I slipped up this morning. I read Michael Gerson’s Washington Post column by mistake. Like a car wreck on the highway, I couldn’t avert my gaze once I started. I had resolved a long time ago never to read another thing from this poser, the author of many of George W. Bush’s flabbier formulations (especially “compassionate conservatism”), after he ostentatiously began using the noxious phrase “social justice” when he burst on the column scene a few years back. (For why no self-respecting conservative should ever use this term except with derision, see Hayek’s thorough smackdown in Law, Legislation, and Liberty. That would be Friedrich Hayek, Michael, not Salma.)
Today Gerson’s superior moral sense is exercised by James O’Keefe’s selective editing of his Schiller/NPR video. The full video (which O’Keefe released, unlike, say, CBS, NBC, etc.), he thinks, exonerates Schiller from the impression O’Keefe’s short version conveyed. But as Ann Althouse points out, why then did NPR fire both Schillers instead of mounting the defense that Gerson would surely have been pleased to join? Althouse:
If O’Keefe is to blame, NPR should have defended Schiller. It didn’t. The full video was there. If it undercut O’Keefe’s edit, NPR could have reframed the narrative. Such an effort would have gotten plenty of play in the media. But NPR didn’t even try. Of course, O’Keefe put his video together in a strong way to make his point, but he exposed himself to a powerful counterattack… that didn’t happen. QED.
With his typical tendentiousness, Gerson writes: “The ethics of lying, of course, are complex.” Whoa! Aristotle better take notes. Keep that up, Michael, and you’ll snag yourself an assistant professorship in a state university somewhere to go along with your title as the Post’s house-broken “conservative.”
Gerson tries to make a distinction between O’Keefe’s tactics and the tactics of a major news network when they go undercover deceptively to nail commercial practices: “This may excuse posing as a worker at an unsanitary meat-packing plant or as a mental patient in an abusive asylum. But it is hardly a matter of life and death to expose the conventional liberalism of a radio executive.” Let’s see: When an unsanitary meat-packing plant sickens or kills people, it faces huge liability and sometimes goes out of business entirely. When NPR commits journalistic malpractice (which can also have real world effects — recall Newsweek’s bogus “flushed Koran” episode as an example — the Newsweek that is about to disappear from the face of the earth since it faces a market test unlike NPR), the consequence is . . . nothing. The shoddy meat-packing plant coerces no one into buying their products; I am coerced every day into supporting NPR with my tax dollars.
Being nowadays a certified member of the MSM, Gerson is scornful of “citizen journalists” on the Internet. Yet it was “citizen journalists” on the Internet who took down Dan Rather for something a lot worse than deception. Life is too short to go back and check to see if Gerson ever registered any complaints about the journalistic practices of the MSM. I’ll just go with the null hypothesis here. Regardless, I’ll take the army of Internet citizen journalists over Gerson’s unending moral preening.
The takeway is that NPR, PBS and the NEA should not get a dime of government money.These cuts should have been done a long time ago. O'Keefe may help that nonsense end, something Gerson and Gerson's boss never bothered to do. Also, we can now watch Monty Python marathons on BBCA anyway, so who needs to have them interrupted by begging? Most of the shows on PBS like Ken Burns and "Sesame Street" that make money will find a home.Those that don't (I'm looking at you "Calliou"), won't.
"Compassionate conservatism" needs to die. Now. Forever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI cringe every time my alma mater, Wheaton College, mentions that Gerson is a graduate. I would prefer hearing about our other outstanding alumni, Denny Hastert and director Wes Craven!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you Mr. Hayward. Brilliant retort to one of the most 'noxious members of the Compassionate "Conservative" Cancers Caucus.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlthough I generally agree with Mr. Hayward's criticism of Mr. Gerson's new column, I am surprised and appalled by Mr. Hayward's ad-hominem attacks on Mr. Gerson himself. The mirthlessly sarcastic style of Mr. Hayward's post is similar to that of a ranting, anonymous internet commenter. Mr. Gerson is not as conservative as most NR readers (including this reader), but he is a consistently thoughtful and articulate conservative voice. Mr. Hayward should have stuck to taking apart Mr. Gerson's column and left out the snarky personal attacks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does NRO even link to Gerson's columns? It is a waste of time reading him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a Catholic. Within Catholic circles, the term "social justice" is thrown around quite a lot, especially when one is speaking of Catholic Social Teaching, or CST.
While there are caricatures of CST as a liberal byproduct of Vatican II, the fact of the matter is that CST is an important facet of Catholicism's teachings on charity, for liberals and conservatives alike. In short, the Church teaches that loving ones neighbor is essential, and that sometimes, systemic, or social, changes must be made to maximize "justice," the classical definition for which being "giving one what one is due." And everyone is due charity, at least according to Catholic social teaching.
So when Catholics mention "social justice," they are not necessarily operating under some insidious liberal mindset. They are using the language of the Church in America to promote charity on a social scale. Of course, HOW you promote social justice is the question. I answer that as a conservative. Others answer that question as a liberal.
The fact that there are others who use this term with an anti-conservative point of view is an unfortunate coincidence. However, that does not mean the term is lost, or that conservatives can not use the term in good faith.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, npr did defend Schiller. On Monday, March 14, David Folkenflik had a nearly eight minute story on Morning Edition headlined "Elements of NPR Gotcha Video Taken Out Of Context."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"Mr. Gerson is not as conservative as most NR readers (including this reader), but he is a consistently thoughtful and articulate conservative voice."
No, he's not any sort of conservative, let alone a "thoughtful and articulate" one.
And Gerson used the following terms to describe O'Keefe's work: "selective and deceptive", "distortion", "a hit piece", "an elaborate, alluring lie".
With people such as Gerson at the helm it's no wonder the Bush administration gave us mushy liberalism rather than conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShouldn't you be in whatever hole Laurie Mylroie crawled back into?
Oh I forgot,
Atta DID meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, there were WMD, you were right all along.
You people really do have no shame I guess...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't blame Mr. Gerson for his morality. However, it does seem a bit selective. What about NPR's dirty tricks? It takes public money, not just from taxpayers, but from donors, and pretends it it has no political agenda. It pretends it is one kind of organization, when it is quite another.
Was there any other way to expose the lies of NPR?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a magnificent smack-down! And one well-deserved.
The comparison between Newsweek (which business was sold for far less than the cover price of a single issue) and NPR is a keeper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe captcha is horrible!
---
Hey now... go easy on State schools. University of Texas is a fine institution, and doesn't deserve to be smeared like that!
;)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Nathanael Greene: You are out of step with the moment, and display an attitude destined to lose to the Mobocrats, just as Gerson and his "compassionate" Bushie crowd were routed by the Mobocrats (Progressives). Congratulations to Mr. Hayward for adopting the 'winning' attitude.
==
and, yeah, the captcha stinks.
==
d(^_^)b
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
The defense that Schiller's attacks on the Tea Party were not his own, but were a recounting of comments made by anonymous "top Republicans" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>> Keep that up, Michael, and you’ll snag yourself an assistant professorship in a state university somewhere to go along with your title as the Post’s house-broken “conservative.” <<
"... the Post's neutered 'conservative.'"
There, fixed that for ya.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse