Letters to the Editor
-
John B.
In addition, it's striking how often Broder concentrates on the superficial rather than the substantive. He goes right for the capillaries every time.
Broder thinks that actually having an opinion is the sign of the inferior masses, so almost everyone of his statements is framed as an observation about how things supposedly appear to "others" - to the undifferntiated, always unnamed swarms.
But as I noted in my post about him the other day, this is just a cowardly way of expressing his own opinions while pretending not to. He attributes his own view to how things "seem" in some neutral, objective sense. Or he frames the outcome he wants as "a bipartisan" or "centrist" compromise.
That is why so many of his columns are so superficial. He is obssessed with writing about how things appear politically because he is afraid of opining on the substance of any issue. That is why there are so many references to Bush as appearing strong, resolute, etc. with regard to Iraq without every examining whether the invasion is justified. He pretends that he is writing about all the great ways Bush is "perceived," but in doing so, makese clear that he embraced and then re-inforces those perceptions.
I read through all of Tom Freidman's columns once and I'm honestly not sure whether that was more or less unpleasant than reading through David Broder's. It's a close call.