David Frum on Jeb Bush, a comment by Political Reporter

As the Republicans continue their self-destructive trajectory, Mr. Frum proves his talent for producing political bile, in place of something resembling incisive commentary, on The Republican horse race.
The line up of these tired old faces is a stand in for diversity, the ersatz, the cliched chatter of the No-Nothings. After the latest Benghazi hearings, Hillary campaign contributions jumped appreciably: Trey Gowdy, and his political confederates doing their best to trip up this old political fox Hillary fell flat. How long will the Republicans practice this self-destructive nihilism?
The election of Jacobin Paul Ryan as Speaker answers that question. The notion that Boehner was a political rationalist, and Ryan will be his successor makes the power of secret Freedom Caucus, composed of forty members, not just apparent, but that makes very clear that  a radical minority is in charge of the Party. A secret tribunal now clears all candidates for House Republican positions? Secrecy implies acting with an impunity that anonymity brings, and is antithetical to democratic process.

Mr. Frum takes too much relish in his portrayal of Mr. Bush as weak, a kind of echo of what many say of Obama. Neo-Cons put great faith in masculine bravado and bluster, even when Hillary talks tough: recall the Kristol/Golberg celebration of Mrs. C.’s toughness of last year?
Who can forget the dire warnings that the McGovern Radicals had taken over the Democrats in 1972? Call this one of James Pinkerton’s political obsessions, that he repeated as if it were a revealed truth. Except that the harsh truth that the Jacobins have taken over the Republican Party is beyond the ken of Mr. Frum. As Henry Ford observed, history is bunk. I’d add, even if it’s manufactured history.

Political Reporter


Please support my blog, if you can.


Thank you!

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.