences between the two philosophies that dominate American politics.

The fact of the matter is that liberals as a group are more generous with other people’s money than with their own. Their rhetoric isn’t always backed with action, with sacrifice. Their philosophy is sometimes, in practice at least, shallow and hollow. They too often pander to the welfare class that helps put and keep them in power, taking from others through taxation what they are less inclined to give of their own accord.

Conservatives, on the other hand, submit to high taxation that goes against their philosophy, and yet they tend to give more of what remains of their income and wealth than those responsible for that taxation.

On the whole, Americans, both left and right, are exceptionally generous people. The differences Brooks demonstrates don’t run that deep, but they do reveal a stubborn misconception.

Liberals in the media have succeeded in unfairly characterizing conservatives as cold and uncaring. That’s a stereotype that should be put to rest once and for all.

Newsprism

Conservative Icon Pat Buchanan Gives Little George Bush a History Lesson

Imagine, if you will, a grizzled grandfather of intellectual conservatism sitting in front of a handsome colonial hearth with a child on his knee. The grandfather is Pat Buchanan, and he’s giving little George Bush a history lesson … if little George is “teachable.”

Now, read this column by Pat “Pops” Buchanan, or at least the excerpts below, and keep that image in mind.

Buchanan’s column begins,

On reading George Bush’s discourse to the New York Economic Club last week, Cicero’s insight came to mind: “To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.”

With Iraq entering its sixth year, the dollar sinking to peso levels, the economy careening into recession, and 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens roosting here, Bush alerted us to what really worries him:

“I’m troubled by isolationism and protectionism … (and) another ‘ism,’ and that’s nativism…”

Buchanan proceeds to lay out the real history of what Bush calls isolationism, protectionism, and nativism and the dynamic global power that history produced. This is followed by a litany of Bush’s failures and this incisive summation of Bush’s philosophy:

In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.

Which is understandable. For after the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative? His foreign policy is Wilsonian. His trade policy is pure FDR. His spending is LBJ all the way. His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy’s policy.

Somewhere along the way, George Bush’s education was miserably neglected. Maybe an MBA characterized by a lackluster academic performance, backed up by two decades watching popular entertainers distort and pervert conservatism, doesn’t make for a qualified chief executive. The proof is in the pudding, as the American people seem to understand well. 

Now Pops Buchanan lifts little George off his lap, and the boy scurries off to play with his toys: a Monopoly board, six trillion dollars’ worth of Monopoly money, GI Joe, and models of a fighter jet and the USS Lincoln.

Newsprism

Pop Culture Conservatism—The Shallow Going Off the Deep End

American conservatism has been dealing for decades with a rift between the social conservatism of evangelical Christians and culture warriors on the one hand, and the libertarian conservatism of free-market individualists on the other. Part of the genius of Ronald Reagan was his ability to energize both factions while smoothing over their differences. Too many conservatives today are altogether ignorant of this rift and therefore risk widening it. 

Over the last couple of decades, another rift has been opened, one that has benefitted conservatism significantly but may at the same time have begun an erosion of its core principles in favor of the superficial and the marketable. This rift separates intellectual conservatism—that practiced by Bill Buckley, Newt Gingrich, George Will, and Pat Buchanan, for example—and a more populist strain that dominates talk radio, the popular book market, and cable news. Instead of “populist conservatism,” however, I think it would be more accurate to label it pop culture conservatism, since its primary home is in the popular media.

Pop culture conservatism emerged out of a long era of American journalism in which liberalism dominated public discourse. The Media Elite, an influential 1986 study of political bias, found that nearly 90% of leading journalists had voted for Democratic candidates in prior presidential elections. When Rush Limbaugh demonstrated in 1988 that a huge audience of disaffected conservatives was ripe for the picking, pop culture conservatism burst onto the scene, and it’s been flexing its muscles ever since. Now, slickly-marketed popular figures like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Laura Ingraham exert far more influence over the conservative movement with their confrontationalism and intemperance than more substantive and measured voices do with reasoning and balance.

Intellectual and pop culture conservatism worked together brilliantly in 1994, when Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” consolidated the Republican base and swept Republican candidates into majority positions in both Houses of Congress. The result: the Clinton administration was forced to control the growth of government, so that by the time George Bush took office in 2000, the federal budget was in surplus.

A conservative Republican president inheriting a budget surplus should have set the foundation for a serious, measured restructuring and contraction of our imperial federal government. Instead, Bush has grown the government from a $2 trillion “enterprise” to one that will spend well over $3 trillion in 2008, with disastrous economic and monetary results. The numbers speak for themselves:

The federal government’s budget has grown from under $2,000,000,000,000.00 to over $3,000,000,000,000.00 per year!

The very core principles of conservatism—limited government, individual responsibility, individual liberty, market dynamics, free enterprise—have been buried under an avalanche of big government programs and out-of-control spending. It was Republican Senator Ted Stevens and Republican Representative Don Young who tried to push through billions in funding for Alaska’s infamous Bridges to Nowhere.

Intellectual conservatives have strongly condemned this liberal spending spree, but their voices aren’t being heard over the loudmouthed shouting of the pop culture talking heads.

