Today, the Times runs a Brooks column that tries to write the Tea Parties out of the True Faith. Borrowing heavily from a piece written by Michael Lind last month here in Salon, Brooks compares Glenn Beck and his followers to the 1960s counterculture. In imitating the revolutionary zeal of the flower-power New Left, along with a hippie-like distrust of “the System,” the Tea Partiers have broken with true conservatism, Brooks writes. The genuine article involves trusting the establishment, and cynicism about the possibilities of mass politics. Conservatism, for Brooks, means loving “the System.”

For this reason, both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

Brooks has always preferred the gray politics of the conservative establishment to the color of the right wing’s rabble-rousers. During the 2008 campaign, it often seemed as though he was preparing to abandon his long commitment to the GOP, based on his horror at the antics of Sarah Palin. And, to be fair, he clearly has some kind of point here.

So yes, in the Tea Parties, there is a certain strain of radical egalitarianism that offends Brooks, in his self-designated position as conscience of the precious conservative elite. But there’s also something much older in the movement, which he misses entirely. Like the New Left, Beck and his followers see a bloodsucking state up on top of society. But the 1960s radicals only pointed their hatred upward, at the state, the establishment and the wealthy. The Tea Parties share this upward-looking disgust, but they also see parasites down below them, at the bottom of society, looking for redistribution.

It’s this multi-directional loathing that animates the charges that the Tea Party movement is, by its basic nature, racist. (That plus, you know, all the really obvious racism.) In their evocations of a lost, “simpler” past and a “real America,” this is what the Tea Party folks are talking about: themselves in the center, and the looters, thieves and degenerates all around them. It’s pretty close to the outlook that characterized 19th-century southern populism. That movement was both an uprising against a capitalist system that the populists saw as rigged from above and also, eventually, virulently racist. Tea Party ideology also closely echoes the belief system of the revived Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s. This second iteration of the Klan was a movement of small businesspeople, skilled workers, clerks and the like, who were convinced that the government and high finance had formed a conspiracy against them with the poor, Jews, Catholic immigrants and African-Americans.

So in one sense, we should probably be applauding Brooks for his discomfort, rather than making fun. But it’s not like he cites the troubling sides of right-wing populism in his argument. He’s just worried these people are going to endanger the elitist traditions of conservatism.

Besides, who died and made him the new William F. Buckley? If Brooks got his way, Republicans would have little support outside the top tax bracket. Getting to a majority has always involved adulterating the pure dogma with a major dollop of scary populism. It’s the major irony of the right wing. Defending the free market and the institutions that go along with it is what Brooks cares about. But to do it, he’s got to enlist an army of people he has almost nothing in common with. And honestly, if some Tea Party veteran called this guy a snob, would you disagree?

Conservatism as a doctrine is descended from a defense of aristocracy. That’s the origin of what Brooks identifies as a belief in “social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities.” In a fallen world, where life is nasty, brutish and short, it’s best to have a king. But Brooks ought to go try telling that to the peasants at the gate. See how they like it.

That those in question would have their patriotism, loyalty and values attacked by reputable public figures such as Elizabeth Cheney and journalists such as Kristol is as depressing a public episode as I have witnessed in many years. What has become of our civic life in America? The only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers — and on the integrity of our legal system — is shameful. Shameful.

As I noted the other day, that’s the disgusting logic of the Cheney/Kristol campaign:  it necessarily suggests that every military and civilian lawyer who ever advocated for the Constitutional or other rights of accused Terrorists — and every judge who ever issued a favorable ruling (including a majority of current Supreme Court Justices) — is an America-hating subversive in league with Al Qaeda.  And it wouldn’t matter in the slightest if a lawyer represented a detainee because they were asked to do so by military lawyers or sought out the work on their own:  when one defends anyone against unconstitutional acts by the Government or otherwise provides a zealous legal defense, one is, by definition, defending what are supposed to be the country’s core political values.  Notably, even The Post‘s Editorial Page today condemns the Cheney/Kristol ad as a “smear” campaign and notes:  

Yet patently the video is far more than a call for transparency. It is an effort to smear the Obama administration and the reputations of Justice Department lawyers who, before joining the administration, acted in the best traditions of this country by volunteering to take on the cases of suspected terrorists. . . .

