TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 9:00 AM
January 07, 2009 | 6:53 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:49 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
21.10.2008
The Not-so-Soft Bigotry of Rachel Maddow's Low Expectations

Over the weekend, rising liberal pundit Rachel Maddow was interviewed by the New York Times and was asked if she had a favorite Republican. The answer wasn't altogther that surprising. When answering this question, most liberals say either Chuck Hagel or...

I like the congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, because I understand what he believes, and he is fearless and civic-minded in his beliefs, rather than personally zealous.  

Maddow is a smart woman (a Rhodes Scholar to boot!) and she certainly pays attention to the news. Did she miss the whole kerfuffle about Ron Paul being a paranoid, racist crank? Perhaps Maddow, a lesbian, needs a refresher in what Congressman Paul wrote about gays. Did she miss the news that he endorsed Christian theocrat and 9/11 Truther Chuck Baldwin (of the Constitution Party) for President? Or that Paul proudly delivered the keynote address at the 50th anniversary of the John Birch Society? (Yes, it still exists).

As it's safe to assume that Maddow is fully aware of all these things, one wonders how an ostensibly "liberal" and "progressive" person could voice such admiration for a far right extremist. The answer is that Maddow doesn't care about Paul's views on anything other than foreign policy. For many people on the Left nowadays, simple opposition to Bush, the "neocons," what have you, is sufficient evidence of one's "anti-imperialist" bona fides. Never mind that Paul's positions on foreign policy, while seemingly attractive to liberals who may abhor what's occurred during the Bush administration, derive from the Old Right isolationsim of Charles Lindbergh and Father Coughlin, figures whose ideas any self-respecting and historically aware person calling herself a "liberal" ought to abhor. Paul stands foursquare against American "Empire," and the fact that he's a Republican makes the deal even sweeter. Suddenly, a conspiracy-spouting crank is "fearless" and "civic-minded." 

If Rachel Maddow is the harbinger of the new generation of liberal pundits -- and having doubled her viewership in just the past several days and currently the subject of a worshipful cover story in the American Prospect, there's every indication she is -- then perhaps the impending progressive era isn't something to welcome so uncritically.

 --James Kirchick

Posted: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:43 PM with 19 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

adamvaught said:

Awhh. Jamie's feelings are hurt because Rachel didn't read his article.

October 21, 2008 4:48 PM

Robert Powell said:

I usually stay away from Kirchick bashing, but this is really ridiculous. "The whole kerfuffle" was a lame Kirchick hatchet-job on Ron Paul, who has more substance in his fingernail parings than James has demonstrated in his entire body of work. No shit Maddow didn't pay attention to it. Neither did anyone else with any sense.

October 21, 2008 4:50 PM

rozenson said:

Jamie, I'm going to keep demanding this again and again until you give us an answer by some means: decide for yourself just how mean and imposing the loony left is. You can't taunt MoveOn.org and J Street for being totally ineffective at pressing their agendas and then warning that the "impending progressive era" will be a nightmare.

October 21, 2008 5:02 PM

AlanSP said:

The point about endorsing Baldwin is highly misleading, as he also endorsed Ralph Nader. Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney *in the same press conference*.His endorsement was basically for "Not Obama or McCain."

I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I can understand how you might gain a favorable impression of him.  Watching the Republican debates, he often seemed like the only sane person in the room (a first for him I'm sure).  Part of the reason he gained the following he did is that he doesn't wear his bigotry on his sleeve.  With a few exceptions (e.g. ranting about needing to return to the gold standard) what you see on TV with Paul is a principled, small-government type who's willing to tell a room full of partisan Republicans that the Iraq War was a mistake that we need to end.  You can be misled by that surface impression.

October 21, 2008 5:09 PM

norval13 said:

Actually, Kirchick's article on Ron Paul was the best thing he's ever written for this publication; well-researched and much less hysterical in tone than the things he sort of throws away for the blogs.  I suspect that Maddow may have heard about what was in Kirchick's article second-hand (she probably wouldn't be caught DEAD actually reading THE NEW REPUBLIC--it's considered to right-wing by the Air America crowd), but because he's a nominal Republican dissing Bush's foreign policy, Maddow and a lot of other progressives have given him a platform they wouldn't give to, say, Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, who are considerably less nutty.

