Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Prince Of Darkness
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Many, if not most, college commencement addresses are essentially special interest advertising.

Politicians, political activists, judges and bureaucrats tell the graduating students how it is nobler to go into "public service" -- that is, to become a politician, political activist, judge or bureaucrat, instead of going into the private sector and producing goods and services that people want enough to spend their own money for them.

Would anyone invite someone from McDonald's to be a commencement speaker and tell the students how it is nobler to eat hamburgers or to sell hamburgers?

Parents who want to counteract politically correct commencement speeches -- often after four years of politically correct indoctrination on campus -- might include among the things they give their graduate a new book titled "The Prince of Darkness" by columnist Robert Novak.

This book gives Novak's eyewitness accounts of the numerous Washington politicians and bureaucrats he has dealt with as a journalist for more than half a century.

There is no way you can come away from this book thinking that there is something nobler about "public service," as it actually exists, rather than the pretty picture painted by those who want to puff themselves up as members of a high-toned profession.

Even those of us who never had any grand illusions about politicians can come away from this book shedding any remaining illusions we might have had about some of our political heroes in both parties.

Novak covers not only what they said and did in public but also what they said and did in private -- and why. He turns over a lot of rocks and shows what has been crawling underneath.

Novak became a Washington journalist back in the days of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. But neither they nor the political leaders of today escape his unsentimental scrutiny.

Most of these big political figures turn out to be very petty, self-centered, spiteful, shallow, deceitful and incompetent. Novak spells it out in eyewitness detail from behind the scenes.

Nor does he let the media off the hook, including himself. Novak notes how often his own judgments and predictions proved to be wide of the mark, and how his drinking and other shortcomings led to bad results for himself and those around him.

This is history as it happened, without spin or an agenda.

The term "prince of darkness" was one that some applied to Novak himself because of his unsentimental view of politics and his detached and reserved personality.

Novak must have seemed especially Satanic to those politicians whose public image he punctured and whose misdeeds he exposed in his writings -- all based on inside information that he specialized in getting.

In a city full of smiling and glad-handing phonies, Robert Novak tended to keep his distance emotionally from those he reported on, even while he dealt with them face to face, receiving their news leaks and off-the-record comments on what was going on in Washington.

Novak was never that close personally, even with Rowland Evans, who co-authored the Evans and Novak syndicated column that put them both on the map as top-tier journalists.

There are individuals, here and there, in both politics and in the media whose good qualities are recognized in "The Prince of Darkness."

Indeed, many of those who did foolish or terrible things also had some good qualities, which this book points out. Moreover Novak has a few heroes of his own, both in politics and journalism.

While Novak notes in passing some of his own views on particular policy issues, and how those views changed over the years, this is not a book advocating any particular ideology.

While older people with much experience in life may be better able to appreciate this outstanding book, it should be especially valuable to the young in presenting a realistic and three-dimensional picture of the world.

They can get a lot of enlightenment from a prince of darkness.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
I hear
good things about this book also. I probably won't read it due to this review. My opinion of most politicians is so low that reading this book may plunge me into an irrecoverable depression.

Historically, it was the British system
of an enlightened and benign bureaucracy that took root in most former colonies, including the US.

In reality, it has led to a unaccountable and unapproachable layer of upper class elites that pandered to the voters and took advantage of their status.

Observe that the term 'public servant' is used by hypocritical officials, who actually see themselves as masters.

The problem is that socialistic principles allow an unprecedented amount of discretionary authority to exist at the whim of a bureaucrat. It is not surprising that Novak's book describes the corruption that results.

No doubt, partisans (of both stripes) will look for bad behavior on the part of their opponents, and be more forgiving of the transgressions of 'their' guys.

I for one, would like to read the book - but I imagine that it wouldn't be very uplifting to know that our system is riddled with the kind of corruption that exists in all left-leaning British spin-offs.

If we were smart, we would opt for less government, to limit the power that these guys have on our lives.

BTW, there is a post titled "Sowell vs. Krugman - the debate of the century " at:
http://voice.townhall.com/

Here are the beginning paragraphs:

There hasn't been anything like this since 1925, when Jennings and Darrow clashed in Dayton, TN - in the trial that came to be called the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Now, coming soon to a television screen near you - brought to you by the Fox(N) and CSPAN(Z) faux networks - a debate that will provide definitive answers to a divided nation on crucial economic questions of the century such as "What is the correct role of Government in American Economics".

A clash of Titans - panel leader Krugman (for the Left) and panel leader Sowell (for the Right).
--------------------end excerpt------------------

Find the Book
This is the first I've heard about this book, but I will be on the lookout for it. First, because I have found that Mr. Sowell is too often right on the money, and second, because I need to know the truth about some of the political types that rule over us (as opposed to governing with our permission).

"Sowell vs. Krugman -
- the debate of the century"

There hasn't been anything like this since 1925, when Jennings and Darrow clashed in Dayton, TN - in the trial that came to be called the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Now, coming soon to a television screen near you - brought to you by the Fox(N) and CSPAN(Z) faux networks - a debate that will provide definitive answers to a divided nation on crucial economic questions of the century such as "What is the correct role of Government in American Economics".

A clash of Titans - panel leader Krugman (for the Left) and panel leader Sowell (for the Right).
-------------------end of excerpt----------------
Read the rest at: http://voice.townhall.com/

voice of reason...
why are you teasing us with this debate announcement?

Does anyone watch C-Span anymore?
A quick perusal of the C-Span site via the lame excuse of what passes for a search engine and nothing on Touchstone, Krugman, or Sowell showed up but that's no suprise...

"Sgt Relic" thinks he's cynical about politicos and he probably his with good reason...

I can easily imagine Novak's cynicism regarding politicos structure besides that of "Sgt Relic" relatively speaking...:-)


Prince Of Darkness
I just finished the book last night. What an entertaining and informative read! I lived through the time period of which he writes and can relate to the history he covers. Most of the revelations were no surprise to me but learning about the behind the scenes machinations, assuming they are accurate, is the informative and entertaining aspect of this book. I would recommend the book to anyone with an open mind and the desire to see beneath the emperor's clothes.

I have to agree with Sgt Relic on this
As much as I like and respect Dr. Sowell as a commentator, Robert Novak is not a commentator but a journalist and I have much disdain for jounalists ever since Watergate. It is also why I root for Barry Bonds and cheer every time he tells the slugs that pass themselves off as sports journalist to jump in a lake. The difference between a journalist for the Enquirer and one for the NY Times is so small you couldn't fit a Ginsu knife in the crack.

Somewhere along the way, journalists changed from reporting the story to believing that they are part of the story. End of objectivity, end of credibility. End of story!

From Idealist 2 Pramatism 2 Disillusion
Some one once said that "When you are young if you are not a liberal you have no heart, but when you are older if you are not a conservative you have no brains." Over my life time I definitely moved from liberalism to conservatism! But now I have passed from conservatism to disillusionment. With tears in my eyes I must conclude that there is practically no hope for a way out of the state of corruption, dishonesty, greed, selfishness, dishonorable and underhanded political state that mark the behavior of our "public servants" at all levels. I am amazed at the responses I generally get from letters or emails I send to my representatives - they are nearly always weasel worded non-sense that lacks even the slightest of commitment to any side of an issue. They are so deceptively written that its obvious that the author thinks I am an idiot or fool and that I can not possibly understand the issues being dealt with. They usually display platitudes ad infinitum. Each response taken as a whole convey NOTHING, commit to Nothing, and imply action will be taken but never say what or how they plan to act. Their only interest is in the next election they have to face and how to win it! The gullible seem to be in the majority and so these buffoons get re-elected over and over again.

Watching my local city council meetings merely reinforces that the so called "public hearings" on crucial issues are nothing more than window dressings to cover the fact that the issues have already been decided in secret. It is plain that the constituents desires are immaterial to the plans of the few elite who are on the council or wield influence over the council.

I feel hopeless and helpless to do anything but cry about it. One can not convince those who have never been taught how to reason and think but have only been taught to regurgitate the answers they were given. One can not reason with those who have been raised to believe that they have a right for all their needs to be fulfilled by others. That the government has a justified right to steal by force from the rich to meet the needs of others. One can not reason with those who believe that "fairness" rather than "justice" is the proper basis for the law. One can not reason with those who believe that they have the right to live their lives "risk free" as though nothing in life should have the risk of undesirable consequences - even their own bad choices. One can not reason with those who believe that every poor outcome in their life demands that they be compensated for it by someone else. One can not reason with those that believe that equal opportunity means that everyone is equal in all abilities and that all endeavors and all outcomes for everyone should yield that same results for all people.

