Certified Authentic Rant

One month and two days ago, a sleep-deprived AP student brought forth on the library computer a new POW, conceived in Misery, and dedicated to the proposition that all Krauthammer posts fail equally.

* * *

In my studies of his material, Charles Krauthammer’s writing exhibits irksome qualities that consistently detract from his work, and in work of his I’ve analyzed, I’ve found his argument to effectual. Two flaws that I believe carry from column to column: his awkward language and, most importantly, his terrible tendency to stretch or misrepresent the facts most essential to his argument. It amazes me how some of his columns start out conceding and rational, only to degrade into lies, fearing-mongering, and worse. His most recent column is no exception.

Consider the language in “From Market Economy to Political Economy.” The stamp of Krauthammer is the strain between language that may be too informal and language that is too verbose. The essence of the first paragraph is that the country’s economy now revolves around politics instead of the markets. The word “you” occurs six times. Krauthammer’s basic structure is:

You did this.
You did that.
Now, you do this.
Now, you do that.

The error is not necessarily in the informality of the language. Although this is a column in the prestigious Washington Post, if Krauthammer feels that he can better communicate with his audience by using informal language, then he is welcome to do so. The only stipulation is to be consistent. In the second paragraph, Krauthammer prefixes “meta” to economics to form “meta-economics,” a new word that appears to mean, paraphrasing Oxford University Press, “the higher or fundamental kind of economics.” This is a classic Krauthammer-ism in both its (out-of-place) highly technical nature and its awkward purpose in the paragraph. While the word appears to function reasonably well in its placement, why invent a new word when conventional language or a simple rewording might make the statement clearer and more accessible? Why make an informal appeal, only to lead into very formal language? I suspect, based on his prior subversive manipulations of language, perhaps he’s attempting to get an edge from both formal and informal language simultaneously. In his current approach, he can theoretically gain directness when speaking to audience through his informal language, while maintaining the sophistication for purposes of awing his audience, or, more likely, to deliberately confuse and mislead (as he has previously done with the dangerous word, “Orwellian”). Pure genius, until, when one actually reads the column, one finds the transition between informal and formal unsavory and too abrupt in its execution.

This piece is not exempt from the Krauthammurian rule of dubious premises and non-sequiturs. In a repeat of the style from his last column, he follows the pattern of concessions (or, at least, rational reasoning) followed by (irrational) attacks. He effectively illustrates the how the markets follow the political situation by comparing the extreme market activity from November 19 to November 24. It seems that the markets acted in response to the political events—namely, bailouts and an assurance of continuity of the present policies. It may be reasonable to say that the government has taken an uncomfortably large step into the free market through the bailouts, weakening the all-important spirit of profit which, as unfortunate as it may be, is the sole motivation of the businesses that make this country prosperous. That, of course, in the Krauthammurian tradition, is not mentioned; in this instance, Krauthammer chooses the weak idea and the paranoid idea to be the ineffectual thrust of his attack. What can come out of massive government bailouts? Lobbying. The “economic distortion.” Really, Krauthammer, is that the best you can do? Lobbying is a nuisance. Action stemming from the lobbyists could be a problem, but the resultant “economic distortion,” the phrase he used without elaboration, does not give readers any sense or substantiation of why or how this distortion would occur.

The other reason, the paranoid reason, is such because it makes the Krauthammurian assumptions that a) Democrats will seize upon any power they have, and b) Democratic ambitions are earmarked for failure and consequent disaster. Yes, Krauthammer is correct in that our legislators and government officials, as the keepers of The Bailout, do have incredible power and leverage stemming from their position—but can they use it? Should they use it? Krauthammer complains that the officials chastise the banks for hoarding money, even though it is a fiscally conservative policy on part of the banks. He misses the point. People and businesses need credit, and whatever can be done to restore credit (thus preventing a downward economic cycle) should be done. Banks need to be around for this purpose—banks exist solely for this purpose. To preserve the banks for any purpose other than credit is a waste of the taxpayers’ dollars, and if banks hold onto money only for the purpose of self-preservation, then the taxpayers’ money is spent in vain. But even if officials want banks to loan to the public, there is little they can do about it, at least with the money already distributed. Krauthammer also believes, in a carryover from two weeks ago, that Democrats are out to remake Detroit into a green eco-monster that cannot be competitive. First of all, the whole notion of the auto czar (an official with powers to reorganize the automakers) may very well be dead. The automaker, particularly GM, are slashing and burning their operations to stay alive, and that, in conjunction with the production of green cars of solid manufacture, may in fact turn Detroit around. Krauthammer argues that those forthcoming electric cars are unfeasible; he quotes the estimated MSRP’s to prove his point. However, he is not taking into consideration how much they could save consumers when oil prices inevitably shoot up again in better times. He is not taking into consideration how much an electric car could do for our energy independence, and the national security concerns tied to it. Krauthammer is suspicious without justification, and so what he has said against the bailout, in the arguments that he used, amounts to little more than fear-mongering against the Democrats.

I’m sick and tired of reading Krauthammer. I disagree with him, but I cannot respectfully disagree with him. Time after time, again and again, he fails to address the issues, preferring to make up his own. Time after time, again and again, he deceives and exaggerates on the real issues by his language alone; that and his attempts to sound “folksy” are so weak and ineffectual it’s condescending to the intelligence of his readers. Skip The Post, get The Times. That’s my advice.