Joe Klein: Partisan Hack?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Media
Now, I’ve enjoyed what Klein has had to say over the years, but if the following from Eric Alterman is true, he may have just joined the three ring circus of partisan hackery in a BIG way.
From MSNBC, emphasis mine:
I went to a breakfast this morning sponsored by HBO and the Council on Foreign Relations where Tina Brown interviewed Julia Sweig, author of Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century, here, before a small gathering of media and foreign policy bigwigs. Sweig, a Latin America specialist, has written a subtle, historically-informed study about the phenomenon in which she sought to distinguish between those aspects that are structural and destined to plague our relations with the rest of the world as long as we are the world’s only superpower�which actually, is not as long as it sounds�and those aspects which are purely the fault of the incompetence, malevolence, dishonesty, etc. of the Bush administration. It was a useful discussion with many useful tributaries and give and take with the audience and we all felt better for it.That is right up until the very last moment when, after someone brought up the question of the whether the Democrats will be able to present an effective alternative to Bush in the next election, Joe Klein shouted out, “Well they won’t if their message is that they hate America�which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years.�
The liberal wing of the party for the past 20 years? Ahem…is he kidding?
Now, it could be that Klein was perhaps making fun of the hacks who say that. Hacks like Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity, et al. Good lord I hope so, because the alternative is something I would really rather not like to consider.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
He spoke here a couple weeks ago and seemed quite sane and fairly balanced. At least by my definition of those qualities. Supported Afghanistan invasion, opposed Iraq but thinks we’re obligated to stay and finish the job. Encouraged students to serve in Teach for America and the Peace Corps.
The core of those criticisms stems from a memo sent 30 years ago to then-President Jimmy Carter.
The memo discussed how Carter could run a successful “permanent campaign,� advising him to wear cardigan sweaters when addressing the public and carry his own garment bag off Air Force One. It was form over function, and it’s been the name of the game in Washington, D.C., since.
“The Bush administration has more interest in spinning the war rather than winning the war.�
Doesn’t seem to jibe with the quote here.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Whoops. Garbled that a bit. You get the idea.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
I certainly hope this was a joke and that Alterman is mischaracterizing it because this…
…sounds exactly like me.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
JG — Is there anyone on the liberal side that you would consider a “hack”? I’m asking because it seems like you see a lot of hackiness with those people who you disagree with and those people who you agree with are paragons of moderation and centrism. Does being a hack have to do with the substance of a persons arguments/beliefs or style/tone of its delivery? Or are you the Potter Stewart of political hackery — you just know it when you see it?
April 12th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Haha, Potter Stewart I am not. And oh yes, are their hacks on the left…
In the extremist crowd are voices like Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy…just to name a few. Those are the hacks that are more in the vein of the Coulters of the world.
Then you have the brand of hacks like Paul Begala and James Carville, who will endlessly parrot talking points on the now defunct Crossfire. Klein, if he indeed believes what he said, belongs in this group. However, I don’t know if he really believes that.
And then, in the blogosphere, you have hacks on Daily Kos, Atrios, etc.
By the way, these voices on the right and left can provide good information and make good points. I don’t dispute this. And personally, I find that more good info comes from the left-wing noise machine, but I’m a liberal and agree with liberal policies more, so that follows.
But to address your question of substance vs. tone, I think it really has to do with both substance and tone. On Donklephant, my creedo is make your point and make it well…with “well” encapsulating both tone and content. Just leave the rhetoric, invective and hacky talking points at home.
In short, why have a fight when you can have a conversation? I realize we feel like we’re more divided than ever, and I appreciate why people feel that way. But I do believe that most of these pundits/bloggers aren’t really interested in finding the best ideas, they just want their side to win.
And ultimately does that really help anybody? I don’t think so.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:02 am
DosPeros - I’d personally put Mike Malloy in that group, he’s highly overstated most of the time just like Coulter. The only respect I can give the Klein comment is that I find my positions not nearly liberal enough for the Kos crowd, but I don’t consider them the majority of Democrats.
April 19th, 2006 at 4:30 am
[...] He explains that quote that had us puzzled. He was misquoted, in some essential words, but not in his essential idea. In his recent account of a breakfast book party at the home of Tina Brown and Harry Evans, Eric Alterman misquoted me slightly but significantly. What I actually said was “the hate America tendency of the [Democratic Party’s] left wing” had made it harder for Democrats to challenge Republicans on foreign policy. [...]