It took courage for attorneys to stand up in the midst of understandable societal rage to protect the rights of those accused of terrorism. Advocates knew that ignorance and fear would too often cloud reason. They knew that this hysteria made their work on these cases all the more important.  The video from Keep America Safe proves they were right.

So according to the Post Editors, this “Department of Jihad” ad is a “smear” campaign based in “hysteria, ignorance and fear” that is designed to “cloud reason.”  Yet those very same Post Editors continue to employ as a Columnist one of the primary parties responsible for this “smear” campaign.  That’s a strange thing to do.  Once a newspaper’s editors decide that someone is responsible for what they themselves denounce as a repugnant “smear” that traffics in fear, hysteria and ignorance and is designed to “cloud reason,” one would think they’d no longer want to provide a forum to the person responsible.  Why would a newspaper want to amplify and elevate a person who they know smears others using fear, hysteria and ignorance?  

It’s hardly news that Bill Kristol is a rank propagandist responsible for some of the most destructive falsehoods in our political culture, but now that the Post Editors explicitly recognize this, doesn’t it speak volumes about them if they continue (as they will) to employ such a person as a regular Columnist?  And which will be the first television news organization to present Kristol’s wretched McCarthyite comrade, Liz Cheney, as a Sunday morning panelist to opine as some sort of expert on various political matters of the day?  Do news organizations recognize any responsibility at all with regard to those who try to spawn a disgusting witch hunt like this?

UPDATE:  Wolf Blitzer tonight apologized for the on-screen graphics used by CNN last night in its story on the “Al Qaeda 7″ campaign.  Credit where it’s due, I suppose, though the use of those chyrons was only a part of the journalistic heinousness in how CNN and Blitzer covered that story.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer spoke volumes today about himself and his “news network.”  First, on Twitter earlier today, he excitedly promoted his upcoming story about what he called the “intense debate about Obama Justice Dept bringing in lawyers who previously represented Gitmo detainees.”  On March, 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow famously devoted his entire broadcast to vehemently condemning Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts, declaring:  ”This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent.”  By contrast, Wolf Blitzer — receipient of an Edward R. Murrow award — sees such smear campaigns as nothing more than an “intense debate” to neutrally explore and excitingly promote.

The last thing I would ordinarily do is watch a Wolf Blitzer broadcast, but I knew that this was going to be a heinously illustrative episode in modern political journalism — at best the vile McCarthyite campaign was going to be presented in the standard “each-side-says” format which defines modern journalistic ”objectivity” — but it was far worse than even I expected.  Blitzer first teased the segment as this on-screen logo appeared, taken directly from the Cheney/Kristol ad:  ”HAPPENING NOW: DEPT. OF JIHAD?“ 

The next time he teased the story, CNN flashed this logo – ”Al Qaeda 7?” — also taken directly from the Cheney/Kristol ad, as Blitzer explained that numerous Justice Department lawyers have been — as he put it — “accused of disloyalty” by a national security organization headed by Liz Cheney.  The final Blitzer tease came as these words were flashed on the screen:  ”Are Justice Dept. lawyers disloyal?“

The story itself began when Blitzer posed this question:  ”Should there be a loyalty test over at the Justice Department?”  He then introduced CNN Homeland Security Correspondent Jeanne Meserve, who — echoing Liz Cheney — introduced her segment by asking about the Obama DOJ:  “Should it really be called the Department of Jihad“?

