Fred Barnes: Journalist, Apologist, Magician?

Fred Barnes, in an editorial at the Wall Street Journal, offers his manifesto for Republican resurgence. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the piece is a textbook demonstration of the degree to which GOP insiders haven’t a clue with regards to the concerns of ordinary Americans as well as the existing political realities. Even worse, much of the piece is an exercise in the “if only” mentality one might expect to find in the Harry Potter world of fantasy and magic. The following excerpt is wholly illustrative.

Clearly the war hurt, more than a little. Just as clearly, a turnaround in Iraq would help enormously.

But even if the “surge” is as successful as it appears it might be, there’s a problem. While public support has increased recently, the war still faces deep-seated opposition. There’s a widespread view that its cost in lives, money and national prestige has been too high. This won’t change overnight. Public opinion isn’t quite that fickle.

It’s not immutable, however. What if military success by Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander, is matched by a political breakthrough engineered by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki? Or matched by the acceleration of political reconciliation at the provincial rather than the national level in Iraq? Either scenario is possible.

I’m willing to concede that anything is possible in this world of uncertainty…but to assume that all of the above will transpire seems akin to Mr. Barnes believing that he holds the winning Power Ball ticket. Yes, it could happen…but it is hardly a reasoned piece of journalistic conjecture.

While Barnes is imagining a political breakthrough, Senator Levin and others are suggesting that the Maliki government is not only an obstacle to progress; it may need to be removed for any hope of political reconciliation to emerge. Shouldn’t a Wall Street Journal piece offer more than the fanciful thought one might find on a slip of paper removed from a fortune cookie?

For the sake of those within the GOP who are actually seeking a blueprint for a return to relevance, may I suggest that the content of this editorial may not be the horse upon which to hitch their hopes?

Mr. Bush can’t erase the memory of his inept handling of Hurricane Katrina. But if another disaster occurred and the president responded effectively, that would counteract the memory of his Katrina performance.

OK, if this is part of the Barnes plan, why not be bold and ask Pat Robertson and the 700 Club to pray that god’s wrath be brought upon another sinful city so that the President can redeem his poor performance. Never mind that this sounds like Barnes is wishing America experience a natural disaster in order to achieve political gain.

As I recall, each time a Democrat has mentioned the possibility of a terrorist attack and that we are no safer as a result of the invasion of Iraq, the GOP has pounced upon such statements as vile, unpatriotic demonstrations of blatant partisanship…going so far as to argue that the Democrats hate America and calling such statements a willingness to sacrifice American lives for political capital. Conversely, is hoping for a natural disaster a noble cause if it helps the GOP?

On fiscal issues, Democrats foolishly dismissed the president’s insistence on cutting $22 billion from overall discretionary spending, claiming it was a puny amount. To them, it is. To the public, it’s not. A veto war on spending bills is likely to work in Mr. Bush’s favor, though not if weak-willed congressional Republicans cut and run. Should it lead to a government shutdown–call it the shutdown trap–that would be all the more harmful to Democrats.

On taxes, Democrats appear confident there’s no trap at all, so long as they don’t raise taxes on the middle class. Thus congressional Democrats have felt free to pass tax hikes this year on energy companies, foreign corporations and cigarettes, and they’re poised to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000 a year.

Republicans believe Democrats have misread their mandate on taxes. We’ll see.

Fred, where have you been while this President has nearly doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 9 trillion? Have you forgotten that this is the President who enacted the largest entitlement program in recent history with the passage of his prescription drug benefit? When the Democrats fail to get excited about 22 billion dollars, they do so while pointing to the borrow and spend backdrop that has typified the Bush administration.

As to the tax hikes which Barnes feels will hurt the Democrats, clearly the number of Americans impacted by such increases is miniscule…but then again, I doubt Barnes spends much time with ordinary citizens. Frankly, Barnes might want to consider the possibility that voters have grown weary of tax cut promises from the GOP. Putting a few dollars into a voters pocket…while at the same time taking it out through inflation, wage stagnation, a suspect economy, declining home prices and sales, tightening credit, and the expenditure of 10 to 12 billion dollars each month on an endless war effort…doesn’t seem like much of a winning strategy.

They practically invited Democrats to trump them on ethics and lobbying reform. And they’ve allowed their obsession with illegal immigrants to get out of hand. This drives away Hispanic voters and leaves the impression that Republicans are small-minded, ungenerous and nasty. The worst offenders are the presidential candidates, who would be wise to tone down their rhetoric on immigration.

