The editors of the Star Tribune seem to regard Mitch Pearlstein, head thinker at the Center of the American Experiment think tank, as one of the bright lights among local conservatives. So what does he have to say? Judging by his latest headlining contribution to the editorial page, mainly portentous questions beginning "What will it take"--as in, for example, "What will it take to reinstitutionalize marriage in many parts of this country?"
The swollen "reinstitutionalize" at the load-bearing part of the sentence is one of Mitch's calling cards. He's taken a five syllable adjective and added an engine and a caboose to make a seven syllable verb that doesn't mean anything. It's the same technique employed by the authors of college themes trying to disguise the fact that they have nothing to say. And neither does Mitch.
Nevertheless, he drones on: "Whatever one thinks about Bush administration policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the remarkable--some might argue, miraculous--fact is the American homeland has been safe for more than seven years, ever since 9/11." One attack like that in the history of the world and it's a "miracle" there weren't a half dozen during Bush's time in office! No wonder he attributes his own views to unnamed phantoms. And why won't he say what he thinks about Bush administration policy in Iraq?
The mincing syntax, the preening diction--you can't ignore them, because it's all there is.
What will it take for the Star Tribune to flick a switch and turn off this dim bulb? Even I, an inveterate bleeding heart, have to believe there's a wingnut in town who could make a case.
Comments