Meserve’s segment then included, without any judgment, various opinions on these questions, with “some” saying that lawyers shouldn’t be judged by the clients they represent while “others” explained that these lawyers’ presence in the Justice Department presents a serious national security issue.  None of the facts compiled earlier today by ABC News‘ Jake Tapper — such as the fact that the Bush DOJ also hired lawyers who had represented Guantanamo detainees, just as Rudy Giuliani’s firm had, without any objections from the Right — made it into CNN’s story, as I knew would happen.

Following Meserve’s breezily neutral, “each-side-says” report, Blitzer hosted a “debate,” featuring right-wing lawyer Victoria Toensig defending the Cheney/Kristol crusade, and some criminal defense lawyer meekly and lamely objecting to some (though not all) of Toensig’s arguments.  Blitzer passively let Toensig ramble uninterrupted and dominate the exchange, asking not a single challenging question.  The entire time as Meserve’s story itself was being broadcast and the “debate” took place, this was the logo CNN had on screen:  ”DEVELOPING STORY – ARE JUSTICE DEPT. LAWYERS DISLOYAL?”  The two segments, from start to finish, were constructed based on the exact McCarthyite narrative Cheney and Kristol puked up, and although Blitzer did note that even some Bush officials found the ad to have gone “too far,” the entire 30 minutes of broadcast time — both when the story was repeatedly previewed and when it finally appeared — continuously reinforced the smears with both graphics and Blitzer’s words.

As Atrios put it:  ”right wing lunatics can still push anything into the puke funnel.”  They can not only push it into the puke funnel, but ensure it goes largely unchallenged, even bolstered by mindless media techniques.  Edward R. Murrow led the media attack on the McCarthyism of the 1950s.  Wolf Blitzer plays mindless, amiable, neutral, amplifying host to identical smear campaigns of today.  That collapse says all one needs to know about much of modern establishment political journalism in the United States.

UPDATE: Regarding media responsibility in the face of this repugnant smear campaign: more here.

Aside from the suffocating denseness of their discussion — most of them ramble on about who is and is not a “Terrorist” for three straight days without even attempting to define what that term means — just look at how blatantly tribalistic and propagnadistic they are about its usage.  Many of them all but say outright that it can apply only to Muslims but never non-Muslim Americans.  The whole thing has to be read to be believed — and what’s most amazing is that they published it because they obviously though it was some sort of probing, intelligent discussion which would enlighten the public — but let’s just examine a few of the contributions.  First, here’s the question posed to the group by Newsweek Editor Devin Gordon:

We’ve been having a discussion over here about the aversion so far to calling the Austin Tax Wacko a terrorist – or as the Wall St Journal called him “the tax protester.” And I’m wondering if anyone has read yet – or would tackle themselves – a thorough comparison between our ho-hum reaction to a guy who successfully crashed a plane into a government building versus the media’s full-throated insanity over the underpants bomber, who didn’t hurt anyone but himself.

This is the first answer, from Managing Editor Kathy Jones:

Did the label terrorist ever successfully stick to McVeigh? Or the Unabomber? Or any of the IRS bombers in our violence list?

Here is my handy guide:

Lone wolfish American attacker who sees gov’t as threat to personal freedom: bomber, tax protester, survivalist, separatist

Group of Americans bombing/kidnapping to protest U.S. policies on war/poverty/personal freedom/ – radical left-wing movement, right-wing separatists

All foreign groups or foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American gov’t: terrorists.

So according to Newsweek‘s Managing Editor, only a foreigner who “protests the American government” can be a Terrorist.  Americans cannot be.  Indeed, according to her, “all foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American government” are “Terrorists,” which presumaby includes Muslims who fight against American armies invading their countries (which is how the U.S. Government uses the term, too).  Meanwhile, Leftist Americans who engage in violence are “radicals,” while those on the Right who do so are merely “protesters, survivalists, and separatists.”  Only anti-American foreigners can be Terrorists.  That’s really what she said.  Then we have this, from reporter Jeneen Interlandi:

I agree with Kathy. Right or wrong, we definitely reserve the label “terrorist” for foreign attackers. Even the anthrax guy (not that we ever found him) wasn’t consistently referred to as terrorist.

