The Kaus Phenomenon
Matt and Ross have been discussing the rather strange question of whether Slate is a center-right publication, and Matt said most recently:
And I’ll admit that while I look at Slate all the time, I’m not a particularly thorough reader of it and the Mickey Kaus phenomenon looms large in my mind.
This is something that puzzles me about liberal views of Mickey Kaus. Kaus has repeatedly said that he will vote for Obama, he was an early neoliberal (as those involved in the debate over the merits of neoliberalism last year will remember) and has worked at other such “center-right” publications as The New Republic and The Washington Monthly. He has the habit of criticizing what he considers to be excesses and errors of those to the left of him, at least partly because this is simply what neoliberals do. They are not usually in the habit of reinforcing liberal conventional wisdom when they find it lacking, but even neoliberals are center-left people. Kaus’ refreshingly sensible opposition to so-called comprehrensive immigration reform and his concerns about the effects of mass immigration on social equality are, as far as I can tell, the main reasons why he is routinely accused of being a crypto-conservative, because people who are “really” on the left aren’t typically concerned about these things. Even his reasons for challenging the immigration status quo are rooted in his desire to promote social equality, which I assume most liberals would also want to promote.
Meanwhile, dissident conservatives who are on the right frequently attack shibboleths of the mainstream right, but we do so from a conservative perspective. Even when our arguments are undermining some part of conventional wisdom on the right, we are not therefore mostly publishing liberal content. It works the same way among liberals, too.
Cross-posted at The Daily Dish
Update: Commenter Freddie has a good post at his own blog reflecting on his comments below.
[...] But Don’t Forget That I’m a Closet Liberal August 1, 2008, 1:56 pm Filed under: conservatism, media/culture, politics Re: the question of Slate’s alleged crypto-conservatism, I’m glad to see that Daniel Larison has done us all the service of helping to state the obvious: … dissident conservatives who are on the right frequently attack shibboleths of the mainstream right, but we do so from a conservative perspective. Even when our arguments are undermining some part of conventional wisdom on the right, we are not therefore mostly publishing liberal content. It works the same way among liberals, too. [...]
Are Kaus & Slate on the “Right” in the sense that Taft, Ron Paul, Buchanan, or even Reagan/Goldwater were? No. Are the “Right” in the sense that Bush & Co. are? On all salient points, yes. Hardly matters what you call it. Hardly matters who Kaus allegedly says he’s going to vote for – he advances War Party interests at every turn.
I don’t care where you put him on the political spectrum, he’s still a degenerate neocon apologist.
So he’s a neocon apologist who routinely attacks McCain, opposes amnesty and opposed the Iraq war? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Most neocon apologists don’t identify Iraq and immigration as Bush’s two greatest blunders, but Kaus does this all the time. Perhaps you could point out what the other “salient points” are.
Daniel, you are wrong on this one. I don’t have time to fully unpack why, but put it this way: assume arguendo that he is in fact center left (I disagree, but for the sake of argument). The fact that everything he writes is critical of the left rather than of the right (everything) makes him instrumentally helpful to the right and harmful to the left. Who he votes for is irrelevant next to that.
Now, that is certainly his prerogative, but it explains why he is loathed by the left (well, other reasons exist also, but that should be enough).
Or ask it another way – sure, there are lots of conservatives who criticize the right. But (a) usually from the right, not from the left, and (b) usually interspersed by criticisms of the left.
Imagine a righty Mickey Kaus, with (for the sake of argument) some genuinely conservative views, but who choose to write about (a) only his disagreements with the right, (b) from the left. Would such a figure (none exists) be treated by the right the way that Kaus is treated by the left? Yes.
Daniel, I find that a deeply dishonest portrait of how Kaus works. He doesn’t often attack liberal ideas and policies, he always and exclusively attacks liberal ideas and policies. Seriously, browse through the archives of Kausfiles. Keep a casual tally of what percentage of Kaus’s posts are attacking liberals and what percentage are attacking conservatives. I’m not kidding, it is better than 95%. It is overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly anti-liberal. He claims to be a Democrat, but attacks Democrats 10 times for every 1 time he attacks Republicans. Seriously, go look in his archives. If you can straight-facedly report back to me that Kaus criticizes conservatives even one quarter as often as he criticizes liberals, well, I’ll buy you a beer.
