TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

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

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
14.01.2009
Why Liberals Aren't Angry Over Obama's Dinner

I actually don't find it terribly surprising that liberals haven't shown any outrage over Barack Obama's dinner party with George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks. I'll get to my hypothesis why liberals aren't upset in a moment. But first imagine this counterfactual: George W. Bush (or maybe a victorious John McCain) sat down before his first inauguration with Paul Krugman, E.J. Dionne, and Frank Foer. Would conservatives have reacted with the same equanimity? No, I think they'd have gone nuts. And the reason is that they wouldn't have confidence in Bush or McCain to be surrounded by liberal ideas without being deeply influenced by them. I don't think they'd have reacted this way if, say, a President Mitt Romney did the same thing.

And that's why liberals aren't having a cow. They know that Obama understands far more about policy than any of his right-wing dinner companions, is used to being exposed to opposing ideas, and won't come out of that dinner telling his staff, "Hey, did you know we cut half the capital gains tax and raise more revenue?"

A separate issue is why Obama didn't pick some conservatives with a bit more intellectual integrity than, say, Kristol and Krauthammer. The problem, of course, is conservatives like that tend not to rise to positions of high influence.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:39 AM with 21 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!

WoodyBombay said:

When did Bush ever sit down with anyone from the other side of the spectrum?

January 14, 2009 12:24 PM

GSpinks said:

woody, I seem to recall that Bush was friendly with both moderate and conservative Republicans; if that isn't true bipartisanship, what is?

January 14, 2009 12:39 PM

cspencef said:

"A separate issue is why Obama didn't pick some conservatives with a bit more intellectual integrity than, say, Kristol and Krauthammer."

Such as?

January 14, 2009 12:47 PM

blackton said:

Hey Woody, Bush was friends with some Texas Democrats and to be honest I suspect his wife is far more liberal than most people realize, I think it far more likely Bush never associated with people who engaged with him on any side of the spectrum, left or right.

I think it was savvy on Obama's part. At the University of Chicago I am sure he had many discussions with Conservatives with intellectual integrity, he doesn't need to do that now, he is simply looking to buy himself a little bit of good feeling from the right wing media. They will criticize his policies sure, but won't be as personal. So far I have seen far more criticism of some of his appointees (like the climate czar) than I have seen personal attacks on him.

January 14, 2009 12:54 PM

Political Animal said:

MORE RESPECTABLE COMPANY.... So, Barack Obama chatted with some leading conservative columnists/pundits last night. When will he sit down with commentators from a more liberal persuasion? Apparently, this morning. Obama held a meeting with several columnists

January 14, 2009 1:13 PM

WoodyBombay said:

blackie,

As a Lone Star native, I can guarantee you that the Texas Dems Bush was friendly with aren't exactly bastions of moderate-left thought. Every time someone mentioned his "uniter, not divider" credentials by referencing his ability to work with the most conservative Democrats in the nation, I chuckled.

That all went out the window once he went to the White House anyway.

January 14, 2009 1:16 PM

williamyard said:

Well, maybe. On the other hand, collectively liberals are still in their post-election, pre-post-Inauguration-put-up-or-shut-up glow, leaning back on the pillow enjoying a fresh Marlboro Red whilst their equally satisfied companion, pleasingly bare-assed, trots off dutifully to the bathroom to fetch a warm washcloth for their sticky nether regions. Yeah, they're thinking, the rent's a few days late, that report I've been working on's a piece of crap, but...I was great! She said so!

Give it a few months--say, next fall, winter closing in. Unemployment still in double digits. 401ks treading water. Health care stalled in committee.

Then Russia decides to start pushing a couple more East Blocs around, Obama dines again with the Right Crew, and two days later the Admin goes Cold War on Moscow. By then, liberals won't have gotten laid in months (politically/figuratively speaking, of course), and that nagging little twinge behind the left eyeball has swollen into a full-blown migraine.

Time for liberals to put on the crankypants!

January 14, 2009 1:19 PM

williamyard said:

what cspence said.

WIthout the positing of credible alternatives, the dig at K & K comes across as merely gratuitous.

January 14, 2009 1:23 PM

williamyard said:

Hey blackie,

I just finished listening to the audiobook of Obama's "Song from My Father." Obama reads his own book. I loved it; you of all people should do so as well. Hearing the next President of the United States imitate angry black adolescents ("...damn white motherfuckers...") along with Chicago church matrons, fellow students and co-workers hither and yon, various female Kenyan relatives, his terrific eye for description--as a young boy running barefoot after a kite in the Indonesian mud, for example--is a treat. Dude has a career in voiceover after politics if he wants it. Not to mention writing.

Even if you've read the print version, I'd urge you to check out the audiobook. You'd love it, man.

- Bill

January 14, 2009 1:38 PM

Rhubarbs said:

If we take George Will off the table, then Krauthammer and Kristol _are_ conservatives with intellectual integrity. The word for conservatives with more intellectual integrity than Kristol or Krauthammer is "former conservative." That, or "Fred Barnes," who at least pays us the respect of not pretending to be anything other than a partisan cheerleader and/or happy bootlick of the highest-ranking Republican in the room.

