What’s with Kinsley?
I vaguely recall reading something in the last week or two about an op-ed by Michael Kinsley that many thought was excessively anti-Clark, or anti-Clark and unfair. Who knows? I like generally like Kinsley’s work, but I didn’t read that one. But in today’s Washington Post, Kinsley uses the following argument to tee-off on Clark [emphasis mine]:
A widespread fantasy among liberals who loathe the Bush administration, for example, is that Colin Powell will resign as secretary of state and “say what he really thinks.” This will bring down the whole house of cards, these liberals believe. What he really thinks, they think, is more or less what they really think.
“Widespread”? If so, then I should know at least one person who expects that to happen. Seriously, a few hundred “liberals who loath the Bush administration” are likely to read this post in the next 24 hours. If you expect Powell to do this, please explain! Note that expecting him to resign in January of 2005 is not the same thing as expecting him to turn on the administration.
The rest of the op-ed makes about as much sense as the Powell part–maybe less.
UPDATE: Behold the exquisite elegance of Kinsley’s syllogism: if liberals’ positive views about one General (Powell) are a “fantasy,” then all positive views held by liberals about any General (Clark) must be fantasies. Of course, Kinsley’s own logic hoists him on his own petard: if one thing Kinsley says about Liberals and Generals is nonsensical, then all things Kinsley says about Liberals and Generals are nonsensical.
UPDATE: I found the earlier post about a previous Kinsley piece; it’s from Matt Yglesias at Tapped.
UPDATE 2: 300 or so visitors in the 12 hours since this post went up, many presumably liberal, but not one yet willing to fess up to this “widespread fantasy.”