Why Conservatives Need Carville, Moore, and Rather

Commentary by Greg Lewis / WashingtonDispatch.com
September 21, 2004

King Ethelred, a late first-millennium British ruler, was dubbed, with typical Old English bluntness, "Ethelred the Unraed." Until the middle of the 20th century, scholars and historians typically glossed "unraed" as "ignorant." Within the past 50 years or so, however, the term has come to be understood to mean "ill-advised." It's not so much that Ethelred was ignorant but that, having assumed the throne at age ten, he (perhaps understandably) surrounded himself with people who gave him bad advice.

Unapologetic segue to John Kerry (aka "Kerry the Unraed"), ca. 2004: I can't recall a more blatant instance of someone who aspired to a position of significant political power allowing himself to be misled by operatives who so clearly do not have his interests at heart. And in this case Kerry doesn't have the excuse that he, like Ethelred, assumed power at the age of ten. Kerry came of age some 40 years ago, and his recent indecision cannot be blamed on pre-pubescent inexperience. I'm referring to Kerry's lately having taken on as campaign advisors James Carville and Paul Begala, who directed Bill Clinton's campaigns and his Presidency. These two will also direct Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign and (if they are successful) her Presidency, for at least four and possibly eight years. Can you say, "Fox in the henhouse?"

What the hell is Kerry thinking? That Carville (who has recently made the public pronouncement that the war in Iraq is "a stupid war") actually wants to see him [Kerry] win this election? James Carville doesn't have anything to prove. After he guided Bill Clinton's successful campaign, Carville helped Bubba navigate the rocky shoals of his Presidency (read "stay in office"). Carville knows a loser when he sees one, and he knows John Kerry is a loser. James Carville also knows Hillary Clinton is his only hope for a return to the heady days when he could make conservatives and Republicans cringe simply at the sight of his televised visage intoning cynical leftisms on then-President Clinton's behalf.

Conservatives, though, need James Carville, just as they need other even more blatant power-mongers. Because, and no mistake, it is for those on the left absolutely about the acquisition and holding of political power. Michael Moore's entry into the leftist-power-grab-through-blatant-falsification sweepstakes is a film entitled "Fahrenheit 911." The film is one of the most glaring examples of those on the left's eschewing actually promoting a viable candidate who represents definable and particularly political (not to say moral) positions in favor of adopting the pedigreed communist/socialist tactic known as "Critical Theory." Critical Theory, which was developed in Germany by Communist thinkers in the 1920s, dictates that those espousing the establishment of a leftist/socialist/communist polity should attack the status quo while not bothering to propose political policies to replace those attacked. Michael Moore, one of the most visible leftist spokespeople, certainly fills the bill. And Michael Moore, although not officially, is yet another spokesperson for John Kerry.

And Dan Rather, an allegedly long-time Bush-hater, has thrown his very large hat into the ring of those who would blatantly ignore the political bias of their "documentation" — for certainly national news media and "documentary" (scare quotes mine) filmmakers are to be held to an equally high standard when it comes to validating sources and insuring the legitimacy of the material they include in their productions (that is, "pronouncements") — in favor of pulling down a political adversary.

Which is to say, at risk of repeating the obvious, that the political agenda of the Democratic left in America has been — since, in the Left's eyes, the egregious travesty of the election process that in 2000 resulted in George W. Bush's Presidency — not the promotion of a positive and recognizable political agenda, but the destruction by whatever means possible of George W. Bush and his Presidency, and, by extension, the positive American values which the Bush Presidency represents.

"Stupid Pet Tricks" move over. There's a new target for the uncomfortable derision Americans used to accord David Letterman's periodic forays into examples of American culture most of us would rather not be reminded exists. Whether you think James Carville, Michael Moore, and Dan Rather will eventually occupy the same level as "Stupid Pet Tricks" in some Dante-esque representation of American cultural hell, all I can say is, "Thank heaven they haven't passed on to their final reward." The backlash against the shenanigans these three have perpetrated during this campaign is going to be a not-insignificant factor in the impending Bush landslide victory. And if Kerry's loss might ultimately play out as Carville's victory, it will at least further hasten the demise of Moore's and Rather's rapidly lessening credibility and influence. Even better, however, is the fact that the American people will no longer have to worry about who Kerry the Unraed chooses to listen to.