Bad Predictions

Andrew Sullivan is holding a vote for his end of year awards. The Von Hoffman Award goes to the worst, most brazenly arrogant wrong predictions of the year. Here are the nominees. Sullivan also directs us to Foreign Policy's 10 Worst Predictions for 2008. Feel free to dig up a few of mine. I'm sure they are not all that hard to find.

Conservatism Eats Its Own

At The Washington Post conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, hammered for her supposed apostasy by not towing a (losing, by the way) party line, responds to her critics. It is always amazing to me how thin skinned many conservatives, who otherwise prattle on about strength and deride perceived weakness in others, can be such thin-skinned, hypersensitive ninnies. Towing the party line has never been a trait of conservatism. It has, however, been a trait of authoritarianism.

And no, there is no parallel, and thus no hypocrisy, with the case of Joe Lieberman, who repeatedly broke from his party and said noxious -- and false -- things about the party nominee for the presidency. He, after all, broke from the party by becoming an Independent after losing a primary campaign, but wants to maintain the perquisites of being in the party caucus. Parker, an opinion writer, wrote an opinion column based on long-held principles that can still be seen as conservative. The difference is so huge as to be obvious, which does not mean that many will not find that difference elusive.

Post-Election Analysis Roundup: Recrimination Edition

Much of the post-election inquisition comes from pundits wondering what will happen to the Republicans. The Washington Post asked a host of analysts where the GOP went wrong. Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics wonders if the election represents a political realignment. At The New York Times Stanley Greenberg asserts that the Reagan Democrats are no more. George Will wonders what Barry Goldwater would do. Defeat even brought out the rarely-seen sane version of Victor Davis Hanson.

When Punditry Goes Wrong

About ten days before the election Salon anointed "The punditocracy's Seven Biggest Blunders of the 2008 election," specifically of the last two months or so of the campaign. For me the problem is not when pundits are wrong -- that goes with the territory. It is the utter certainty in which they couch their assertions and the way in which that wrongness is never held to account. Indeed, bluster becomes so important in climbing the ranks of the pundit elite that being right or reasonable is far less important than making a name for being assertive. Bill Kristol (as just one example among many) has been so wrong on so much over the last few years, and yet seemingly every burst of idiocy pays off for him with a higher-profile gig.

Bob Herbert and the Subculture of the Punditocracy

In the latest Washington Monthly TA Frank has a compelling article on New York Times columnist Bob Herbert with the provocative title "Why is Bob Herbert Boring?" But rather than being a snide attack on Herbert or a snarky takedown, Frank really wants to know why Herbert (his column from today is here) isn't given a lot more credit for being among the most astute columnists working today. I started to pull excerpts, but the whole thing is so good that you really should read the whole thing, especially if the insular nature of modern punditry fascinates, confuses, or vexes you.

Tellingly enough, I saw references to this piece today on at least a couple of blogs -- Andrew Sullivan and TNR, as I recall -- and ignored it because I assumed that an article on why Bob Herbert is boring would be, well, boring. Instead Frank provides one of the most insightful pieces on the naval gazing journalistic subculture that I've read in a long time. (By the way, can you tell that I've been shopping a submission of an article to that same journalistic subculture with no luck so far? Am I really that transparent?)