Reporter Dan Stone takes that a step further:

Yep, comes down to ID. This guy was a regular guy-next-door Joe Schmo. Terrorists have beards in live in caves. He was also an American, so targeting the IRS seems more a political statement — albeit a crazy one — whereas Abdulmutallab was an attack on our freedom. Kind of the idea that an American can talk smack about America, but when it comes from someone foreign, we rally together.

One might think he was being ironic or merely describing how Americans (but not Newsweek) foolishly thinks, but he described the views of his fellow reporters and editors perfectly, and virtually nobody in the discussion took that as anything other than accurate and serious.  Reporter Eve Conant goes so far as to provide the justification — or at least the mitigation — for what Stack did as opposed to those dirty people with beards in caves:

Isn’t the ho-hum reaction in part the simple psychology behind the fact that a) no one likes the IRS and b) he’s an American (so closest he might get is “domestic terrorist” in terms of labels) who doesn’t hate Americans but hates an institution. The act is horrible, but somehow the motivation is perceived as less offensive. As one conservative at the CPAC conference told me, Stack simply “made a poor life choice.” There’s no way anyone would say that about the underwear bomber.

Now here’s Mike Isikoff, not even pretending that the term has a consistent meaning:

ok, just to weigh in on this — I think some of the comments miss what I take to be the fundamental distinction. The underpants bomber, for all his ineptitude, was equipped and dispatched by a foreign enemy — Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — whose ultimate leader (bin Laden) has declared war on the United States and who has demonstrated his willingness and intent to inflict mass casualties on our civilian population. That makes underpants man a terrorist and had he been captured overseas, would have made himan enemy combatant — and why the Obama administration dispatches the U.S. military and Predator drones to destroy the people who sent him here. Similarly, the Fort Hood shooter may have been a disturbed “lone wolf” but he was in ideological alignment and in communication with a member of the same foreign enemy.

That makes them both terrorists.

The Austin tax protestor, the anthrax scientist wacko, the Unabomber — all did heinous things that we can describe any way we want — certainly what they did were terrorist acts –  but they all remain a very different kettle of fish, which is why Mr. underpants man gets more attention that Austin tax protestor flying plane into building.

So when a Muslim attacks a military base that is deploying soldiers into a war zone, that’s Terrorism.  By contrast, when non-Muslim American slaughter civilians — even by sending lethal biological agents or bombs to them through the mail — perhaps it’s “terrorism” in some technical sense, but not the real kind (as Fox News put it:  it’s “not Terrorism with a capital T”).  Michael Hirsh added:  ”Isikoff pretty much has it right. Al Qaeda and Islamist extremism co-opted the term ‘terrorist’ after 9/11.”

A couple of the participants in the Newsweek discussion pushed back against this mentality and cogently argued that because it’s the act, not the identity of the person, that determines “Terrorism,” Americans can and often do qualify.  Articles Editors Kate Dailey and Ben Adler, for instance, argued that those who kill abortion doctors are clearly “terrorists,” because — as Adler put it — “trying to bully [people] thru fear of violence into behaving a certain way that suits your political views strikes me as the epitome of terrorism.”  But of course that applies to everything from the American “Shock and Awe” campaign in Iraq to the Israeli attack on Gaza, though Newsweek would never, ever apply the term that way.

What’s perhaps most strange about the Newsweek discussion is that it often lapses into the Innocent Bystander Syndrome of journalism, where journalists talk about phenomena that they cause as though they have nothing to do with it and merely observe it.  Thus, several of them don the voice of objective scientist studying the mating habits of farm animals (i.e., American citizens) — let’s try to understand why these interesting, bizarre creatures get so pent up over the Underwear Bomber but don’t care about the IRS attacker – without acknowledging or realizing that their jingoistic, tribalistic, and government-mimicking use of the term Terrorism (that’s what is done by those Muslims who don’t like us, but never by us) plays a major role in how these episodes are perceived.  

