Every now and again, one runs across an editorial that just takes one's breath away. Take the case of the article by Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama now at National Review Online.
Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama, "Wright Unbound"
Thomas Sowell argues to begin with that Obama had no excuse, none, for not knowing his pastor's statements. After 20 years, it should have been clear. I'll just quote the next bit for full effect:
There was no way that he didn’t know about Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American and racist diatribes from the pulpit.
Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.
Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now "move on," even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory.
Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.
Of course, I had to respond, so here's what I wrote to letters@nationalreview.com:
To the Editors:
I'll have to say that I used to respect Thomas Sowell's articles for bringing an interesting perspective on any subject he chose to address.
OK, OK, I had to butter 'em up a bit before getting to my point...
After reading his recent opinion on Barack Obama and the brouhaha surrounding his church, I was very much disappointed. He has the gall to compare Barack Obama's speech on race to Soviet era show trials and the purges of the 1930's. Say what? Obama is the same as mass murderers? Did I read that right? William F. Buckley is in the grave for a few short days and the National Review is reduced to this?
At the end of the piece, Sowell states of Obama, "But president of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No." Right, we are to believe that Sowell would vote for a Democrat if he or she were the "right" Democrat? That's rich.
Thomas Sowell has clearly lost his marbles, and the National Review would do well to put him to pasture and maintain the high standards of its founder.
[rnaworld]
I'm an Obama supporter, but I can certainly appreciate Hillary Clinton's paranoia in the past about the "vast right-wing conspiracy." They will stoop to anything, intellectual suicide, moral terpitude, demagoguery, to get their way. I'm glad to take 'em on with the help of Daily Kos!