Yes, nothing like embracing a strategy premised upon the notion that a leopard can suddenly lose its spots. The glaring omission in this suggestion is any understanding of where the GOP actually stands with regards to immigration…other than where Barnes posits may be most politically advantageous. Perhaps the fact that the Republican Party seems to treat this and so many other issues as nothing more than political calculations is what is troubling voters?

From my vantage point, Republican candidates have spent years using the immigration issue to pander to competing constituents such that the majority of the wells have been poisoned and the kool-aid is no longer potable. Weaving a workable message at this point would be akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

As Karl Rove has noted, Republicans need a big idea. The best available is the one Mr. Bush abandoned: ownership. Allowing private investment of payroll taxes for Social Security would only be a start. An Ownership Society would allow individual Americans, rather than government, to control how and where their health care, public education, 401(k) and IRA funds are spent.

I’ll give Barnes credit…if you’re in the last act of a show that is undoubtedly destined to go dark…you might as well pull out all of the stops. Sadly, like most men who become enamored with their own self-interest, Barnes’ Ownership Society finale is little more than the wish list of a man and a Party that has not only sought to raid the cookie jar…but has also decided that it is entitled to devour all of the delicacies on the dish.

In the ultimate miscalculation, Barnes’ final words ring hollow to the many voters who can’t afford this months rent, who work jobs that do not provide health insurance, who couldn’t put money in a 401K even if the company offered one, and who haven’t the time or the energy to invest social security funds for a future they can’t begin to imagine as they try to scrape together the means to put enough food on tonight’s dinner table.

I hate to be the one to break this to Fred…but after reading his manifesto, the final thought that crossed my mind was that it would be far easier for voters to simply vote for the Democrats than for them to hope that the Republicans can shed their sullied skin and suddenly become the compassionate conservatives they so masterfully marketed as none other than George Bush.

In the end, the Barnes piece has served one valuable purpose…it has made it abundantly clear why voters will likely relegate the GOP to the sidelines for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, maybe Mr. Barnes and his fellow Republicans can craft the next iteration of an ill-conceived illusion. One thing is certain, they would be well advised to choose a better wizard…one that isn’t quite so visibly unable to manipulate the machinery as the drapes of deception are dismantled.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

9 Responses to “Fred Barnes: Journalist, Apologist, Magician?”

  1. tos Says:

    I found this interesting article for those Bush haters that will blame Bush to the grave regarding hurricane Katrina.

    http://www.cathyyoung.net/bgcolumns/2005/hurricaneofblame.html

  2. christopher Radulich Says:

    I’m sure Brownie is still doing a heck of a job.

  3. tos Says:

    Of course we should have learned from our failures of Hurricane Andrew of which we heard nothing negative about.

  4. Christopher Radulich Says:

    We did learn from Andrew. From what I remember FEMA got high marks for the next few years. It just one more thing that this administration F*** up.

    But many suspected that FEMA’s apparent problems in getting life-sustaining supplies to survivors and buses to evacuate them from New Orleans–delays even Bush called “not acceptable”–stemmed partly from changes at the agency during the Bush years. Experts have long warned that the moves would weaken the agency’s ability to effectively respond to natural disasters.

    Less clout, experience

    FEMA’s chief has been demoted from a near-Cabinet-level position; political appointees with little, if any, emergency-management experience have been placed in senior FEMA positions; and the small, 2,500-person agency was dropped into the midst of the 180,000-employee Homeland Security Department, which is more oriented to combating terrorism than natural disasters. All that has led to a brain drain as experienced but demoralized employees have left the agency, former and current FEMA staff members say.

    The result is that an agency that got high marks during much of the 1990s for its effectiveness is being harshly criticized for seemingly mismanaging the response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

  5. tos Says:

    And if course if Kerry or Gore were president he would have rescued all 500,000 people and no one would have been on the rooftops because the levees would have never collapsed and he would of had the National Guard go in there and forcefuly evacuate everyone. bUt we will never know that so we really have nothing to compare it with being it was the worst natural disater the US ever had.
    And by the way durin Hurricane Andrew people were stranded for 1 week at there homes with no water and there was no flooding. Let’s keep tha fact hush hush.

  6. Christopher Radulich Says:

    Hurricane Andrew
    16 - 28 August, 1992

    You are aware that happen on Bush I watch.

    So all Andrew proves is that the republicans can make the same mistakes twice. Or is it like father like son.

  7. tos Says:

    Oh tha’ts right if it were Clinton none of this would have happened,blah,blah,blah!

  8. manapp99 Says:

    Well, Bill did prove he was good at handling the “big blow” :)

  9. christopher Radulich Says:

    So how do you explain?

    Bush I - FEMA bad

    Clinton _ FEMA good

    Bush II - FEMA bad

Leave a Reply