Condé Nast Portfolio
Home > Views > Blogs > Mixed Media > Why Won't Bill Kristol Talk About Race?
EMAIL
PRINT
RSS
SHARE
TEXT SIZE:
SHARE
Send a copy to me

Separate multiple email addresses (max 20) with commas.

0/1500

Main
Prediction: 'Newsday' Bids Close to ...   Tom Freston, International Man of My...
May 5 2008 2:59PM EDT

Why Won't Bill Kristol Talk About Race?

Since he started writing for The New York Times op-ed page in January, William Kristol has offered many reasons to doubt the wisdom of hiring him. But for sheer intellectual dishonesty, nothing beats his column today on whether John McCain might pick Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate.

Why Jindal? To hear Kristol tell it, because McCain's advisors are "tempted by the idea of picking someone so young, with real accomplishments and a strong reformist streak."

Which is all no doubt true. But not once does Kristol mention another of Jindal's major selling points: He's Indian-American.

Race factors into political calculations. That may be an unfortunate truth, but it's an unavoidable one. The Republicans would love to have a veep pick who could balance out McCain's white-guy-ness and undercut the feel-good, post-racial appeal of Barack Obama's campaign. (If Condoleeza Rice weren't damaged goods, she'd probably already be on the ticket.) If Jindal's ancestors had been European rather than South Asian, would he be under consideration as a running mate? Quite possibly. But only a fool would doubt that McCain's strategists have discussed the advantages of picking someone with a non-Anglo background.

In omitting to make this very obvious and elementary point, Kristol is in effect challenging others to make it for him, and thereby give themselves away as cynics about race. He's saying, What's that you say? Bobby Jindal's not white? Why, I hadn't noticed. You see, we Republicans don't think of people in terms of their skin color. But now that you bring it up...

If Kristol were a political operative, this sort of posturing would be permissible, even expected. But he's not; he's a commentator, an analyst. He's paid to tell readers what he knows, to demystify the political process. If he's going to play dumb in print, what is the Times keeping him around for?

See more in

Loading...
Add Your Comment
View
 

Thank you for registering as a Portfolio.com Insider. Your comment has been added.

Create Your Public Profile


Archive

Previous
Jul
2009
Next


Also in Portfolio.com
Most Read
Most Emailed
Recently Commented

Newsletter Sign-Up
Inside Portfolio.com
In This Issue
Subscribe
Newsletter Sign-Up
Inside Portfolio.com
In This Issue
Subscribe