His supposed liberalism is just careerism, creating a “niche”. It’s pure shtick. If I constantly went around saying I was a conservative, but devoted the vast majority of my time to attacking conservatives, conservatism and Republicans, I imagine you’d find that annoying too.
Daniel,
(1) On the war his criticism has been muted and infrequent.
(2) On immigration he has criticized Bush and McCain – from the right. Now, I understand that you agree with his position on that, and I even realize that there is an arguable anit-immigration position on the left. But in terms of how that issue plays out in contemporary America, he is, whatever you think of his views, a man of the right.
But more to the point, for every column critical of Bush or McCain, there are 30 or 40 critical of Dems. A regular reader of his columns, to the extent that they are influenced at all, will be influenced to vote for the Republicans.
And on every ISSUE that he cares enough to write about with any frequency, he is on the right. On what issue can he really said to be on the left? Health care, I suppose, but how often does he write about that? Not very.
I may be mistaken, but I don’t appreciate claims of dishonesty.
Also, it depends on who we’re counting as conservative if we’re going to say that Kaus doesn’t criticize conservatives that much. He hits McCain and Bush on immigration. Are McCain and Bush conservatives? By my lights, especially on immigration, no, but they are probably still to the right of Kaus on most things.
Michael Gerson attacks small-government conservatives all the time in a tiresome, obsessive way, and while *I* wouldn’t call him a conservative there is no question that he is still counted as a center-right figure. Whether or not such people are annoying or are cultivating a “shtick” is irrelevant–you can’t fairly identify someone’s political leanings in such a way that simply ignores the entirety of their own claims about what they believe and who they are. If I allowed that “in terms of how that issue plays out in contemporary America” Kaus is on the right because of his immigration views, then I would have to be undeniably on the left because my views on the war, civil liberties, and the like align me with the left–and the relatively far left at that. Of course, there *are* conservative arguments for my views on the war, civil liberties, conservation and all the rest of it, but if we’re going to pay attention only to effect or the conventional labeling on these issues that will end up being lost. The reason this magazine exists is to restate conservative arguments against the things that are being done in its name to the detriment of this country, and so I don’t accept the bogus sort of binary thinking that says someone critical of his “side” is effectively on the other “side.” That way lies accusations of being “objectively fascist” and the like. Pretty clearly, thinking about someone’s politics in this way is absolutely crazy. It simply isn’t true that Kaus is a man of the right, and if that is how a given issue “plays out” that is a measure of how stupefied our political culture has become.
Most “big government” conservatives or meliorists often attack other conservatives from what is effectively the left, and I suppose many of us find this annoying, but not so much that we would seriously claim that Fred Barnes is on the left (except in the sense that paleos would argue neocons and much of the GOP leadership to be substantively in agreement with the center-left on major issues). It seems to me that we, or at least I, expect people on a given “side” to try to keep their “side” honest and accountable by challenging flawed or dangerous ideas coming from that “side”. That is what really separates the hacks and the worthwhile critics.
Most of *my* criticisms are of other conservatives and people in the GOP, and I am often attacking them on civil liberties and antiwar grounds or even on matters of “food culture” and conservation–would I be “objectively liberal” by this standard? Think about it.
What percentage of Kaus’s posts, would you estimate, are attacking liberals?
Probably the overwhelming majority of them. I don’t know about 95%, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was in the 80-90% range. If that makes him anti-liberal, then I am anti-conservative and words have no meaning.
You’re right that I shouldn’t have said dishonest; I should have said mistaken.
I don’t know about words not having any meaning. I am deriving a belief about Kaus’s ideological beliefs based on what he says; is that unfair? To judge him based on his written output? I don’t think that the fact that he constantly criticizes liberals is proof positive that he’s a conservative. But I also don’t think it’s entirely irrelevant. I don’t doubt that you’re a conservative; I do doubt that Kaus is a liberal. That may be unfair but given the evidence both at Kausfiles and at Bloggingheads.tv, I don’t think it’s entirely unwarranted. I’ll have to think it over.
Because ALL Kaus ever does with his high-profile platform is trash Democrats. So who cares who he votes for?
