Sunday, May 16, 2010

Kelly's comment worth commentting on ...

Jack Kelly likes to paint with a broad brush, useful for making a vivid point quickly, but not as good at adding a set of subtle assessments (love it when an analogy hangs together). In all seriousness, Kelly's column today makes for a reasonable "gothca" discussion, how the "librul" media sees the world through blue state glasses. I will say, there is something of point there. Journalists love to give us the benefit of their wisdom even as they relay news. And journalists are generally social liberals, even as they are often conservative on economic issues. But is Kelly actually helping us understand anything?

The media has not done a good job of identifying (in my opinion) what as I see as the actual differences in the behavior of the two parties. That difference is the behavior of the national party. The Republican National Committee did not try to keep Charlie Crist in the party, or aid Bob Bennett. It may have something to do with being the minority party, but my sense is that the RNC is more than wiling to kowtow to more conservative elements of party. By comparison, the Democrat National Committee seems to be more interested in keeping incumbents. If Obama really was such a radical liberal, surely he would support the somewhat more left leaning Joe Sestack than Arlen Specter? Of course, Kelly put the Specter situation in terms of the media's views of why Specter switched parties (that he was "forced" out), but I truly wonder if the national Republicans would have supported Specter had he stayed in the party. The DNC's currently increasingly tepid support of Specter may be a fairly useless substitute, but maybe Kelly has a point that Specter maybe should have just retired instead of running again.

Jack Kelly does a good job of advocating for the conservative cause, which means he is also an advocate for Republican causes. Since liberal pundits are often advocates for Democratic causes, I couldn't make an argument that Kelly isn't doing his job on those grounds. But when you look at a Glenn Greenwald, who is more liberal than the current (surprisingly but understandably) moderate administration, Greenwald is an ardent and arguably effective critic of the Obama administration. It might be nice if our newspaper could employ someone who tries harder to help us understand the more hidden truths, not just to reinforce our preconceived views.

No comments: