In breathlessly reporting that President Obama once dressed in colonial garb, the site does nothing to advance the public interest or conservative governance.
Conservatives including Rep. Paul Ryan, Gov. Mitch Daniels, and various Tea Party leaders have all argued in recent months that their ideological movement would do well to focus on fiscal matters -- simplifying the tax code, reforming entitlements, and shrinking the structural deficit, for example. A sharp new e-book by conservative journalist Phil Klein argues that sort of focus is necessary if the right is to succeed in pressuring Mitt Romney to govern as a conservative. In a review of his essay Wednesday, I stated that the existing conservative media is an obstacle to policy driven conservatism.
Today, an example of what I mean.
Upon Andrew Breitbart's unfortunate, untimely death, the websites that he'd spent the last several years building, now published collectively at Breitbart.com, had built a sizable conservative audience. Observers wondered what would become of them without their namesake.
The answer came with the posthumous publication of Breitbart's last column, with an editor's note appended to the top. "Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party," it stated. "From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president -- and his rivals."
Thus was born an ongoing series, "The Vetting."
For Breitbart.com, the decision to commit substantial editorial resources to the president's past had an immediate opportunity cost: there'd be fewer pieces on his first term in office and less opportunity to present arguments about why conservative policies would better serve the country. The decision seemed strange to me. Conservative media was around during the 2008 election. Was there really relevant information that they'd failed to uncover at the time? And while President Obama surprised civil libertarians with his governing choices, weren't the things conservatives hated about him -- the health-care bill, the Keynesian stimulus, the "green jobs" program -- basically exactly what you'd expect from the campaign he ran, or from any liberal Democrat?
Now we need not speculate about Breitbart.com's coverage decision. With the opportunity cost in mind, we can look at the fruits of "The Vetting" so far. I submit that this line of coverage has been an utter waste of time, whether measured for its impact on GOP electoral chances or advancing conservative ideas or holding politicians accountable via the media.
I encourage you to suspend your own judgment until I've run through the particulars.
Installment No. 1, the posthumously published Andrew Breitbart piece, unearths a poster for a 1998 play about radical community organizer Saul Alinsky. At the bottom in small print, State Sen. Barack Obama is listed as one member of a panel scheduled to speak about the play after its conclusion. If you're familiar with Breitbart.com, the logical leap that's coming won't surprise you. The piece is written as if being on a panel to discuss a play that is sympathetic to a political figure means that the panelist's true beliefs are as radical as the figure himself. This guilt-by-association is unpersuasive on the merits. Its also a strange way to go about analyzing the ideology of a former state senator, U.S. senator, and sitting U.S. president. There is excellent evidence of the sort of thing Obama would do if elected to represent Americans -- what he has done in Illinois, the Senate, and the White House literally is how he'd govern.
On March 14, Ben Shapiro dug up a question from a law-school exam that Obama gave while a professor. He argues that the exam proves several things: that he doesn't share the conservative perspective on the relationship between marriage and childbearing; that he thinks invoking tradition is problematic if it's being used to deny what he regards as basic rights; and that the decisions judges make are shaped by their personal experience. Can anyone be surprised by any of this? And once again, there is a much easier way to figure out how President Obama's views on constitutional law might shape his presidency. I am certain that he prefers judges like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, and that his Justice Department would advance exactly the sorts of con-law arguments that it has in fact advanced over the last three years.
What other than willfully hiding Obama's patriotic garb could explain the media's failure to republish a photograph appearing in a venue as prominent as the Hyde Park Herald circa 1997?
What's the point of extrapolating from an old exam?
Elsewhere in "The Vetting," we learn that as a law student Barack Obama introduced and briefly embraced a professor at a campus rally. We're meant to conclude that he therefore shares the controversial opinions of that professor. "This is a man so extreme that, as we've reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it," the Breitbart.com piece states. Read my detailed explanation for why it is wrongheaded here and here.
Charles C. Johnson broke the news that as a community organizer, President Obama worked with leftist Catholics to undermine conservative Catholics. This might've prepared us for Obama's position on the Catholic Church and birth control ... except his position itself was already clear! That brings us to the most pointless posts in "The Vetting" of all: that Obama's literary agent once mistakenly wrote that he was born in Kenya; that Obama did in fact graduate from Columbia, debunking something that no one save fringe anti-Obama conspiracy theorists ever believed; an "exclusive" report that Obama may have had lower SAT scores than George W. Bush (he's never released his SAT scores, and it's hard to see why they'd matter in any case); and my personal favorite piece, "Barack Obama, The First Tea Partier," which notes that some on the left have poked fun at Tea Partiers for their patriotic dress, but the media has totally ignored the fact that Obama once dressed up in colonial garb and a tricorn hat for a patriotic parade.
This is the best part of the piece:
The media's failure is all the more glaring, given that the forgotten photograph has been in plain view for fifteen years. It appeared on the front page of Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on July 9th, 1997, and was taken by legendary photographer Nancy Campbell Hays.
Yes, what other than willfully hiding Obama's patriotic garb could explain the media's failure to republish a photograph appearing in a venue as prominent as the Hyde Park Herald circa 1997?
Perhaps "The Vetting" drives traffic to Breitbart.com. When it comes to giving insight into Obama's actions, or the course his second term would be likely to take, or advancing conservative insights, it's utterly pointless -- it misleads more often than it clarifies, and whereas actually digging into Obama's behavior during his first term, or his donors, or the gulf between his promises and actions might produce newsworthy scoops, Breitbart.com is spending its time digging up old play posters with Obama's name on them and proving he once dressed patriotically.
They are hardly the only conservative media organizations squandering their resources. How many hours of conservative attention did various birthers waste? Having moved on from Birtherism, WorldNetDaily is now trying to prove that love letters attributed to a young Obama were actually ghostwritten for him. Glenn Beck has spun too many conspiracy theories about the president to count. I've lost track of how many National Review writers have truncated an Obama quote on America exceptionalism to assert that he took a position opposite of what he actually said. One of their staffers, Andy McCarthy, wrote a book asserting that Obama leads the left in its alliance with our Islamist enemy in a grand jihad against America. And that's just the beginning.
On Twitter yesterday, conservative journalist John Tabin took issue with my argument that these pathologies, common to many (though not all) conservative media outlets, are one obstacle to a conservatism that focuses on and achieves the passage of reform legislation on taxes, spending, and entitlements. So I'll close by posing a question to him. Breitbart.com is read largely by movement conservatives. Does it help or hurt the conservative cause when they focus on the issues raised in "The Vetting" series?