This morning, I spent a solid twenty minutes re-acquainting myself with the media critique (I’m using the term a bit loosely) of Erik Wemple at the Washington Post. Mr. Wemple had a piece — actually, two pieces — up about Jodi Kantor’s new book, The Obamas, and he seems very critical of her approach. (Ms. Kantor did not score an interview with either the president or the first lady for the book, though she has interviewed them many times before).
I also got hooked into reading about last night’s GOP debate, and I found myself particularly interested in the same exchange that’s clearly interesting just about everyone who’s gone “Huh, Jon Huntsman: he might not run the country into the ground.” An explanation:
Huntsman: “I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country first … He criticized me while he was out raising money for serving my country in China. Yes, under a Democrat. Like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy. They’re not asking what political affiliation the president is. I want to be very clear with the people here in New Hampshire and this country: I will always put my country first.”
Here was Romney’s response: “I think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles and doing everything in our power to promote an agenda that does not include President Obama’s agenda.”
Huntsman’s invocation of his two sons serving in the military is an essential reminder of a bedrock American tradition: our servicemen and women do not make their service contingent on the political persuasion of the president. That’s because they are patriots first, not partisans. Huntsman deserved the applause he received for that line.
Romney’s response seems to me at least as remarkable: “I think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles …” That is the opposite of John McCain’s 2008 campaign slogan, “Country First.” Romney’s answer is “Party First,” “Ideology First.”
What’s personally remarkable to me about any of this is that I haven’t felt at all like writing about politics in, well, months. It’s not that I haven’t followed things (though, in all honesty, I haven’t followed things with the kind of attention that I used to); it’s that I’ve felt sort of removed, screened from reaction by a mix of dismay and derision. That’s very lazy, of course; good blogging, like writing as a profession, is something you do even when you don’t feel like writing.
I have no idea if this means anything, like a return to political blogging for 2012. I’ve been very lazy. I don’t know if I’m quite ready not to be so lazy yet. But I’m glad to be interested again.