Give Paul Krugman a prize.  He has managed to make me say something in defense of Bill Kristol.  Krugman writes:

In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Heh-heh-heh.

Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don’t think it’s a problem.

I don’t know whether Bill Kristol actually cares about sick or hungry children.  Maybe he doesn’t.  If his foreign policy arguments are anything to go by, he isn’t terribly bothered by children who get blown up by cluster bombs.  But, as I said, this is a defense.  What Kristol said was a joke at the expense of liberals who make everything a matter of protecting “the children.”  It doesn’t matter whether the policy in question will actually protect or help “the children”–what matters is the treacly, manipulative deceit that “the children” are receiving the help they so “desperately” need.  The policy might very well harm children, but these people will say that it is done “for the children,” much in the same way that Kristol’s foreign policy arguments advance continuous warfare as a boon and a glorious gift for the people in the war zones.  Therefore, when we hear appeals made in the name of “the children” today, it summons up a certain cynicism and an urge to mock the sanctimonious frauds (that would be Krugman) who lecture us on compassion, since it has been the experience of conservatives and even of people like Bill Kristol to be treated to the moral blackmail that if you oppose some ghastly government intervention you hate children (much as Mr. Bush once lectured opponents of his ghastly war that to oppose “liberation” and democracy promotion was to be racist).  Someone with a sense of irony, or indeed a sense of humour would get all this.  Krugman has neither.

I would add to this that Mr. Bush’s veto, in the wake of his own massive entitlement expansions and his general reluctance to veto anything at any time, is politically just about the most idiotic thing he could have ever done.  He cannot lift his pen to veto any piece of shady earmarked appropriations or expansion of government that benefits corporate interests, but he will be sure to resist S-CHIP because he supposedly cares so deeply about fiscal restraint.