The Tinea Pedis of the WaPo Op Ed Page
There's something particularly grating about Richard Cohen. It's not just the now infamous "fool or a Frenchman" line--there are many commentators and citizens who fell for the bait and switch--myself included. His columns contain a rare blend of sanctimony, sycophancy, and utter lack of self-awareness that drive me, as a reader, around the bend. I'll read his piece in the morning (we still get the paper every day), and what will start as a mild itch will develop into a burning sensation that won't go away until I figure out exactly what was so wrong with the piece. He's the tinea pedis of the WaPo editorial page.
Today's piece is a prime example. In it, he tells the president to "read newspapers" to avoid the bubble. On the one hand, this makes sense--the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania genuinely believes that the papers (other than the WSJ editorial page) are filled with liberal bias. (Only that "Curveball guy will give him the real skinny). Surely, then, it would be better for the country if the president took the time (even 20 minutes each day) to skim the headlines or the op-ed pages. This sounds like an eminently sensible thing for one of the paper's columnists--especially a "liberal"--to say.
But that's not it. In the last six years, with the exception of the McClatchy newspapers, the press told the president exactly what they wanted to hear. The newspapers--in particular Cohen's employer--not only uncritically repeated misleading, anonymously sourced statements of the administration in the march to war, and both silenced and marginalized dissenting voices that turned out to be, you know, right. Those on the opinion pages (and Cohen was a prime example) turned out to be dead and unapologetically wrong.* So now, the solution to all these problems, according to Cohen, is for the president-elect to read the newspapers--who depend on those in power for "access."
To create that kind of a circularity after the last six years, one has to truly be walking around in a very special kind of oblivion. It's not Obama's bubble we should be worried about: it's that surrounding this kind of vapid and harmful public intellectual. Obama has a Secret Service detail that keeps him from finding out what people really think or what the practical effect of certain policies might be. I'm having trouble coming up with a similar excuse for Mr. Cohen. (But hey, I'm sure his bosses loved the piece).
UPDATE: And don't forget the crack about Michelle reading the "soft news." (The Harvard education was just for show). (Sadly, I'm not sure if it was a joke.).
---
*Cohen will no doubt say that he has apologized for that remark. I have read those apologies and they only occurred because of (1) a blizzard of outraged comments; and (2) shock and surprise at the vehemency of those who called him on his nonsense. Even then, there is a certain flavor of disdain for the "angry bloggers."