October 21, 2008 5:09 PM

mkayser0 said:

Ron Paul's got some issues. I do wish Maddow had mentioned someone like Dick Lugar, who is basically like Mr. Rogers except with more expertise on nuclear proliferation.

But she comes across as likable in the interview (er, blurbs).

October 21, 2008 5:16 PM

icarusr said:

Give the kid a break.  He's trying.  Fewer adverbs and adjectives overall, so that is a good thing; although, "ostensibly" and then the scare quotes around "liberal" and "progressive" are a bit, shall we say, TOO FUCKING MUCH.  Sorry, I see Kirchick and I lose it, even if the kid says something that is not entirely out to lunch.

Jamie ... how do I put it ... I don't like anything Huckabee stands for - nothing whatever, zero, zilch, and yet, I like him as a person; find him generally an upstanding citizen and a funny politician.  That I find him a political toxin and his ideas a menace to the Republic does not, in itself, mean that I don't like the man.  Hagel I find interesting precisely because of his foreign policy ideas, regardless of the fact that I do not agree with his politics.  Goldwater I liked because of his "shoot straight" quip, but foud him and his influence on the Republican Party poisonous and dangerous.  The list is long.

That is to say, we like and admire politicians for any number of reasons, even when we consider those politicians ignorant, foolish, misguided - even toxic.  Context, my dear boy, context.  Any way, considering your own pet peeves on single issue politics, I find your attack on Maddow rather bizarre - par for your course, of course, but generally misguided.  You will never be a serious journalist if you continue on this path.

October 21, 2008 5:16 PM

jfelliott said:

It occurs to me that we have learned much that Mr. Kirchik does not approve of -- "leftists," authoritarians, racists, people whom he simply dislikes, whole legions of better writers and other things that make him feel a flaccid and undersized sort -- but very, very little on what Mr. Kirchik actually believes.  The trick to being a contrarian or a curmudgeon, Mr. Kirchik, is to be always witty and sometimes correct.  Alas, you lack both traits, and all the turgid prose in the world will not provide the necessary... tumescence... to your ego.

October 21, 2008 5:20 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Kirchick Quotient of 5.

This sentence is the logical fulcrum on which this post turns, and it is journalistically indefensible:

"The answer is that Maddow doesn't care about Paul's views on anything other than foreign policy."

Kirchick has simply made that up. He is asserting as fact his own opinion on the question. Say what you will about Ron Paul, but his opposition to the war in Iraq is not the only reason people who generally disagree with him might find him at least somewhat attractive. There is also the question of his highly consistent application of his own stated limited-government principles. He's just about the only elected Republican who has ever practiced what conservatives preach with regard to limiting the size and power of government, even at the expense of accomplishing the right wing's preferred policy objectives.

But whether or not there are plausible reasons other that agreement on Iraq why a person like Maddow might positively cite Paul, the way an actual journalist answers the question posed is to contact Maddow and ask her. Not to make up an answer about Maddow's thinking and assert its truth.

(And do I get points for resisting the urge to put aside any substantive critique in favor of simply shouting "Cat fight! Cat fight!"? No? Rats.)

October 21, 2008 5:40 PM

eweiss said:

Jamie, FWIW, Rachel is not the only prominent gay journalist to think highly of Ron Paul (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../ron-paul-for-th.html)...

October 21, 2008 5:58 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Yawn.

October 21, 2008 6:18 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

There is some substance to what kirchick is saying. I like Rachel M. and enjoy her fresh commentary but I sure wish she would have probed a bit deeper into the rancid swamp that is Paul's background.

Still, something about this post suggest a certain kind of envy; Maddow is popular, successful, and the "new" thing on msnbc while one time marty peretz golden boy kirchick, after the Alterman/JStreet/Yglesias is reduced to counting paper clips and fetching the morning coffee for the office. Hell, this is the first post that kirchick has been allowed to post in weeks. I'd almost

October 21, 2008 6:36 PM

simon greenwood said:

Ron Paul is probably one of the most consistent politicians but he definitely doesn't unequivocally practice what he preaches.  He's happy increasing federal spending as long as it goes to shrimp companies in his district, for instance.