It’s like when Imus endorsed Kerry in ’04–then spent the rest of the election trashing him. Or Mo Dowd using her valuable real estate on the most important op-ed page in the country to mock and deride Democrats.
You know what? Who cares who Kaus, Imus or Dowd vote for? Their vote is one vote but their voice influences millions.. I’d rather they shut up and vote Republican.
And if they can’t shut the fuck up, which evidently none of them can, stop pretending to support the person or party you constantly damage with your media slot.
Daniel, the fact that Gerson is your best example (and he is) really just helps prove our point. In addition to his bashing of fiscal conservatives, he spends plenty of time (1) criticizing liberals, and (2) defending genuinely conservative positions. Yet some people on the right DO give him the Kaus treatment.
A more typical meliorist like Ross Douthat spends MOST of his time attacking the left, and mutes his criticisms of those on the right with whom he disagrees. Not to mention having a large number of genuinely conservative positions, regarding which (in contrast to Kaus) he is quite vocal.
You? Oh, come on. While it’s true that you spend more time criticizing conservatives than liberals, it’s much closer to 50-50. More to the point, on the issues you talk about, even when you take the so called “left” position, you make arguments firmly based in conservatism. Kaus mostly doesn’t do the equivalent (except to a small degree w/r/t immigration).
Your position on the ideological spectrum also is very different than Kaus’, and creates a different dynamic. A lot of the “conservatives” who you criticize not only are further to the “right” than you on foriegn affaris and civil liberties by current warped standards, they are further to the “left” from you on other issues, so one wouldn’t expect you to favor them. In Kaus’ case, if he was genuinely center left, one would think that every now and then he might find something nice to say about Democratic candidates, who tend to be … center left.
And of course no one here thinks that you are being dishonest.
As for Freddy’s blog post, I think he may be being too hard on himself. There does come a point where the circumstantial evidence of dishonesty becomes great enough that it’s a fair conclusion to make.
That said, Kaus’ real beliefs are not relevant. He is (whatever his motives) instrumentally an agent of the right. And he deserves to be called on that.
I will say that calling him dishonest, though warranted, probably detracts from the more important (and provable) critique.
Also, and this really has no bearing upon the issue of where Kaus fits on the ideological spectrum, but (for me anyway) fits in with my belief that he is loathsome regardless of ideology: the Edwards thing. Even if he proves to be “right.” Not only has he been harping on this for months, but now it constitutes (quite literally) most of his writing output. I just have no respect, at all, at any level, for how he is handling that issue.
Of course, Kaus’ love affair with Ann Counter (I HOPE I’m not literally correct about that) also grates, here for reasons admittedly partially (but only partially) related to ideology. Few people on the right even take her seriously, yet Kaus does.
And yes, I realize there is a slight disconnect between my attitude in paragraph one and in paragraph 2. It was intentional; I just think that Kaus has opened the door tot hose kind of smears. Besides, this is a blog comment, as opposed to a column in State.
Sorry, I should have consolidated these posts somewhat. I wish there was an edit option.
But to kind of sum up my last post, a large part of the problem is that Kaus, regardless of ideology, is a bit of (forgive me) an asshole. An asshole with whom you agree can be annoying but tolerable … but an asshole who spends most of his time attacking people and causes with which you have at least some sympathy .. isn’t very tolorable.
To get back to the personality issue, you and Ross D. are not assholes. Gerson is, which is why your analogy to him (though flawed) makes some sense.
I’ll grant you the amnesty thing, although in that case he’s going against Bush/McCain from the Right. Totally in character for a publication where William Saletan’s regular “blacks are stupid” pieces get top billing. As for the rest of it, Mickey’s MO is this:
Iraq was a historic mistake BUT the antiwar left wants The Troops to lose.
The Bush administration is crooked BUT impeachment would be a stupid idea.
I’m voting for Obama/Kerry, BUT we all know he’s an elitist loser whose only hope for redemption is to veer sharp right on some pet issue of mine.
Bush is an insane idiot and I hope he doesn’t get re-elected BUT at least we know where he stands.
Sure, the *substance* of his writings is often anti-Bush; but the *force* of them is a unrelentingly apologist.
One reason I happen to like Mickey Kaus is that he seems to make all the right enemies.
