Brian Birdnow

Last week, Leonard Pitts, the Pulitzer Prize-winning star columnist and op-ed writer at the venerable Miami Herald, penned a column that could be judged only as harsh and vitriolic, even by his own standards. Those who read Mr. Pitts's work know that he works himself into a fine lather over certain topics, and he can easily get quite agitated. The Pulitzer Prize Committee cited his "vibrant columns that spoke, with both passion and compassion, to ordinary people on often divisive issues."

Pitts receives his Pulitzer Prize from Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, in 2004

He has outdone himself this time, with a piece entitled "No Pass for 'Thoughtful' Conservatives.'" The subheading reads, "The need to use the modifier is a concession that something has gone wrong with conservatism." He then launches into an anti-Trump rant, which we could all see coming, but also lambasts a significant percentage of the entire American population with his heated rebuke.

Let us set the table here so we can fully understand the factors in play. Mr. Pitts has decided that there is no such thing as a "thoughtful" conservative. By that he does not mean that you can't find a conservative or two who help elderly women across the street, or conservatives who send out Christmas cards or practice the corporal works of mercy. He means that there is no longer a conservative intellectual movement, or a thinking conservative political movement in Washington. According to Mr. Pitts, Trumpism has squeezed all of the gray matter out of the conservative mind and has planted a Know-Nothing flag in its place.

The column predictably devolves into an anti-Trump rant. Pitts claims, without exactly uttering the name "Trump," that conservatism is now about "the feeding of ego and the gratification of self." Pardon me, but that line of attack fits Hillary Clinton like a glove. He also charges that conservatives are "willing to see America embrace its enemies." It is heartening, at least, to see the liberals admit that Russia is not a friend. When Ronald Reagan insisted such, he was labeled a warmonger, and more recently, when Mitt Romney suggested the same, he was called delusional and a captive of the 1980s. While we're talking about cozying up to American enemies, should we not mention a recent president who lavished money, attention, and weapons technology on Iran and Cuba?

These are breathtaking slanders, but Mr. Pitts is just getting warmed up. He continues that conservatives are "willing to look the other way as justice is being obstructed." Where was Leonard Pitts when President Obama's Justice Department illegally ran guns into Mexico and instructed the IRS to harass conservative non-profit foundations?

Pitts goes on to say that conservatives are "willing to shut down programs funding the arts, housing, and food for the poor." We have heard the same thing every time an administration proposes slowing the growth of spending in these programs. We heard it in the 1980s, during the GOP resurgence of 1994-96, and during the sequestration battles of 2011-14. Where are we now? These programs are still alive and spending more than ever before. All signs point to a breakdown coming, but Mr. Pitts and the liberals don't care. They'd rather toss rhetorical Molotov cocktails at the conservatives, because that's more fun.

By this juncture, one would think Leonard Pitts has vented his spleen, but he still isn't finished. He states that conservatives "are willing to let rivers be contaminated, air befouled, and sea levels rise." He is referring, obviously, to President Trump pulling out of the Paris climate accord. It might interest Pitts, and liberals in general, that our Constitution very clearly vests the treaty power in the U.S. Senate, and their consent is necessary to complete a binding agreement. The Senate was given no part in the Paris Accord, or in the Obama administration's capitulation to Iran in the nuclear deal. Therefore, neither of these "treaties" is binding, and conservatives are right to celebrate the return of the nation to a constitutional order.

Pitts finishes with a flourish when he states, "So let us hear no more about thoughtful conservatives saving us from the excesses of their peers." He thus writes out of public discourse the 36% of Americans who call themselves conservatives. Would Mr. Pitts and other liberals object if our side characterized every leftist as belonging to one of three groups – namely, the chardonnay-sipping elitists populating Georgetown, the Hamptons, and Northern California, or the social democrats who see every problem as an excuse to raise taxes, grow government, and impose affirmative action quotas, or finally the lunatic fringe destroyers known now as the "resistance," just as they were known five years ago as the "occupiers"?

Of course, they would cry foul over such a characterization of their own movement. There are some sane liberals out there, and, while they may be hard to find, rest assured that they do exist. We do the country no favors when we resort to questioning the motives and the intent of those who respectfully disagree with us. Still, two sides can play at Mr. Pitts's game.

What is to be done? Leonard Pitts has a position, a profession, and a career founded largely on angry columns featuring anti-Americanism, anti-law enforcement, and other regrettable sentiments. It is unlikely that he will respond favorably to an invitation to join our side. We must maintain our good humor in the face of repeated provocations, and insist that with 36% of our nation's 325 million people on our side, he could find a few "thoughtful" conservatives out there, if he looked hard enough!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 948 words, total size 6 kb.