And I'm addicted in spite of the fact that I hate what he writes.
Let me explain. Kaus is a textbook-perfect example of what I would call a self-loathing Democrat, one who professes allegiance to the Democratic Party and its general political philosophy, while spending the majority of his time looking for supposed "examples" of how conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular, might ... actually ... be ... (gasp) ... better, no? (An approximate imitation of Kaus' style, but close enough.)
Some people might think that the term "self-loathing Democrat" might be repetitious, because Democrats as a rule demonstrate a certain amount of self-loathing for one or both of two reasons:
(1) Unlike Republicans, who cling to ideas that are either outdated or moronic at inception with the fervor of religious fanatics, they tend to be so obsessed with showing a perpetually open mind that they often systematically deliberate even good ideas to death; and/or
(2) Like Republicans, albeit differing in degree, they are attached enough to material success to envy the seemingly superior financial position of most Republicans, overlooking the fact that that position is often based on inheritance, borrowed money, or both and rarely on merit (see, e.g., Donald Trump).
I'm not sure which one of these categories Kaus falls into; he may be unlucky enough to fall into both. But his status as a self-loathing Democrat is beyond all doubt, if (like me) you are unlucky enough to be addicted to his columns. I'm not even sure I can explain my addiction, except possibly to blame it on a perverse fascination with the idea that some who seems, at least on the surface, to be very bright can systematically lead himself over and over again into mind-boggling error. Were I inclined to do so, I could make an almost daily blog out of Kaus' mistakes. However, one of my fellow bloggers has beaten me to the punch. And I'm more than happy about that.
But there is one comment of his recently that I took very, very personally, leaving me with no choice but to write about it. He posted it on April 8th in "Kausfiles":
Why would you leave a recurring part on a hit TV show--a job you "loved" --to become a mid-level liaison official in the White House? Either you are crazy or you have huge political ambitions. Or both.
Unless you are regular or recent viewer of the Fox TV series House, a show that (like The Simpsons) is so good one can hardly believe that it's on Fox, you may not be aware that this is a crude reference to one of its actors. (Spoiler alert: if you did not watch the show last week and still want to see it unsurprised, stop reading this until after you have seen it.)
The reference in question is to actor Kal Penn, who (up until last week) played Dr. Lawrence Kutner, a member of House's diagnostic team. In his time away from the show, he spent a considerable amount of time and energy campaigning on behalf of Barack Obama last fall. In the process, he became very close to campaign officials, and expressed an interest in formally working with the new Administration. Last week, Penn announced that he would, in fact, be leaving the series to become an associate director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. He made this announcement in the wake of last Monday's episode of House, in which his character apparently took his own life.
Back, however, from House to Kaus. What personally infuriated me about this comment is that Kaus seems incapable of considering a third possibility: that there are in the world some people (a limited, perhaps, but very real number) whose talents and energies need to find fulfillment in more than one area. More to the point, it is not exactly unusual to find such people in both politics and the arts. Anthony Trollope, Victor Hugo and Glenda Jackson are three illustrious examples of people whose talents manifested themselves strongly in both areas (as opposed to Ronald Reagan, whose lack of talent managed to do the same, for which all of us are currently paying the price).
I'm not saying that Penn's work in the White House will be the equal of his excellent work on television. That remains to be seen. But it is entirely possible to be talented in more than one area, and to want to see one's talents fulfilled in both. Such a desire can stem from altruistic or selfish reasons; neither motive can or should negate the reality of the wish.
So why would Kaus instantly assume that Penn's career change stems from insanity and/or a lust for power? If I were a dyed-in-the wool cynic, or an advocate of ad hominem argument, I might assume it has something to do with the fact that Penn's parents are immigrants from India, meaning that an attack on him fits neatly, in a subtextual way, with Kaus' overarching theme of the past several months: that immigrants are destroying the American economy, and that comprehensive immigration reform will accelerate that destruction. (They aren't and it won't; in fact, it will have the opposite effect. But that's a topic for another entry.)
I do, however, think that it might have something to do with cynicism. This, in turn, brings me back to the concept of the self-loathing Democrat. Cynicism, born of thirty years of nearly uninterrupted conservative power in this country, may be at the root of a third potential source of self-loathing: the cynical view that, having made it this far, conservatism will last forever. Certainly conservatives, who have spent much of the past two decades promoting "the end of history" (ending, of course, in their favor), have a vested interest in this perspective, one that they have worked hard to protect.
But there is a central irony in this: in its classic form , conservatism attempts to use history to educate humanity about the limits of its potential. And, if history teaches us anything, it is that nothing lasts forever. Not empires, not families, not philosophies, not economies, and most certainly not the me-first, borrow-and-spend, only-the-next fifteen minutes-matters conservatism that has largely held sway since 1980. Thirty years is not forever, although many of us can be forgiven for thinking that it feels like it. If there is one thing that most Americans can and do agree upon, it is that it is time to try something different (even if many of them are not sure of what that difference is).
For whatever reason (an obsession with dithering, material envy or cynicism), Kaus is just not ready to move on. Unfortunately, he's not alone. It is ultimately up to the future, and those who will write the history of the present, to determine whether his failure will ultimately become ours.
A note of disclosure in closing: those of you who have or will read my profile know that I am also someone with multiple interests. I don't pretend to have achieved at the level of the individuals cited in this posts as examples. But I believe very strongly that, just because the volume of knowledge in the modern world has tended to lead to an age of specialists, it may still be possible and even desirable to cultivate more than one field. And I don't intend to let anyone's self-loathing stand in my way.
I'm off tomorrow to New York with my stepson, to see the opening of the New York Mets' new stadium. Until then ...
No comments:
Post a Comment