January 14, 2009 1:39 PM

dubyadoubte said:

In your hypothetical, conservatives would have gone nuts because they are nuts.  Re-visit all the YouTube videos of crazy froth-at-the-mouth fat white people at McCain/Palin rallies.  

Obama sat down with conservatives because:  1) he's confident;  2) he's a normal human being 3) unlike Bush, he's intellectually curious; 4) he's interested in governing and not merely in accumulating executive power, again unlike Bush and his administration.  

January 14, 2009 1:45 PM

wmcpher said:

Conservatives -- more aptly described as radicals these days -- think that a liberal attitude is contagious, like homosexuality. So naturally they're upset.

January 14, 2009 2:41 PM

jwl2672 said:

slimymumbai, you can stop frothing at the mouth.  When have YOU ever crossed the aisle on any left wing issues? Lemme guess.  Pro Abortion? Check.  Pro-Kyoto? Check.  Pro-union? Check.  Pro-big healthcare? Check.

January 14, 2009 3:36 PM

jwl2672 said:

Dubyanodoubt,

Why don't you go check out the frothing fat white NAKED people at Code Pink gatherings? The only fringe jerkoffs I see in Manhattan all belong to the left-wing side.  Every one of the few remaining conservatives I see here are polite, respectable, and educated.

January 14, 2009 3:38 PM

WoodyBombay said:

"Stop frothing at the mouth," jwl said.

"Try to be a faithful husband," former President Clinton urged.

"Don't be such a dumbass," murmured Samuel "Joe" Wurzelbacher.

"Quit being such a self-satisfied media whore," shrieked the Alaska governor.

"You don't need steroids to be successful in sports," Jose Canseco insisted.

"Why don't you ever make a sound, reasoned argument?" Jonah Goldberg asked.

"You'll never get your point across by shouting," said Bill O'Reilly.

"Sober up, damn you!" urged Ms. Winehouse.

January 14, 2009 4:16 PM

jgalun said:

Why doesn't Krauthammer have intellectual integrity? I can understand naming Kristol, but what is the deal with Krauthammer?

January 14, 2009 4:17 PM

ironyroad said:

Hey jwl, what's with the caps for NAKED?  Is there something bothering you?

I prefer being clothed at rallies myself, but I admire a resilient participation in civic affairs in all, ah, shapes and forms.

January 14, 2009 6:40 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Can't let this one pass (sorry, Bill. SoSumi.)

Re Krauthammer, a good thing Chait's not, er, jealous. A trifle unbecoming in someone as intelligent as Chait.

This Chait dig is also ill-considered: "They know that Obama understands far more about policy than any of his right-wing dinner companions."

I'm sure Marty, or Mike Kinsley, or Rick Hertzberg, could remind young Jon that while Barry was still a schoolboy in Hawaii, future TNR editor Dr. Krauthammer was serving in a senior health policy advisory role in Carter's administration, which alone gives CK more executive policy experience than young Obama.

Krauthammer's been putting forth sensible and detailed policy proposals on a range of issues ever since. Case in point: Krauthammer for years has advocated the most sensible energy policy change of all, a federally-regulated gasoline tax floor in which any drop below the indicative price per gallon (he proposed $4) would be heavily taxed, a l'Europe, so that the surplus would go to the US treasury (instead of Chavez, Iran, PutinMobutu and the House of Saud) and consumers would conserve more gas. Link's here:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008060503434.html

And what has Obama's putative policy brilliance yielded on this issue? Ethanol subsidies. Yep, that's right: the stupidest and most destructive energy boondoggle we've seen in recent years.

Chait, you're brilliant, we like you, you don't need to concede nuthin' to the blogblatherers... but please don't try to boost Obama with bogus and ill-considered jibes at your TNR alum and journalistic peer, Dr. Krauthammer. It diminshes you.

January 14, 2009 6:53 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"diminshes you" - sp. s/b "de-mensches you"

January 14, 2009 7:14 PM

dsimpson said:

All one has to do to realize Krauthammer's deep unseriousness is read him for two weeks. He can't stay intellectually honest or avoid knee-jerk belligerence for more than a week straight. He's a leader of the withdrawal=surrender crowd.

January 14, 2009 8:18 PM

winnie2001 said:

I think that the Obama gets a pass because liberals (and many moderates) are so excited and hopeful that they are withholding any kind of criticism.  Even the Rick Warren thing seems to have come and gone.

While conservatives may have jumped down McCain's throat if he'd dined with Dionne, Krugman et. al., I'll bet that Reagan in 1980 could have had a dinner with Anthony Lewis, Meg Greenfield, or whoever and that he would have also gotten a pass.  The reason was that Reagan was viewed as true believer by conservatives who felt that they had been in the political wilderness even under GOP presidents like Nixon and Eisenhower.

I also think this is also  politically smart because I suspect that at least for awhile the columinists will be less vitriolic in their criticism simply because Obama granted them an audience.

January 15, 2009 5:32 PM