You have to respect Bill Kristol. Yes, you can disparage his politics--his imperialist hawkishness that got us into this bloody, sand-caked fiasco, or any of the ridiculous op/eds you find in his Weekly Standard. But on May 3, at the National Press Club, he did what few conservatives would do in this somber age of Congressional minorities and 28% presidential approval ratings: he swallowed his pride and attended an event titled, comically, the Failure of Conservatism Conference. And at the luncheon of the Conference, hosted by the Campaign for America’s Future, not only did he share the same room with a group of people who probably wanted his head on a platter instead of the veggie pasta, but he was forced to defend his much-maligned movement in a debate with The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner. The topic at hand? The equally cruel and funny inquiry “Can Conservatives Be Trusted to Govern?”

To be fair, this was no worse than some of the panel titles I saw while undercover blogging at CPAC (for example, “The Left’s Continued War on the American Soldier”), and Kristol’s amiability promoted a certain tongue-in-cheek, sport-like quality in the contest that prevented it from ever getting ugly. Plus, the subtext to the harsh title was clear: in the midst of the Reagan nostalgia that Bush’s mess of a presidency has inspired and that is currently clouding the minds and words of the Right’s 2008 nominees, it is in the Left’s best interest to cut off the problem at its stem instead of at its goofy, vacant, Texan head. At Kuttner’s podium was a sign that read “Pro,” and at Kristol’s one that marked him, in blood red, “CON.” The stage was set. The bell was rung.

Round 1

Kuttner comes out swinging, characterizing the last six years as a laboratory for elected conservatives to try every idea they ever had, in the absence of a president who would remotely challenge them. What manifested, he notes, was not principled libertarianism or a return to tradition, but a movement based on sheer, unadulterated opportunism. The laziness, corruption, and greed was not a temporary ailment but at the heart of the Right’s cause.

Kristol pursues an exclusively economic counterattack, rhetorically pondering if we really want to return to the fiscal state we were in before 1980 and Reaganomics, then citing the positive influence of such policies on developing nations. He hits a sensitive spot by pointing out that none of the Left is campaigning on their party’s pre-1996 position on welfare. He wipes his brow.

Round 2

Kuttner notes Kristol’s conspicuous failure to mention Bush or Iraq once in his opening statement, and asserts that the family unit that Kristol’s conservatives are so desperate to attack has been hurt more by the Right’s rich-favoring tax cuts than by any sort of cultural deterioration. Kuttner continues to focus his blows on the fiscal cronyism of the Right, attributing conservatives’ enduring ability to win elections to the inevitable translation of wealth into power.

Kristol bobs and weaves, defending himself by proclaiming that he would gladly accept Clinton-era Reubenomics as a suitable alternative to Reaganomics (being as it is in his mind influenced by conservative policy), and points to Giuliani’s success in making New York “liveable.” On Iraq, he unashamedly insists that the next president will have a similar foreign policy to Bush’s, but with a different “style.”

Round 3

Kristol suddenly breaks ranks with the conservatives and launches a strictly Neocon attack—he embraces a rightist welfare (read: nanny) state, heralds Bush’s Medicare bill and tax cuts, and boldly counters criticism of military build-up by lamenting that we didn't bolster defense spending more before 9/11 and Iraq. When pressed on the war, Kristol, unexpectedly fatigued after his offensive, graciously yields that Bush’s certainly hasn’t been the most competent presidential administration, to roaring applause.

Kuttner sticks to his reliable jab, insisting that corruption and conservatism go hand-in-hand, using as evidence the K Street Project and the Right’s massive investment in think tanks. Kristol goes into block mode, attributing the growth of said think tanks to the enlistment of conservative political science professors who can’t get tenure on college campuses. Kuttner tries new moves as he unflinchingly credits the Left’s 2006 election success to the pocketbook problems of average Americans, instead of Iraq. Kristol attempts one last hook by disparaging the Left’s unity, noting that liberalism seems to be merely comprised of grievances against conservatives, rather than a force in its own right.

