Frank Rich. Not worth it.

I’ve had a few emails asking me why I have not bothered to write about Frank Rich’s cynical, silly-assed column.

I’m just SO not interested in Frank Rich. Smug. Supercillious. Often glaringly hypocritical. Full of himself. Why would I bother? I glanced at his column, saw this typical mean-spirited, hyper-snippety and yes, hypocritical (in that he so often gushes when a liberal actor has a political thought) assessment of actor Ron Silver as a “C-list publicity hound,” one who apparently offends Rich’s sense of order and class structure by daring to be an actor who has left the liberal plantation and supported the viscerally hated George W. Bush.

Or maybe Rich hates Silver because he is Jewish, who the hell knows? Who cares? Rich is a snob. He is over-daintified, insulated and insular, a fully confirmed and installed founding member of the Church of What’s Happening Now. Ugh. I don’t find him annoying or amusing or maddening. I just find him dull. The eyes glaze over and the head hits the desk.

Roger Simon had a few choice words for him, though: An example of this is Frank Rich’s cheap shot at Ron Silver as a “C-list publicity hound” (therefore presumably not entitled to public interest in his opinions) in this morning’s NYT. Silver, however, besides his distinguished acting career, has been a political activist literally for decades, has worked in intelligence and understands Chinese. [Does Rich?-ed. I think he can order moo goo gai pan.] So what gives here? Ron’s problem, I guess, is that he disagrees with Rich. This is “liberalism?” Times change, huh?

Yes, Roger, sadly, this is liberalism. It shouldn’t be. It didn’t used to be. But liberalism has devolved and it consists now of closed-minded, reactionary uppity trendoids who still think they’re the cool kids in the cafeteria, sniffing and looking down their noses at the rest. That’s what happens when you don’t grow up. You stagnate. Like Frank Rich.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Dan

    “[D]evolved,” indeed.

    The Left’s weapon of choice is to make an opponent toxic, {they tried with Reagan, succeeded with Bork and Gingrich, and hope to repeat their success with DeLay}.

    It is a public branding. Once marked, he no longer gets a hearing, and is no longer worth a response. He becomes a “non-person.”

    You specified Rich in your comment, but it goes way beyond him.

    And it isn’t exclusive to the Left, though it certainly is more prevailent on that side of the political divide.

    “[S]nobs,” who are “insulated and insular” and “over-daintified” can be found all over the web.

    They’re stuffed shirts, who need to lighten up.

    Rich chose to attack Silver, because it was easier than ANSWERING him.

    I recall an anecdote about Lenin. Lenin was urged to respond to some objection or criticism. Lenin replied that he wouldn’t bother answering the substance of the criticism, for that would entail a response, which would lead him to then have to respond once more. No, Lenin simply said that he would brand the guy “an enemy of the people,” and then everybody would understand, and he would never have to deal with him again.

    Silver just got branded the modern equivalent of “an enemy of the people.” And all the elites, now know exactly how to treat Ron Silver.

    I wonder what Silver feels about all this, getting smeared by the Left.

    Remember what former Mayor Koch said, “The Democrats don’t have the stomach for this fight.” And he would know, having spent his life in that party.

  • Florence Schmieg

    I don’t understand why columnists at the NY Times with no expertise in the subject feel their opinions deserve to be published. Isn’t Frank Rich just the Times’ theater critic? At least that was his gig until he somehow became a foreign policy expert (??) Paul Krugman, instead of sticking with Economics, also feels entitled to determine military strategy and diplomacy tactics for all of us. What arrogance.