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?