How To Succeed In Politics Or Journalism, Part II: Constantly Criticize Your Own Side

Image via Wikipedia

The mainstream media is oddly ambivalent on the issue of betrayal. When a politician – or, it seems, a spectacularly talented golfer – betrays his marriage vows, moral reprobation rains down upon him like hellfire. But when a pundit or political thinker betrays his ideological brethren – at least rhetorically – he is heralded as a “brave truth teller” and enjoys riches and fame.

This is a phenomenon that affects (or, infects?) both sides of the American political spectrum. Many have noted the “Even The Liberal New Republic” principle, where the self-described “liberal” magazine often takes conservative positions, and thereby normalizes them in mainstream discourse. (“Even the liberal New Republic supports bombing Kabul back to the Stone Age,” Jim Lehrer could very well report tonight.) “Liberal” organs like Slate and the Washington Post editorial page play the same game as well. In politics, Joe Lieberman, for example, is heralded by many to be a “sensible” liberal, because he so often promotes conservative positions.

But the real action here is on the self-described “conservative” side. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that the best career move for an aspiring conservative journalist to make is to denigrate his fellow conservatives. Consider the case of Conor Friedersdorf.

Friedersdorf is a talented journalist who happens to be a conservative. Yet a huge portion of his oeuvre is dedicated to criticizing conservatives.  This has been a boon for his career; he has enjoyed much success over the past few years. He writes often for august periodicals with large mainstream audiences, such as the Atlantic, the Daily Beast, and most prestigious of all: True/Slant. That said, take a look at his most recent blog posts here: they are solely critiques of conservatives like David Frum, Sarah Palin, Jonah Goldberg, and some other right wing blog that you and I have never heard of.

Friedersdorf is not the only one who has benefited from intra-ideological jousting. Self-proclaimed conservatives like Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Kathleen Parker, Chris Buckley, and others have seen their fame skyrocket as they have taken conservatives to task time and again. (See Kerry Howley’s superb recent American Prospect profile of Kathleen Parker.) Meanwhile, the endlessly asinine Sullivan gives out one of his vaunted “awards” for those who have the temerity and courage to promote their careers. Sorry, I meant to say: the temerity to critique their own side.

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in the arguments made by people you consider ideological comrades. Indeed, any healthy movement will have great debates over ideas and principles. What’s more, the way American politics categorizes ideological sides is fundamentally incoherent.  (For example, there is no reason that man-hating environmentalism should be considered a “liberal” position.)

But those aren’t the debates that Friedersdorf et al. are starting. Indeed, the arguments they forward aren’t about ideology at all: they are stylistic critiques. Most focus on lamenting the tone taken by prominent conservatives such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. Ideolgical debates, conversely, are markedly lacking. Thus, the critiques of Friedersdorf et al. do not add much to the debate besides noise.

Attacking your own side is not courageous – career wise, it’s savvy. These days, standing up for your own side may be the bravest act of all.