Sean Kinsell has noted a downright authoritarian streak in Frank Rich, and quotes a remarkable passage from his column about President's SOTU address:
One year into Obama's term we still don't know whether he has what it takes to get American governance functioning again. But we do know that no speech can do the job. The president must act. Only body blows to the legislative branch can move the country forward.
Well, in a way, I have to reluctantly admit that Rich has a point. The president just doesn't seem to have what it takes to deliver the "body blows" that Frank Rich advocates. Physically, he doesn't have the guts (or the heft, if that isn't too redundant) to slam guys like Barney Frank around. Besides, whether he wants to is, I think, highly debatable. But obviously, Frank Rich wants him to, or else why employ violent rhetoric? And why talk in terms of physical contact? Isn't that sort of talk normally associated with Mussolini and company?
But to be fair to Frank Rich, it may be that he's more than just an angry liberal with armchair fantasies about slamming people around. Physically, he has heft -- every bit as much as your stereotypical doughnut-munching policeman. And I think that many a doughnut-munching policeman (regardless of political orientation) would agree with the general philosophy of the sentiment Sean identified.
So where does this leave Frank Rich? What sort of man advocates body blows?
If a right wing pundit had urged George W. Bush to do that, wouldn't he be accused of authoritarianism? Of "eliminationist rhetoric"?
Really, now. This almost makes me feel sorry for the president. Because after all, doughtnuts are extremely dangerous (witness the crackdown in New York and other cities), and to urge the president to eat them comes close to urging him to take poison. Surely they know doughnuts are bad for people. Do they wish ill-health upon the president? What's up with such nastiness?
doughnuts are rich. obama is blue. and as we all know, transfats will kill you!
Hmm...
Sounds like a strong undercurrent of eliminationist rhetoric to me.
And doesn't it just beg the question of another subtext running through the TPM thread?
Um, might it be that Frank Rich actually enjoys eating doughnuts? (Wink wink?)
I won't go so far as to say "when you've seen one doughnut-munching authoritarian you've seen them all," but would it be too nasty to wonder whether Frank Rich and Chief Wiggum were separated at birth?
Please, don't anyone blame Sean for the above. He only inspired my fearless investigation.
posted by Eric on 02.02.10 at 11:46 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9319
Comments
LOL. Indeed--all I said was that Rich had Chief Wiggum's looks and political acuity. I would never in a million years have been able to take it this far. :) The inspiration was all yours, guy.
I used to sell Chief Wiggum t-shirts and hoodies. Most of them were bought by policemen. Some police departments bought a dozen Wiggum t-shirts at a time for their baseball team.
chocolatier · February 2, 2010 03:01 PM
We could turn it into a gay thing and suggest that the President does not spend enough time on his knees. Begging for votes.
Frank Rich goes on to say "Congress -- and therefore government as a whole -- has failed to deal with any major national problem, from infrastructure to education."
Just think how many problems could be solved if government would just get out of the #%!@-ing way. Layers of bureaucracy multiply the cost and time for building and repairing roads and bridges. Unions, permitted by government to monopolize, increase costs and stifle innovation. Teachers unions, disdaining the welfare of children (and thus the welfare of the nation) make it oppose teacher accountability, non-union-dominated school alternatives, and so on. And so on, and so on. Liberal activists, interested more in their utopian schemes and their self-regard, insist on minimum wage laws that price entry-level workers out of the market and on construction and zoning laws that raise the cost of housing. Truly, Mr. Rich, get out of the !@#$ way.
pst314 · February 2, 2010 09:04 PM
From the site you link to:
"I took out the nastier parts."
--Sean
"I think you mean you took out the best parts."
--Eric
"I love the smell of righteous invective in the morning."
--Lt Colonel Kilgore
pst314 · February 2, 2010 09:10 PM
"Only body blows to the legislative branch can move the country forward."
Is that rhetoric, or genuine fascist conviction? In an age of deliberate irony, it could be either--to be determined later at the speaker's convenience. Such a verbal tactic is but one of many indicators of bad character in progressives.
Brett · February 3, 2010 07:37 AM
"Is that rhetoric, or genuine fascist conviction?"
The New York Times has a history of sympathizing with communist and fascist thugs.
As for irony, there is nothing in the editorial to indicate that it is anything but serious.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
LOL. Indeed--all I said was that Rich had Chief Wiggum's looks and political acuity. I would never in a million years have been able to take it this far. :) The inspiration was all yours, guy.