Post-Match Analysis

Against all odds, and despite definitely lacking the home-team advantage, Kristol was able to at least hold his own against Kuttner. He looked calm and comfortable for almost the whole debate, but when he went for economics, it allowed Kuttner to focus on the money-grubbing disenfranchisement of the poor that he claimed was at the heart of conservatism. Both men more or less played by the rules in that they avoided the opportunity to make Bush the centerpiece of an argument about conservatism in general, but when they did mention his name, a weird kind of consensus was reached. Though these days one would expect any self-respecting conservative to denounce Bush as a tainted, wrong-headed deviation from the base movement, Kristol actually agreed with Kuttner (quite happily) that future conservative presidents will have the same goals and ideas as George W. Bush. He seemed to think this was a good thing. I’m not so sure, but it certainly raises a more appropriate but no less pitiless topic for a debate: “George Bush: Totally Misguided, or Just Disastrously Incompetent?”

Last week, Campus Progress and the Center for American Progress hosted another installation of the series “Conversations with Daschle,” featuring a dialogue between former Senator Tom Daschle, and former Governor of New Jersey and EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, held at the Georgetown University GPPI Student Lounge.

In addition to free pizza and drinks, guests were treated to a serious and comprehensive discussion on environmental policy. Although Whitman and Daschle are from opposite sides of the aisle, both agreed that climate change should no longer be treated as a politicized idea with disputed science, but as an objective reality.

While Senator Daschle was optimistic about the potential legislative efforts in Congress to ease human impact on climate change, Ms. Whitman was similarly pleased but admitted that she was cautious about some of the more “bold” proposals that have recently been made. Ms. Whitman maintained a strong support for a cap-and-trade system as a realistic solution, citing its success with respect to non-greenhouse gases and reiterating the need for businesses to have positive incentives in order to enact real progress. Approaches based solely on broad regulation, such as caps on carbon output, go too far and are not likely to be adopted, Ms. Whitman offered.

Both agreed that the legislative freedom provided in state governments have allowed states to serve as apt laboratories for the possible directions for environmental policy, with Governor Schwarzenegger’s California being the most obvious example. Both also fielded questions from the audience, covering topics ranging from what college students can do to make their campus green, to how to make being environmentally conscious "sexy." 

This was the seventh in the series of “Conversations with Daschle,” which features the former Senate Majority Leader casually discussing a certain subject with a different prominent politician or D.C. personality.

I wanted to revive the debate concerning Jon Stewart and the McCain interview, both because the last post ironically devolved into the very kind of uncivil bickering I originally held Stewart accountable for ("I've read more books than you" instead of "I know the troops better"), and because of this brilliant Bill Moyers interview with Stewart, in which he mentions and kind of defends kind of doesn't how he acted with McCain.

Here' my take: It's definitely a great interview, and Stewart's eloquence and intelligence only makes me love him more, but you
notice that he ultimately compares the McCain interview to the kind of counterproductive "dialogue" that Congress and the White House are having over the spending bill. Also, his assertion that all he was
trying to do was simply contemplate "is this really the trading of
talking points we're going to have over Iraq?" is just a rouse,
because in imitating that debate you by default imitate a side on the talking points battle. He may try to convince us that that was the
rhetorical meta-subtext of the interview, but what we end up seeing is Stewart and McCain trade off talking points. People seem to love the interview because they feel like they haven't seen someone cut through the war support bullshit like Stewart does, but to me he's offering the same counterpoint that you'd find in a debate about the war between Carville and Novak on CNN....except it's coming from Jon Stewart. This is the problem with only getting your news from the
Daily Show--you end up losing scope of where Jon is innovative and
intelligent and unique in his perspective... and the rare moment where he's just like everyone else on TV. Maybe, ironically, that's why his interview has been so apparently newsworthy.

Also, he can't simultaneously try to convince me that he's not a
social critic and then end the interview with Moyers by saying that he
believes his program offers a view of current events, in "a certain
context." Placing anything relevant to today's society or political
landscape in a certain context, especially when framed with humor (the punchline of which always has a point), IS the DEFINITION of
social/political criticism. That said, I understand the game he's
playing by not defining himself that way. But come on, if you go on
"Crossfire" and tell Begala and Carlson that they're "hurting
America," you're definitely some sort of socio-political critic.

Don't get me wrong, i love jon stewart and this interview only
reinforces that love. But i think he's a populist preacher posing as a
jester--a disguise that's been most effective for him. And when he
ditches that to pose as a pundit, the disguise wears a little too
thin.