William Kristol's last piece for the New York Times "Will Obama Save Liberalism" really explores new depths of delusion, a feat only Kristol himself could accomplish (although his recent assertion that 'Democrats are now the party of heredity' came close). It is so silly, I felt obliged to comment on it, as it marks the end of a highly entertaining era. It's a shame Kristol won't be writing in any publication I read, as I have thoroughly enjoyed laughing at his fanciful nonsense. Check out the first two paragraphs of his latest drivel which gets worse and worse as it goes on. Kristol writes:
All good things must come to an end. Jan. 20, 2009, marked the end of a conservative era.Since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, conservatives of various sorts,
and conservatisms of various stripes, have generally been in the
ascendancy. And a good thing, too! Conservatives have been right more
often than not -- and more often than liberals -- about most of the
important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and
welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the
whole worked -- insofar as any set of policies can be said to "work" in
the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years
have a fair amount to be proud of.
Firstly, how can anyone in their right mind believe that the conservatism over the last year was a 'good thing'? Two failed wars, an economic meltdown, crumbling infrastructure, an increase in global warming, a drowned city, plummeting world opinion - the list is endless. The man is clearly off his rocker. Secondly, what in Gods name is he talking about when he says that conservatives have been right about the most important issues of the day? What? Really? Like the list above of catastrophic fuck ups all of which happened under a conservative government?
The phrase 'Conservative policies have on the whole worked' must be referring to the conservative agenda of screwing things up beyond imagination. In that sense, Kristol is certainly right.
The rest of the article babbles on about Conservatives being popular because they were 'strong' while Liberals were 'weak', citing other neo con philosophers to bolster his sloppy argument. He then poses the question as to whether Obama can bring 'strength' back to liberalism, stating:
Can Obama reshape liberalism to be, as it was under F.D.R., a fightingfaith, unapologetically patriotic and strong in the defense of liberty?That would be a service to our country.