Pop culture conservatism has created a class of citizens and politicians who don’t seem to value or understand the historical and intellectual foundations of classical American conservatism. These surfacy conservatives just spent seven years in power in the White House, most of that time with like-minded Republicans controlling Congress, yet they have done more damage to the institutions of free enterprise and individual liberty than any liberal in memory.

Shallow creatures of the media going off the deep end have helped put conservatism at risk of drowning in the warm, therapeutic waters of liberalism: naive idealism, spiraling debt, and dependence on government.

Newsprism

William F. Buckley—The Greatest of a Generation

American conservatism has lost its most brilliant and stalwart public intellectual. William F. Buckley died this morning at his home, following his wife, who died last year, and his dear friend Van Galbraith, who died last month.

Mr. Buckley’s National Review had this to say this morning about the legacy of its founder and editor:

If ever an institution were the lengthened shadow of one man, this publication is his. So we hope it will not be thought immodest for us to say that Buckley has had more of an impact on the political life of this country — and a better one — than some of our presidents. He created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement.

Celebrating Mr. Buckley’s unwavering opposition to an ascendent liberalism, NR notes:

When Buckley started National Review — in 1955, at the age of 29 — it was not at all obvious that anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets would all be able to take shelter under the same tent. Nor was it obvious that all of these groups, even gathered together, would be able to prevail over what seemed at the time to be an inexorable collectivist tide.

Though ruthless and relentless in his advocacy of conservative principles, Mr. Buckley was by temperament a true gentleman. I can think of no better tribute to this man than to point you to the gracious eulogies he published for two of his most bitter ideological (though not personal) enemies, Arthur Schlesinger and Norman Mailer, both of whom passed away last year.

Bon voyage, Bill. Happy sailing up there.

William F. Buckley’s archive at National Review

Conservatism at the Crossroads

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, conservatism seemed not merely on the ascendency, but approaching supremacy over liberalism. The nation was enduring a new sense of vulnerability, and the need for a strong military called unequivocally for conservative leadership. With Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats looked destined for a long period in the minority.

What happened? A scant six years later, Democrats control the House, have a slight majority in the Senate, and seem poised to take back the White House.

In “The Road to a GOP Minority,” George Will blames the Republicans’ lack of fiscal restraint and legislative ethics. Not only has a federal government dominated by Republicans run up the budget deficit and the national debt substantially, it’s done so with literally thousands of highly questionable earmarks added to bills totally unrelated to the earmarks. The infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” which has become symbolic of pork barrel spending, is just one example.

With over 10,000 such earmarks last year alone, and with similar numbers in previous years, it’s no wonder we’ve witnessed a slew of ethical scandals involving lobbyists and selfishly-motivated legislation. Jack Abramoff (Inmate #27593-112 at Maryland’s Cumberland Federal Correction Institution) is the poster boy for such scandals; his lobbying activites have helped land literally dozens of legislators and government employees, nearly all of them Republican, in hot water.

One of the fundamental tenets of conservatism demands a small federal government staying out of the private lives of its citizens and practicing fiscal restraint. American conservatism puts the individual above the society; this means both that individual freedom must be sacrosanct, and that the individual is responsible for his or her own life. How, then, did the party of conservatism manage to take a federal budget that had been balanced by Bill Clinton and in six short years run up budget deficits approaching half a trillion dollars? And how did the party of conservatism manage to nearly double the national debt?

Some would simplistically reply, “9/11,” but that is not a sufficient answer. The fact is that Republicans have been spending like drunken Democrats, often in their own self interest, and sometimes in ways that defy logic and ethics. Some “conservative” legislators have lined their own pockets with lobbyist money, others have left government for lucrative careers in the lobbying industry (which has enjoyed an unprecedented expansion under the Bush Administration,) and many have enriched their cronies with perfectly legal, yet perfectly corrupt, legislation. There has also been some well-intentioned legislation, like the prescription drug bill that has helped millions of retirees afford much-needed medication; but even that defies conservative philosophy. (The Heritage Foundation documents this fiscal irresponsibility as well as anyone.)

David Brooks suggests a new road for conservatism that he dubs “Fresh Start Conservatism.” His basic idea is to better prepare individuals to compete in a rapidly evolving global economy. How? Through education. Starting with early childhood education and running on through adult re-education, Brooks envisions a federal focus on teaching people to fish, not giving them fish.

Many in the movement believe that conservatism is at a crossroads, and that the future of the nation may hang in the balance, especially if a Democrat wins the White House in November. Some, including John McCain, would have the party of conservatism turn slightly to the left, continuing the leftward momentum of Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” Others, including Rush Limbaugh and his progeny in the right wing media–Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage–favor a sharper turn to the right (hence their distaste for McCain.) Few, if any, thoughtful conservatives favor staying on the current path.

There may well be a fourth choice at this crossroads: turn around. Go back. Return to the original principles of the Founding Fathers; return to individual freedom and individual responsibilty, to small government and fiscal restraint, to creating a better nation by enabling an enlightening the individual citizen.

Sometimes you can’t get where you need to go without putting it in reverse.

Newsprism.com