Elizabeth Drew fancies herself a journalist, but she is little more than a political hack. Read this. Note the tendentious descriptions. The Tea Party is said to be "obstreperously ideologically extremist." Barack Obama is not? Harry Reid is not? Nancy Pelosi is not? Why would there be only one extreme, rather than two? Isn't it more likely that Drew sees only one extreme than that there exists only one extreme, and shouldn't an experienced journalist be self-reflective enough to be aware of this?
Barack Obama is said to have appealed, in his State of the Union address, "to that part of the American psyche that wants the US to be the best-educated, most innovative, and most creative nation in the world." Is Drew implying that there are Americans who don't want these things? Who? Where? Why? Is Drew implying that there is something wrong with wanting these things? I don't get it. Is this just progressive snarkiness? Are progressives too cool to think in terms of nations or excellence or national excellence?
Republicans are said to have "expertise in repetitive negativism," as in referring to "Obamacare." Do Democrats not engage in this activity? Has anyone heard of "birthers" or "teabaggers"? How about "tax cuts for the rich"? How about being "divisive"? How about "Bush lied"? And what about the official name of Obamacare: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"? Is that not rhetorical sleight of hand of the highest order, designed simply to fool people into thinking the act is in their interest?
Drew describes Michele Bachmann as "wacky and self-appointed." Bachmann is a tax attorney with two law degrees. She has represented the Internal Revenue Service. She is, I dare say, more intelligent, more knowledgable, and more emotionally stable than Drew, and not the least bit "self-appointed." In fact, it's Drew who is self-appointed. Who elected her to anything? For whom does she speak, other than her fellow progressives? Bachmann has been elected five times by her Minnesota constituents. They like her. She speaks for them. She advocates returning the federal government to its original mission, as set forth in the Constitution. If that is wacky, then let's hear it for wackiness.
Later in her essay, Drew criticizes those who have "reverence for [or piety about] the Constitution." What is wrong with revering the Constitution? It is our founding document. It sets forth enduring principles of government, including the limitations on government enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Has it become unfashionable to believe in enduring principles? If the Constitution is not to be revered, then what is? The Communist Manifesto? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? And notice the unsupported assertion that "the Constitution is subject to varying interpretations." Really? Every provision? Are there varying interpretations of the provision that the president must be at least 35 years of age? Does the fact that there are "varying interpretations" of a provision mean that no interpretation is more defensible than any other? Is it all up for grabs? Can I interpret Drew's essay as a treatise on masturbation? Are there not interpretations that are ruled out by the plain meaning of the words?
With all due respect to Drew, her discussion of the Constitution is idiotic. She obviously knows nothing about law, interpretation, adjudication, or the interpretive theory known as originalism. Or rather, she knows just enough about these things to be dangerous. Michele Bachmann, a highly trained attorney, is "wacky," but Drew, a mere journalist with no legal training, is an authority on what the Constitution means (or doesn't).
Finally, by way of criticizing Paul Ryan, Drew says that "articulateness is often mistaken for brilliance." Really? Where was she when Barack Obama was running for president? Was she doing her job as a journalist: namely, probing his intelligence, knowledge, and policy positions? Did she pierce the veil of articulateness to see whether there was anything behind it? Alas, no. She was singing his praises. If Drew represents the best of American journalism, God help us.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 