Don’t Cry for David Frum

Don’t Cry for David Frum

He was just stating the obvious.


David Frum makes an extremely inconvenient martyr for liberals. Forced out of his cushy sinecure at the American Enterprise Institute, he will continue to be fabulously rich, thanks to his marriage to a Canadian newspaper heiress. His voice will be magnified in the national discourse, and tributes to his courage will dot the landscape of American political discourse for weeks to come.

But forget about Frum for a minute and take a look at why he was let go. Frum remains a right-winger. He has not renounced his former self for coming up with the bankrupt concept of the "axis of evil" in service to the Bush administration’s propaganda push for its disastrous, dishonest invasion of Iraq. (Frum’s tome An End to Evil, written with Richard Perle, will one day serve historians as a near-perfect exhibit for the self-serving intellectual vacuity of Bush-era hubris.) And he has strongly opposed the Obama administration, both at home and abroad, particularly its healthcare reforms.

No, Frum was drummed out of what is, sadly, the conservative movement’s most prestigious quasi-academic perch not for any recognizable form of philosophical or theological apostasy. Rather, it was for stating the obvious: that perhaps GOP leaders had screwed up their healthcare fight because they were listening to the wrong people, and hence doing the wrong things.

Way back on December 2, 1993, when William Kristol was still pretty much a nobody with a famous dad and a good-news/bad-news reputation as Dan Quayle’s chief attack dog and press leaker, he circulated a four-page memo to Republican leaders warning of the dangers lurking in President Clinton’s proposed comprehensive healthcare bill. True, the tone of his musings was a great deal friendlier to Republican muckety-mucks than that of Frum. "Nothing in these pages is intended to supplant the many thoughtful analyses of the Clinton health care plan already produced by Republicans and others," Kristol wrote. Even so, his warning presaged that made by Frum today. Should the Democrats pass their bill, he cautioned, their success would "revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."

Last year Kristol–now a Republican kingmaker, Weekly Standard founder and editor, Fox News commentator, columnist for the Washington Post and previously for Time and the New York Times (all this despite an atrocious record of analysis regarding Iraq and a willingness to run intellectual interference for the likes of Sarah Palin)–repeated the same argument regarding Obama’s plan. On the Weekly Standard website, he informed his troops: "My advice, for what it’s worth: Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill." He was echoing the advice of Senator Jim DeMint, who had opined, "If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

OK, so that didn’t work out so well. Kristol, with Gumby-like flexibility, managed to reformulate DeMint’s Waterloo metaphor into something far more complicated, tripping up even himself in the process. In the aftermath of defeat, he cast Obama as Louis Napoleon as depicted in the opening of Karl Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire. I lack the space to do justice to the inspired nuttiness of this argument, but suffice it to say that no one will ever maintain that the problem with William Kristol was an unswerving commitment to principle or clarity.

Pretty much everybody else on the right flipped as well once it became clear that Obama would pursue reconciliation to get his votes. Suddenly, Republicans were arguing that victory, not defeat, was what would prove to be the Democrats’ Waterloo. As Obama joked to Congressional Democrats right before the vote, "Now, it could be that they are suddenly having a change of heart and they are deeply concerned about their Democratic friends. They are giving you the best possible advice in order to assure that Nancy Pelosi remains speaker and Harry Reid remains leader and that all of you keep your seats. That’s a possibility…"

So when Frum published his now-infamous blog post attacking GOP leaders for fealty to the "hysterical accusations and pseudo-information" of the right’s loudmouth know-nothings on cable and talk-radio, he was operating on the same strategic assumptions conservatives were spouting until they realized they were about to lose. But unlike Kristol and company, he refused to engage in the intellectual acrobatics necessary to repudiate his arguments of five minutes ago.

As Frum explained, the problem was the abdication of Republicans’ intellectual leadership to the folks at talk-radio and Fox News. "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox," he told ABC News, echoing an argument made in the Columbia Journalism Review, that Roger Ailes is "without close contest the most powerful Republican in the country today." (Personally, I might put him just behind Rush Limbaugh, with Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol barking just a few lengths behind.) Healthcare, Frum argued, was a "huge win for the conservative entertainment industry," but for "the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours."

The upshot of this tawdry affair–as with the less celebrated firing of Bruce Bartlett from the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis after he dissented from ruinous Bush-era budget policies–is, um, Kristol-clear. The rule of Roger and Rush will go unchallenged. No forms of deviation from the consensus of the conservative chatterboxes will be tolerated, no matter how trivial. AEI, like the rest of the conservative movement, will operate on the same basis Joseph Stalin legendarily used when he heard something he didn’t like: "no person, no problem."

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy