The Dean and me

David Broder has been referred to since time immemorial as the "dean" of the American punditocracy. Which I've always assumed meant that he was highly respected and regarded as the most distinguished practicioner of his craft. Why such a designation ever became attached to him is a greater mystery than the location of the Holy Grail.

Blogostan was full of the Dean yesterday. You blogoholics know what I'm talking about. For those who don't, the Daily Howler explained very well on Thursday in the process of verbally eviscerating this frivolous man. I had just posted on Wednesday about how the Howler seemed to be on a creative roll. He proved it on Thursday.

The Dean's latest upchuck is a vivid reminder that our so-called "press corps" is major-league, chronically, world-class dysfunctional. You thought after Judy Miller and her WMDs and the Iraq War fiasco and Hurricane Katrina that things would turn around? No such luck. There's a better chance of a duck dying from swallowing a miniature space alien's head.

Last night, I recalled my first and only live encounter with the Dean. It was years ago, when I was still in college. The Dean was speaking at Tougaloo College just outside of Jackson, Mississippi. I went to hear him because, hey, he was already the Dean of the Big Pundits.

His topic was the implications and lessons of Watergate, or something similar. The only thing I remember about the talk, besides the fact that it was a little dull, was the question period. I had just read an article that made an argument about the Watergate scandal that I found intriguing. And here was my chance to get the insight of the Dean of All Pundits on it. I certainly didn't want such a great journalist and commentator to think I would bother with some routine question.


So I explained to him briefly that I had just read an article saying that the illegal measures which Nixon had taken against the Democrats in 1972 - breaking and entering, forgery, etc. - were exactly the same kinds of things that had been done to leftwing dissenters during the McCarthy period, and also used against antiwar protesters in the 1960s. But it was only when the same means were used against one of the major parties that political leaders and the press recognized what an outrage they were. And I wondered what the Dean thought about that idea.

The Dean said, "I don't understand the question."

So I repeated it, trying to simplify it a bit, thinking maybe I had given a garbled explanation of the argument.

And the Dean said, "I still don't understand".

At this point, another member of the audience rephrased what I had said and did so in a way that indicated that he also thought it was an idea worth pursuing.

And the Dean said, "I see". And moved on to the next question.

I found this pretty disturbing. I mean, I was hoping to hear what the Dean, with all his knowledge and experience in the ways of Washington politics, thought about my clever idea. Okay, getting a little jolt of humility probably didn't hurt me any. But I was embarassed to think I did such a poor job of framing my question that the Dean of the Big Pundits didn't even understand what I was saying.

I was pretty sure it wasn't because of my Southern accent. And the other guy in the audience understood what I was saying perfectly well. So I couldn't have been totally off base.

I've thought about that incident from time to time over the years. I had decided that the Dean must have just not wanted to answer the question for some reason. Maybe he thought it would make him sound like a blithering civil liberatarian, or a Commie symp, or something. Still, it was kind of odd that the great columnist didn't come up with even a semi-responsive answer about, sure, civil liberties are important, etc.

This incident popped into my mind again last night when I was thinking about the Dean's latest foray into idiocy. And it dawned on me for the first time what the most likely explanation for his (non-)response was.

The Dean of All Pundits probably really didn't know what I was talking about.

I mean, I was asking a question having to do with Constitutional rights, freedom of speech and association, the integrity of the democratic process. And the pretentious, supercilious man probably had no clue what I was referring to.

I guess I should have asked him about Dick Nixon's sex life.

| +Save/Share | |