As a side note, do we really have to beat up on Kirchick ALL the time?

October 21, 2008 6:50 PM

jfelliott said:

Simon: Yes.  Until he pees himself and promises to never, ever write again, a thousand times yes.

October 21, 2008 7:19 PM

liberal reformer said:

Once again, keep sticking it to the nutters, Jamie. When Hillary was percieved to be using racial code words during the primaries, many bloggers jumped all over her out here. The only reason that these yokels have anything good to say about Ron Paul is because of his unyielding opposition to the Iraq war. Take that away and he would be kicked to the curb faster than Sarah Palin will be after Nov. 4th. In Paul we have a fellow-traveler of Birchers and a person who put out a racist paper in the 80's. Nice to see a measured comment on all this by jaunty.

October 21, 2008 7:45 PM

jobeek2 said:

Kirchik Quotient already met in title!

I'm usually not so quick on the uptake, so recognizing this as a Kirchik post without even reading a word beyond the title is simultaneously a record for me, and particularly telling about Kirchik's unique um style.

October 21, 2008 11:58 PM

parnest said:

I'd like to add that, if Kirchick were as intellectually honest as he expects "liberals" to be, he'd extend his research on Ron Paul and the western Republican nut wing (which is not a fringe in the GOP in the western states) to examine its influence in the Palin-McCain campaign today. Viz., Vargas Llosa's article "Cracked Up" posted today: "A rebellion is beginning to take place among American conservatives, many of them influential commentators who are denouncing the takeover of the Republican Party by a mixture of anti-intellectual populists and political extremists" -- namely, the same extreme wing of the GOP Kirchick identified in his articles on Ron Paul. Kirchick has some kind of strange mental block that seems to cause him to bring up points (valid or otherwise), and then try to connect them to liberals in a way that doesn't really connect. Like Sarah Palin stringing together GOP talking points. Another example, his piece on Colin Powell on theatlantic.com, which was a wide-ranging critique of Powell's personality and record under both presidents Bush that conservatives, especially those who favor McCain still, might welcome following Powell's endorsement of Obama. But Kirchick subtitled it "Why liberal internationalists shouldn't be thrilled about the Powell endorsement." Nothing in that article that should give liberal internationalists, in particular, concern, especially if they're Democrats and didn't particularly like the Bushes anyway. If Kirchick intends to stay in journalism, he would benefit working with a good editor for a while.

October 22, 2008 10:17 AM

parnest said:

One more point that occurs to me: Kirchick is actually covering up the influence of the GOP extreme right in the McCain campaign (which he supports, as I recall) by diverting attention to its influence on Ron Paul back in the 1980s, and then dragging in Rachel Maddow. The antiwar libertarians around Paul today are not the same as the anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-Roosevelt, anti-civil-rights, and sometimes anti-Semitic conspiracy buffs that Kirchick identified. Many of these have migrated to McCain today. See Human Events magazine, for example, where Pat Buchanan, in denial and depression, is rehashing his defense of Neville Chamberlain's role on the eve of WWII as the election campaign draws to a close. Or www.redstate.com, Human Events' blogging site. That's where this stuff, like John McCain and Sarah Palin, finds an accepting audience.

October 22, 2008 10:25 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

ah, you can't keep a good nutter down, even if you give him a million tnr paper clips to count and endless Starbucks orders to fetch...

Seems kirchick, reviled and cast out in tnr land, has found a new home for his incendiary, juvenile rants:

Who Are Left-Wing Haters to Point Fingers? - James Kirchick, NYDN

found this pile on realclearpolitics.

Good for kirchick. Everyone needs to make a living and I say that tnr should let him go full time on this NYDN gig. I'll even buy the watch, anything to rid tnr of his wretched oeuvre once and for all...

October 22, 2008 10:31 AM