Kumbaya Watch: Mr. Begala, Are You Listening?
The latest in foolish commentary.

By Ross Douthat
October 25, 2001 3:05 p.m.

n the latest issue of The American Prospect, Paul Begala, erstwhile Clinton courtier and perpetual political attack dog, writes that since "the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, it is enlightening to examine who has been patriotic and who has been partisan." Needless to say, Begala concludes that "the Democrats have stood behind their commander in chief, whatever their doubts about his fitness for office or how he attained it." He grudgingly admits that yes, "most Republicans, too, have set aside their partisan fervor." But — here comes the kicker — "there have been cracks in the patriotic veneer, ugly moments in which vicious partisanship has supplanted patriotism. And every one of them has come from the right."

The embarrassing myopia of this contention is neatly matched by Begala's embarrassing lack of supporting evidence. He cites, of course, the ACLU-bashing, abortionist-blaming remarks of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, which would be fair enough (Falwell's comments made every sensible conservative wince) if Begala did not proceed to make the outrageous claim that "I have yet to hear any of the judgmental blow-hards of the right distance themselves from Falwell." This is, needless to say, arrant nonsense: A quick search of NRO alone turns up a half-dozen condemnations of the Falwell tirade, from distinguished "judgmental blow-hards" like Ramesh Ponnuru and William F. Buckley Jr. But then, perhaps NRO isn't high on the reading list for a former Clintonista.

After the Falwell example, meanwhile, the wheels really come off Begala's argument. He trundles down to South Carolina to find an attack ad on a Democratic congressman that he deems "inappropriate," quotes Dick Armey and Grover Norquist (each criticizing the Dems for trying to use wartime as an excuse for new federal programs), and then goes after Rush Limbaugh, the "official gasbag of the kook right" (yeah, Begala's just overflowing with bipartisan spirit), for having the temerity to suggest that Bill Clinton might bear a smidgen of responsibility for the neglecting the war on terrorism prior to September 11. Never mind that similar criticisms have been made by countless observers Left and Right in the last month — for Begala, riding to the defense of his beleaguered ex-boss, anyone who attacks Bill Clinton must be putting "partisanship ahead of patriotism."

And that's it: Falwell's blitherings, an obscure political ad, two brief quotes from Armey and Norquist, and a Rush Limbaugh editorial. These, for Begala, add up to proof that Republicans, ever "results-oriented" (see "Florida 2000 and the ... theft of the election," he sneers), have cast aside the "long-standing American-tradition of eschewing partisanship when American lives are in danger."

There is, needless to say, no mention in Begala's "nonpartisan" analysis of any of the left-wing "thinkers" and literati who have taken turns denouncing America in general and Republicans in particular since September 11 — no Susan Sontag, no Barbara Kingsolver, no Noam Chomsky or Edward Said. And where, one wonders, is activist Michael Moore, he of the post-massacre complaint that "if someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him!" (No partisanship here, sir — just us chickens!) And what about Barbara "the Congresswoman from the Taliban" Lee, the only representative to vote against a resolution authorizing the use of military force? Ms. Lee, last time we checked, was a Democrat from California — are you listening, Mr. Begala?