We have become a society that looks good, feels good, and smells good but are nothing more than morally bankrupt useful idiots to the elite few who believe they are ordained to know what is best for everyone else. Too many of our society are so shallow and so gullible that they believe that becoming a "star" in any field of endeavor thus qualifies you as an expert in any other field. Too many of us believe that "feelings" are more important that "reason", that facts are not relevant but emotions are. Many believe that truth and facts are relative and even then only if they agree with them. It is to this kind of thinking that our politicians pander and it is this group that seems to have enough of a majority to re-elect them again and again.

It is overwhelming to me to think that there is a any chance that any "public servant" will be a leader and not a follower, that they will do the right thing, they will seek justice for all, and that they will be honest, trustworthy, and forthright. It appears that Novak has justified my thinking.

I think...
...I'll wait for the video. I can't think of one “politician” or “public servant” whose "behind the scenes life" would be of interest to me. They are all dirt bags -- filled to the top with self serving Bull Shiite.
TBC :>(

$$$$$$$$$$$ writes: "Some one....
.....once said that "When you are young if you are not a liberal you have no heart, but when you are older if you are not a conservative you have no brains." "
--------------------------------------------------
I believe that statement is an almost exact quote from Winston Churchill. Who, by the way, was actually a leader.
TBC :>)

Robert Novack is NOT a
journalist. Here is the short bio beneath his by-line: "Robert Novak is a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report" many of the more liberal posters here at TH can't seem to tell the difference between reporters and columnists, particularly when discussing Fox News and bias by the reporters when reporting the news.

So allow me to provide some clear information. A reporter is supposed to report the news without bias. A columnist is NOT a reporter. These are the people who write editorial columns. These columns most of the time contain OPINION and are most definitiely slanted in the direction preferred by the writer.

For example, Robert Novack writes columns. He may, in some of those columns report facts such as the fact that Valerie Plame was married to Joe wilson. He may also give an opinion on what the impact of that mariage was.

Prince
The Novak book is sitting on my end table, second in line to be read from a three book order. I'm usually apprehensive when it comes to autobiographies/memoirs, but this one intrigues me and Dr Sowell's opinion of it is appreciated.

Some corrections
First of all, to suggest that journalists *used to be* objective and now aren't is incorrect. Go back and read what was being written in the South during the Civil Rights protests by "journalists", or "objective journalism" about immigrants a hundred years ago, or what was written about Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson. Journalism is like any other profession: there are good and bad apples in the bunch, and things really weren't any better in the "good ol' days".

Same for the suggestion that "statesmanship is dead". When was it ever alive? Thomas Jefferson as *Vice President* actively sought to undermine President Adams and his agenda. This after being offered an olive branch and an offer to make Jefferson an important part of his administration's decision-making. Several members of Lincoln's cabinet actively sought to undermine him, as did some of his military officers.

It is easy to look back on another time and build it up as something better than what it was; even our own memories tend to gloss over the bad and emphasize the good. Today we simply have more access to more information more often. We see all the warts.

As to the supposed Churchill quote, he never said that, it is another one of those falsely attributed quotes. So says The Churchill Centre, http://www.winstonchurchill.org .

you know
I never liked that title, Prince of Darkness. Love him or hate him, Novak is an interesting figure and Sowell’s take on the book is pretty good.

net observer (and others)
The intent behind "Sowell vs Krugman" is not to tease - but to suggest what a 'real' debate would be like. I hasten to add that no such debate is currently scheduled.

We have become accustomed to debates in which there are sound-bites, but nothing of substance. Even when points are won (or lost) they are of the rhetorical kind.

I happen to be a conservative, and think that the conservative position is intellectually strong. No doubt, there are leftists who think that THEIR position is intellectually strong. So, neither side should hesitate in entering this kind of debate format.

Observe, however, that the YouTube style of debate offers NOTHING to the conservative position -- since it appeals to emotion, not intellect.

IMO, the (R) candidates should NOT sign up for the self-immolation of a YouTube style debate.

However, we should rally around the concept of REAL debates - and push for EXPERTS from both sides (not candidates) to participate at this early stage.

We are a 50-50 country - the country is rudderless, dead in the water (but drifting with a leftward current) on some rather basic issues:

* economics - more govt or less govt
* education - public or private
* law - constitutional or 'legislate from the bench'?
* national security - when is it OK to use our xlnt military?
* American self-interest - e.g. illegal immigration

What better time to have SUBSTANTIVE, INTELLECTUAL (not emotional) debate on meaningful issues between EXPERTS?

