Probably because I never set out to be a pundit. I wanted to be a real life legislator. Writing has only become an avenue for my creativity after moving to a provincial locale that the Washington Post doesn’t much pay attention to. In my own defense I’ll mention that the Budgeteer’s Editor, Tom West, once invited me to jump from my non paid every-other-week column at the Reader Weekly to his publication. I never inquired whether that involved being paid. Money wasn’t an object to me. I declined out of a mixture of loyalty to the Reader for giving me a forum in the first place and the sense that my preferred topics might be a little too unsettling for Budgeteer readers. What would they have thought, for instance, of my self titled piece “My Queer Life“? Today the column seems timid but that was almost ten years ago. We’ve come along way baby but the Budgeteer hasn’t. Its still studiously bland.
Anyway, I’ve never wanted to be a pundit if that meant I owed my livelihood to someone else’s political interests. I imagine that Will and Bill Kristol earn most of their earnings giving speeches at “Conservative” gatherings. If they should stray from the increasingly partisan line they would get poor in one quick hurry. After their partisans stopped reading them they would then lose their columnist gigs and they would be cast into the void. Some of these guys are political suck ups or intellectual prostitutes or simple hacks. Some of them. like Will, are reasonably erudite, yes, but its usually erudition compromised. On Fox News which my buddy defends but doesn’t watch (helping explain his ability to defend Rupert Murdoch) there isn’t even much erudition.
When I ran for political offices I had no desire to be a suck up or a prosititute. I knew I couldn’t wantonly offend the new powers in the GOP but that didn’t mean I had to surrender my brain to them. I think my buddy could appreciate that because he has a fair bit of contempt for political parties. This is his riposte in reply to my Gorbachev/Obama post:
I read Welty, but will Welty read Will?
That was a question, not an instance of insisting.Further, have there never been “hints of racism at various” Democratic “Party gatherings”? However, Will’s commentary was about economics, and not about race. Will apparently understands that economics are not necessarily synonymous with race, which might be why ABC News would prefer to have Will instead of Welty on its This Week roundtable, and which might be why the Washington Post presumably is paying Will instead of Welty to write commentaries for it.
Which might leave you wondering why I read Welty. I, too, sometimes wonder about that.
[my buddy]
Its true that my buddy never insisted that I read the many commentaries he proffers. I think it would be fairer to say he taunts me, or maybe simply dares me, to read them. I don’t mind when they are thoughtful. I don’t even mind if they are mostly provocative. I do mind when they are drivel.
Will’s commentary isn’t, as my buddy insists, simply about the economy. Its true that entitlements, will continue to vex us as we routinely over promise what we can do. But for Will to suggest that the takeover of the GOP by the southern racists of the 1960’s is a step in the right direction economically is worse than boneheaded.
No doubt such bone headedness will get Georgie invited to a lot more GOP/Fox oriented chicken dinners. It will be very good for his economy.
