Yes, ash realizes she writes ad infinitum about the same several journalists, politicians, issues. The problem is they’re all repeat offenders, causing her to repeatedly admonish them. In this letter, she batters her favorite uncompassionate conservative on his favorite topic. The references should help you date it. In the intervening years, he’s only become more recklessly misleading, of course.
Once again, Mr. Will boggles the reader’s mind. But much as he tries, his complicated rhetoric fails to disguise or obscure the fallacy of his argument.
In his latest column regarding the issue of campaign finance reform, he asserts - presumably with a straight face - that contributions should be unlimited because they’re made before an election, when each citizen has exactly one, equal vote. Of course this ignores what happens after an election, when lawmakers, fully mindful of just who helped them get elected, vote on legislation.
He suggests that wealthy contributors, as opposed to us poor, self-absorbed slobs, are motivated by a "desirable social outcome ." Let me get that straight. Corporations not only have determined what’s good for society at large but AREN’T about preserving and protecting their fortunes, often at the expense of the less well-off?
He speaks of the "political market." If not an oxymoron, it’s a flawed comparison. His analogy between politics and commerce is just another flimsy attempt to justify the buying of politicians on the part of influential constituents.
And he implies that Senators Bradley and McCain are out of the race because people don’t care about finance reform, that there is a cause and effect relationship between collective indifference to this one issue and their defeat. It had nothing to do with systematic outmaneuvering by powerful establishment players of either party. Furthermore, his sports reference is irrelevant at best, gratuitous at worst.
Mr. Will’s elitist rubbish would be laughable if it weren’t so insidious. What I would like to know is, if Americans are so disinterested in campaign finance reform, why has he devoted so many words to defending the status quo?