Articles Comments

Truly Right View » Department of Education, Government Waste, Politics, Restoring America, Where is the Main Stream Media? » In the Case of Peter Wehner

In the Case of Peter Wehner

As
noted
briefly in this space yesterday, Pete Wehner is
upset with me.

Shallow, he says of me in Commentary. Interesting
comeback, I suppose, until one realizes that before writing
The
Shallow Musings of Jeffrey Lord
” Pete had
penned
“Walter Russell Mead’s Shallow and Misleading Attack on
the Bush Legacy.” And that is separate and apart from
his thoughts on Governor Sarah Palin when he said
“she relies instead on shallow talking points.”  

I get it. You get it. Pete is apparently deeply into
shallow.

Umbrage — pretentious, humorless, umbrage? (relax, Pete!
Chill!) — is taken in my response to Wehner’s alliterative title
The Reckless Rhetoric of Palin and Cain. Taking this as an
apparent effort at rapping or perhaps poetry, I began by asking if
my own post should be titled The Wimpy Wussings of Wehner.
To which I was compared to “the Oscar Wilde of the second
grade.”

Well! Take that, Lord! You clueless, shallow fool! Never get
into a rap contest with Wehner!

OK! OK! Lesson learned! I’ll never do it again! I swear!

But humorless pretension aside, or maybe it’s just irritation at
being challenged on his ideas, Pete insists: “Then there’s Lord’s
claim, laughable to anyone who is familiar with my views, that I am
a ‘collectivist conservative.’”

Where would I get such a nutty idea? After all, as Wehner says,
he once wrote:“A posture of bold fiscal conservatism is simply not
compatible with timid evasions on Medicare reform…”

He adds:

I was also a fairly active presence both privately and publicly
when it came to urging the GOP House leadership to embrace
Representative Paul Ryan’s budget, including his advocacy for
premium supports in Medicare. All of which leads me to wonder if
Mr. Lord even understands what collectivism actually is.

Good for Pete.

But alas, unless there’s another Pete Wehner out there, I have
to assume it was this same Pete Wehner in
this piece
 where, along with another ex-Bush aide Michael
Gerson, the two write:

At the center of any such effort lies a thoroughgoing reform of
the federal role in education, focusing on public and private
choice, charter schools, testing and accountability, and merit pay
for teachers and principals. But a mobility agenda might also
include measures to improve job training, encourage college
attendance and completion among the poor, discourage teen
pregnancy, improve infant and child health, and encourage
wealth-building and entrepreneurship.

A thoroughgoing reform of the federal role in education? How
about abolishing the Department of Education? Well, no. That is not
a Wehner favorite or a Gerson favorite. Nor, in fact, was it a Bush
favorite. The Bush/Wehner/Gerson approach — No Child Left Behind
— was to expand the federal role in education.

In that very same article there is Pete Wehner presenting one
liberal proposition after another as accepted gospel. The GOP is
seen as anti-Hispanic! The GOP is seen as anti-science! The GOP is
“judgmental and retrograde”! Oh nooooooooooooo! What to do? Well,
instead of seeing government as the problem, this Peter Wehner is
everywhere insisting on a “limited but active role for government”
or that “government shares some responsibility” or going on
about “anti-government paranoia.”

This is what Margaret Thatcher called “accommodationist
politics” that makes conservatives part of the “socialist ratchet,”
to use a phrase of Thatcher colleague Keith Joseph. Liberals in
America and Britain constantly want to move America and Britain
left toward statism, and moderate Republicans (or Tory wets) like
Wehner and Gerson stand pat or say “just a little but no further.”
In Goldwater’s phrase this is the “dime store New Deal.” To read
Wehner and Gerson is to read the American version about Thatcher’s
formulation of Tory wets dealing with the socialist ratchet by
loosening the corset, never removing it. Collectivist conservatism,
if you will.

And of course, as Wehner never addresses, well aside from the
dreadful governmental consequences that inevitably flow from this
business, the politics are ghastly. As it happens, much is being
made at this moment of President Obama’s approval ratings. Clarus
Research has just sent out their latest, which shows the President
at 48%. For comparison? Bush 43 at this point was at 47%. Clinton:
55% And Ronald Reagan? That would be 63%.

Which returns us to the old argument.

Like clockwork moderate Republican presidential candidates lose.
Or, as noted — and I understand it may be too painful for Wehner
to address — in the case of Bush 43 (whom, if it matters, I liked
— he was magnificent post-9/11 and yes, he was right on Iraq —
this well aside that in person he’s both a nice guy and a genuinely
good soul) “compassionate conservatism” needed the Supreme Court to
get it into the White House and it barely survived the 2004
re-election. Reaganesque landslides these were not.

As to what Wehner calls my “anger” (????) at his comments on
Governor Palin and Herman Cain’s remarks, one has to be amused. As
your basic happy-go-lucky Reaganite optimist I save my anger for
serious things.

My point, which Wehner either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want
to understand, is that Reagan was criticized not just for his views
— but just like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain — for his rhetoric.
(And, it should be noted, that Palin, like Reagan and Thatcher, has
had to endure a boatload of snarky, condescending commentary from
people…hmmmm… who quite amusingly have nothing to condescend about.
Would-be intellectual or social emperors without clothes, as it
were.)

When Reagan went on national television in 1964 and accused
Lyndon Johnson and liberals of dragging America down to “the
ant-heap of totalitarianism,” saying LBJ was leading the U.S. to —
Reagan’s words — “socialism” — moderate Republicans gasped in
horror. And that’s before he asked, “Should Moses have told the
children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should
Christ have refused the cross?” Oh my. Vapor City!

Alongside these comments — made 49 years ago in a nationally
televised address that in fact launched Reagan on the road to the
presidency — Palin’s comment that America is “becoming a
totalitarian surveillance state” and Cain’s comment that the
country is “running full speed down the tracks towards socialism
and towards communism” are beyond tame. In fact they are nothing
more than not-so-updated versions of what Reagan himself said that
October night of 1964. And for that matter, what Reagan said that
night was the core of a speech he had been delivering for a decade
on what he liked to call “the mashed potato circuit” – and would
continue delivering in one form or another until the day he became
president and well beyond. In fact, it was just this direct
approach that did lead exactly to what Wehner sneers at as “the
political promised land.”

In unpleasant truth? It’s a good bet that without Ronald Reagan
speaking exactly this way – there would have been no Bush 41 or
Bush 43 presidency. Period.

Again, my criticism isn’t personal of Pete Wehner, although he
seems to have taken it that way.

But he does, along with his friend Michael Gerson and too many,
many others (Jennifer Rubin call your office), represent the brand
of thinking that has repeatedly spelled political disaster for
Republicans and ushered them out of the political promised land to
the wilderness.

So there you go, Peter.

Shallowly yours but best wishes anyway,

Your conservative friend,

Oscar from the Second Grade.

Read more Complete
In the Case of Peter Wehner

Please follow and like us:

  • 0

Filed under: Department of Education, Government Waste, Politics, Restoring America, Where is the Main Stream Media? · Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Lyft