It will keep the posturing and pandering (on the part of candidates) to a minimum - no more BS about their humble beginnings, etc. Debates (like the one that I proposed) can give us a 'rudder' once again.

John Galt writes:....
...."As to the supposed Churchill quote, he never said that, it is another one of those falsely attributed quotes. So says The Churchill Centre, http://www.winstonchurchill.org ."
-------------------------------------------------
Thanks! I went to that URL and found it quite interesting. I only wish they had told who actually did say that about conserv's and libs as they did about other attributable quotes.
TBC :>)

Debates (more)
Note: I don't mean to hijack Dr. Sowell's thread by harping on debates - so this will be my last post on the topic of debates:

Frankly, in the prevailing environment conservatives don't have much of a chance, because the noise (and the cleverly timed laugh track on the late night comedy circuit) drowns out the reality that THE FACTS AND HISTORICAL DATA ARE ON OUR SIDE!

We do have the intellectual ammunition, but it cannot be used in this YouTube style of 'debate'. So, we need to change the R.O.E, attack on a different front by MAKING it an intellectual battle.

If we are not all 'debated-out' by '08, we could have another round when the nominees are known.

But, instead of the (R) and (D) presidential candidates slugging it out in town-hall formats (dumbed down, to allow sound-bites), the candidates announce their Cabinet selections.

So, you could have a detailed policy-debate between the Economic Advisor of both candidates - instead of the candidates themselves.

In other words, lets get the experts in front of America, not the charming, telegenic, charismatic figureheads that Pres candidates tend to be ..

If you think that this is a good idea, please send the following link to others - particularly to local and national media, e.g Fox, CNN, CSPAN ..

http://voice.townhall.com/g/3956455a-0c4a-493a-a3ff-3cc03ca78418

When it Changed
"Somewhere along the way, journalists changed from reporting the story to believing that they are part of the story."

For the general public, it was Watergate w/Woodward & Bernstein. Prior to that, the image of reporters was pretty well defined by HIS GIRL FRIDAY. Even the "heroes" are sleaze.

OTOH, broadcasters have ALWAYS felt they were the story.

voice of reason
I knew what you were up to as soon as I started reading your blog entry in its entirety. That's when it hit me: Krugman would never agree to debate either Doctor Sowell OR Doctor Williams, much less both at the same time, especially if there were fact-checkers watching!

to voice of reason
I read several of your postings and I couldn't have said it better or probably as well. Keep up the good work.

Like you, I am sick of these so-called debates by candidates. Most of the time they don't even address the question.

What I'd prefer is a courtroom-style cross examination. "Not responsive, Your Honor." Keep hammering on them to get to the core and expose who they really are.

It may be fun to write a mock cross examination of various candidates.



juandos
.
I don't know about Touchstone or Krugman, but Sowell doesn't do media interviews any more.

Why is this any surprise?
Machiavilli still applies because human nature is a constant.

Hey, vic, et.al, WAKE UP!!
"Robert Novack (vic's spelling, not mine) is NOT a journalist..."

Novac is MORE of a journalist than 99% of those who claim that title. ALL "journalists" are biased because they're all human. The honest journalists (like Novak) make their biases clear so the reader can read their work with full understanding of where the writer is coming from.

I'm looking forward to this book.

Chris
Novak doesn't claim to be a journalist, he is a columnist. He may be a better "journalist" than 90% of the libtard journalists but technically he is not a journalist.

Politicians are only human
Sadly, our media likes to creat stars. For a decade and a half I had coffee at a shop where all the local politicians hung out. I was there not because they were there but the shop was a block walking distance from my office. Several of these politicians went on to much higher and even national office. Often what we heard discussed in the coffee shop by the other patrons ended up be addressed in speeches by the politicians that had been present at the time.

Politicians are only human often truly representative when they first are elected of the people that voted for them. Yet as the travel to state capitols and Washington, D.C. they are changed. Often the very worst of human nature is brought to the surface.

I once preceded a national famous Congressman. I was sitting at his staff's table during his speech. He gave what was most obviously was the wrong speech to the audience and it became humorous as he went on. His chief of staff said when the speech was over, "Is dumb! but at least he votes like we tell him to!"

His chief of staff later ran for office and was elected. I always wonder whether "he voted like he was told."

Sounds like I can save some money
And just go back and read 'MEMOIRS of a
Superfluous Man' once again.

Seems there is nothing new here except Dr. Sowell's admission that he still harbored some illusions about the nobility of public service. And that in the face of the likes of Roosevelt, the Kennedys, Nixon and scores of 'Pulbic Serving' senators and representatives. This list was not meant to be exhaustive.

Sowell likes Novak?
i just want to say I lost some respect for Sowell.


Praising Novak.


I dont like Novak at all.

I cant believe Sowell likes him.

Politicians
I like the idea that Novak did not hob nob with the pols.One thing that disgusts me about the pols,when they appear on T.V.they always say of their opponent,my good friend senator Joe blowhard.In my opinion making friends with your opponents tend to make you unable to really tell the truth about them.

I'd been feeling warm & fuzzy...
... towards Novak lately, and followed numerous write-ups of The Prince of Darkness.
But then in the last 2-3 days Novak goes out of his way to disclose a secret initiative of the Turks & the US to neutralize a Kurd terrorist group that is hectoring the Turks. Wll, that initiative isno longer secret, is it? Why did Novak believe he had the right to disclose this covert action?
I'm not feeling so warm & fuzzy about Novak now.

Children
For you young'uns out there, Robert Novak has been fighting the conservative fight for decades and was a strong backer of Ronald Reagan. As was Pat Buchanan. When you youngsters were in diapers, Novak was a working journalist from a conservative point-of-view.

Fred Barnes. David Frum. William Kristol. Mark Steyn. Victor Davis Hanson. Michelle Malkin. Hugh Hewitt. Rush Limbaugh. And the rest aren't fit to kiss his shoes.

Politicians and other parasites
Politicians call themselves "public servants" when they are seeking our votes. They like to tell us how they have "served" in whatever office they bought. The truth is that they serve themselves alone, and rather than thinking of themselves as our servants, they think of themselves as our rulers.
I do agree with the statement that they are all scoundrels, some more so than others, but all exuding scoundrelcy to some degree. ( I know, it isn't really a word, but I liked the sound of it.)
Do away with them entirely and replace them with a computer to run the country. And, just to prove what an outstanding altruist I am, I volunteer to be the system administrator for that computer, for free!

Run the Country?
In my not-so-humble opinion, looking for someone to "Run the Country" is a big part of the problem.

The plumbers, bakers, engineers, garbage collectors, Priests, Preachers, Rabbis, doctors, truck drivers, teachers, etc.,...all of us little guys...we are the ones who run the country.

The proper role of those in government is to protect the country. Period.

Or am I just a Neanderthal?



some things never change
I am rereading Al simpson's book "Right in the Old Gazoo". He mentions an instance where he recorded his side of a conversation while being interviewed by a reporter named Babcock. The Senator used a recorder for his part of the conversation. When the article came out he was quoted with using a certain word. Neither the reporter nor the newspaper would retract it even when he played the tape for them proving he had not sued the word. Why? Because the reporter had written the word in his notes. Sounds kind of like a recent case of a man being convicted of lying based on a reporters notes huh?

Novak
is a bit like a Prince of Darkness himself. His anti-Semiticism is virulent and as such his ideology is flawed.
He is anti Israel and pro Palestinian ignoring 50 years of terrorism by Arabs against Israel and the West since Israel's statehood.,
I am surprised that Sowell has not caught this in Novak.


Sowell is usually right on the mark.

Who needs to read the book
As is so often the situation, those most in need of such information are the very ones to avoid the book or even denounce the book and it's contents without reading a single word.

Though I disagree very often with Novak (Israel to name just one area), his knowledge of the "political forces that control" our nation is far above that of nearly all who daily shout the praises of those who should be shunned.

We would all benefit from a better understanding of our "political leaders", past and present.

Private Sector vs. Public Sector
This is one of the biggest problems with Republicans:

You all have so much disdain for the government that when it's your turn to manage it (like under the current administration) you run it into the ground.

So people like Sowell claim that the nobility of public service is overblown. But let me tell you something, if McDonalds or Halliburton ran your local police force or the judiciary or the legislature or FEMA, you would NOT be happy.

Big government is bad but it's a whole lot better than no government (see Hurricane Katrina and this Minn. bridge collapse for further details on the danger of ignoring the importance of govt).

To tubbs,
Here is some clarification for you.

Conservatives desire LIMITED government, not no government as you assert.

Limited government is strictly what the Constitution says, not what our current crop of (especially liberal) politicians THINK we need.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.