About the Freddie/Maggitti thesis, let’s mention for starters that the logic behind it is the same the old Marxist insult “objectively fascist”. Ie, a person’s writings or ideas are evaluated within the prism of capitalist/communist dialetic, because that is the motive force of history. Therefore anything that hurts the communist side is necessarily objectively fascist.
Of course, in reality, the idea that the “motive force of history” being within our control is a crock. What is within our control as individuals is the ability to state the truth within the bounds of our overall loyalties.
And whatever we’re pissing on Mickey Kaus for, it is the truth that the John Edwards has largely been protected by the liberal MSM, that politically connected D’s have used the big GSEs as an eight figure ATM while sticking the taxpayers with the bailout, that the education establishment is more interested in perk-hoarding than service, etc,. etc.
Really, these are the sort of little bits that explain why by and large reasonable thinking people haven’t been liberals for thirty years or so.
Where you publish has a lot to do with how you are perceived. Alexander Cockburn stayed with the Nation and is still seen as being on the Left. Christopher Hitchens, who angrily broke with that magazine, is a lot harder to place. If he wrote what he’s writing now, but gave up his place at Vanity Fair, he’d be perceived as being on the right. Writing for slate gives Kaus some credibility as a revisionist or self-critical liberal.
Also, I don’t know about this — “dissident conservatives who are on the right frequently attack shibboleths of the mainstream right, but we do so from a conservative perspective” — that’s a snapshot of where you think you are now. Once Kaus probably occupied such a position with respect to his fellow liberals, and now he doesn’t. Five or ten years down the road, when the “paleo” thing has faded away, things may look different for you too.
Certainly the associations you make with certain publications affect how you are perceived, but it seems to me that it’s still not hard to place Hitchens–who also regularly writes for Slate–on the left. He has simply turned his old anti-religious contempt towards Islam, and so finds some common ground with hegemonists, usually among what some might call right-wing progressives, but in every other way he is still on the left. The same goes for a pol such as Lieberman.
I don’t know why the “paleo” thing is going to fade away. It hasn’t faded away in the last 20 years in general, nor has it faded in the last eight or so for me, so what is going to happen in the next decade that would make a difference? While I am no optimist, I think dissident conservatives may have a better chance of influencing some parts of the debate today than at any time since maybe 1992.
And don’t they best influence that debate by making telling observations on policy questions? And doesn’t Kaus do the same? How important is the taxonomy of Paleo or Neo this and that compared to the validity of an argument. Neither Kaus nor you, is a propagandist for a political party or ideology even if you hold consistent, deeply thought views on policy and the nature of “eunomium.”
I think Kaus came to wide attention regarding Welfare Reform. Essentially he challenged the liberal orthodoxy’s view that pre-reform welfare policy was good for its intended beneficiaries. I think his stance on Immigration Reform is basically the same: if you do care about the well-being of lower income Americans consider the impact of the large influx of competitors for lower-skilled work who in addition are not being well assimilated into society through the schools. And then there are those schools, which liberal orthodoxy asserts need no structural reform but more money. Care about auto workers? Here’s how their unions are destroying the industry that, perhaps only for a while longer, employs them.
And why would those whose avowed aims are the betterment of the poor or economically vulnerable fight for policies that worsen their lot? Confusion, timidity, and the various insidious corruptions of politics, of course. The conjunction of ends and the means to their avoidance is made for his irony.
“While I am no optimist, I think dissident conservatives may have a better chance of influencing some parts of the debate today than at any time since maybe 1992. ”
Fair enough, and I’d agree with that. Some paleo ideas are becoming mainstream But if Rockwell and Fleming are the glue that holds a paleoconservative or paleolibertarian movement together, that movement won’t achieve anything.
It’s similar to what George Will says about conservatism: the “movement” phase is past, and what will be achieved in the future won’t be done according to the older model of movement politics.
Your own American Conservative magazine, which publishes some writers who have been considered to be on the left points the way to a new shake-up or resorting of ideologies.
That’s what we saw in the 1970s and 1980s when neoconservatism and neoliberalism came on the scene. Today, you can look at neoconservatism as something with a solidity of its own — the bad thing to organize against — but thirty years ago it was part of a flux or rearrangement of older ideologies.