William Kristol: Triumph of the Shill

February 9th, 2008 by Andy in Conservative / Liberal - What Do They Mean

This is one of the absolute best, most pointed and funny descriptions I’ve read about one of America’s premier bloviators on war and empire, neo-con(artist) William Kristol, editor of The National Review [Correction - The Weekly Standard], Faux News talking head, and now contributor to the seemingly ever-declining New York Times.

Here are just a few of the money shot lines from this literary deconstruction by Ellis Weiner, referencing Kristol’s latest NYT piece on how America is reaping the rewards of the triumph of Conservatism…

Shown here in its native environment, [is] the deep right-wing concern with “responsibility” as, inevitably, it applies only to others. A chicken hawk may be a chicken but, God damn it, he’s also a hawk. He knows your responsibility when he sees it.


“It’s not easy to defend excellence in an egalitarian age.”

Tell me about it — especially when so many of those doing the defending — your Kristols, your Podhoretzes, your Goldbergs and, yes, your Bellows — are legacy hires and/or winners of the nepotism lottery.


When billionaires get tax breaks, they receive “incentives.” When working class families get food stamps, they’re the perpetrators (and the victims, really) of “the welfare state.” When government serves corporations, it’s “a partnership.” When government serves individuals, it’s “socialism.” When William Kristol rides his father’s contacts and reputation to a sinecure insulated from any commercial or marketplace consequences — and suffers not an ounce of setback for having been wrong about everything — he’s showing “self-reliance.” When you ask that the FTC at least protect your children from poison in Chinese toys, you’re encouraging “the nanny state.” Clear?

Read The Full Post Here

2 Responses to ' William Kristol: Triumph of the Shill '

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to ' William Kristol: Triumph of the Shill '.

  1. Jethro said,

    on February 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    There’s reasons there were no comments on this. Firstly your facts aren’t straight (Kristol is the editor of The Weekly Standard). Secondly, considering the accusation of “chickenhawk”, one of the most tired smears of our time as a “money shot” leaves you sounding oh so stale.

  2. Andy said,

    on February 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    “Jethro” is correct here in pointing out the error having ascribed editorship of the National Review to William Kristol, who is indeed the editor of The Weekly Standard, an error for which I apologize. Kristol is however a frequent contributor to the National Review, which is edited by Rich Lowry, who is himself another pea in the neo-con pod, making the distinction between himself and Kristol somewhat akin to discerning between Tweedledee or Tweedledum.

    As for the ‘tired smear’ of the application of the label of chickenhawk, it is not nearly so tiring as living (or dying, as the individual case may be) with the policies of these tiring individuals who continue to drive their pet theories and ideologies into national policy, no matter how tiringly ruinous or unpopular they may be. It is tiring to continue to see how these fortunate sons of privilege continue to be in respect to living without any form of civic or professional accountability for their actions as the intellectual cheerleaders they were and are in regards to the murderous debacle in Iraq. I agree with “Jethro” that it has become tiring to hear of ‘chickenhawks’. I look forward to the day when the individuals for which this ‘tired term’ continues to unfortunately apply are no longer in the public arena so that our civic attention can be directed towards more productive endeavors.

Leave a reply

Search Articles

USTV Recommended Read: