Bloodless Coup

Why Is David Broder Still Employed?

I ask that question in all seriousness. The man's pen drips with little but ancient cliches (referring to a world that's rarely existed beyond the confines of his dull, moderate imagination) and a love for civil political discourse that obscures the damage that certain policies are doing to this country - because he spends so much time whining, not about the policy, but about the messiness or meanness of the surrounding debate.

This chat comment illustrates his real concerns:

Seattle, Wash.: "Distorts the positions of both parties"? I think the poster meant the practical aspect of a massive tax burden on the middle class, while their Social Security and Medicare reserves are siphoned away to pay for no-bid contracts for billionaires and multi-millionaires who have an effective tax rate of around 8 percent. That sure sounds like a class war against America by the GOP to me. Doesn't it matter what the practical impacts are, instead of the lying words?

David S. Broder: You make the rational case against President Bush's economic policies. What I objected to in the earlier posting was the ascribing of motives of the worst sort to both Republicans and Democrats. That is what poisons political debate. Your arguments are perfectly phrased, and ought to be at the heart of the coming campaign.

He's forever commenting on the quality of the dialogue (according to his own personal rating system) and prioritizing that over the nature of the politics that actually affects us all. Which would be bad enough if he weren't more easily offended than an antebellum Southern dame, but he appears to be just that easily offended. And of course he never wants to consider for even a moment that anyone would actually have a hidden agenda, or believe something other than what they say.

Basically, he's boring, clueless and a tiresomely ordinary social arbiter - and if that's all he's got to offer (and just read through that chat for more of the same - if you can stomach it), he should have outlasted his welcome at one of the country's leading papers. Why is he still employed?

Oh, one more thing - I don't know what to say about this (look below). I lack the words to describe how insipid it is. It's in some netherworld of helplessness and low expectations that's far beyond insipid. But to that Broder would likely simply respond that I'm just being mean - and fail to defend his painfully inadequate "analysis".

Anonymous: In your July 13 column, you listed seven foreign policy crises and then declared "Bush is largely blameless for all these troubles." A cloud of witnesses testify to the contrary, especially where Iran and North Korea are concerned. Do you actually believe that Bush's mulish refusal to engage in anything resembling diplomacy with these nations has not come back to haunt us?

David S. Broder: Iran and North Korea were both causing big problems for the United States and its allies before our President Bush came to office. Of course, one can question his diplomacy in both instances, but these regimes were troublemakers independently of anything he has done.