It’s quite similar to the way that other countries’ use of barbaric interrogation techniques is “torture,” while the same methods when used by Americans are — at worst — “enhanced interrogation techniques that some critics refer to as ‘torture’.”  Or how the short-term detention of American journalists by Bad foreign countries receives endless media attention, while America’s years-long, due-process-free imprisonment of Muslim journalists is studiously ignored.  Journalists bolster these narratives through their sycophantic, government-serving behavior, and then marvel at the outcomes they spawn as though they are nothing but detached, impotent observers.

All of this yet again underscores the prime function of establishment journalism in the U.S.:  to uncritically amplify the views of those who wield political power.  And it is also perfectly consistent with their first mandate:  the U.S. is incapable of acts of evil (and certainly incapable of “Terrorism”), which is reserved only for those foreigners who dislike and “protest” the United States.

UPDATE:  Newsweek editors replied in various ways to this; for a summary of those responses, with links to them, see the last two paragraphs here.

We found Ms. Dadkhah from work she did in Small Wars Journal, work that was part of her Ph.D. dissertation at Georgetown. Ms. Dadkhah only recently took a job at Booz Allen. We tend not to mention the names of companies — as it can run the risk of seeming self-promotional. I thought it was sufficient to have the author say, as she did high up in the piece, that “While I am employed by a defense consulting company, my research and opinions on air support are my own.” It’s worth underscoring that Ms. Dadkhah’s research regarding close air support came entirely from her doctoral research, and that these are issues she has written about over the the last couple years for Small Wars.

Shipley’s answer strongly suggests that Dadkhah did not submit her Op-Ed unsolicited, but rather, the NYT purposely sought out an Op-Ed to urge more civilian deaths in Afghanistan (“We found Ms. Dadkhah from work she did in Small Wars Journal”).  Why would they do that?  Maybe tomorrow the NYT Editors can actively solicit an Op-Ed urging the use of biological agents and chemical weapons on civilian populations in Yemen.  After that, they can search out someone to advocate medical experiments on detainees in Bagram.  Perhaps the day after, they can host a symposium on the tactical advantages of air bombing hospitals and orphanages as a means of keeping local populations in line.

Beyond that, Dadkhah’s employer — Booz Allen — has more overlapping ties with the Pentagon than virtually any other corporation on the planet.  The very idea that Dadkhah’s employment with a company that has its hooks in virtually every aspect of war policy need not have been disclosed, when she’s advocating greater use of air power, is absurd on its face.  And Shipley’s claim that the companies which employ Op-Ed writers are not typically mentioned by the NYT is insultingly false; just today, Newt Gingrich’s short Op-Ed contribution is accompanied by this tagline:  ”founder of the Center for Health Transformation, a health-care policy consulting firm.”  Yesterday, the NYT published an Op-Ed from the “former general counsel of the National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses,”  and throughout the month, the NYT had Op-Ed writers identified as “chairman of Convers Group in Moscow,” “a vice president at Microsoft from 1997 to 2004,” and “the director of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop.”  Suffice to say, concealing the employer of the Op-Ed writer is not customary policy.

To summarize:  the NYT Op-Ed Page decided, for whatever reasons, that it wanted to find someone to urge more civilian deaths in Afghanistan.  The person it found to do that is someone about whom virtually nothing was known, yet works for one of the largest, most sprawling and influential defense firms in the nation, a virtual arm of the Pentagon, but they decided there was no reason to have its readers know that.  

* * * * * 

Najibullah Zazi was charged in a civilian court with plotting to blow up subways in New York City, was given a lawyer, was Mirandized, was not sent to Guantanamo, was not subject to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and was not put before a military commission.  Today, he pled guilty, ensuring he will spend much of the rest of his life in prison, and is fully cooperating in an attempt to secure leniency in sentencing.

UPDATE: Speaking of The New York Times, I have a contribution today to its discussion of President Obama’s health care bill.  Mine is here, and the others can be read here.