Froomkin is still around for a couple more weeks. I hope he gives us his take on why he was let go. The man has been greatness…a terrific writer, and a real reason to buy a copy of the Post (unlike Charles Krauthammer, George Will, etc, etc.) Fred Hiatt will now have an op-ed page that completely and accurately reflects today’s neoconservative/Republican Party/Washington Times: old, male, warwongering, and warming denying.
Now, you might think that the way things turned out — the total failure of movement conservatism in government, and the abrupt, humiliating end to the Permanent Republican Majority — would lead to some soul-searching. But that’s not how human nature works. Instead, it became more urgent than ever to assert that those who didn’t get with the program were flakes and moonbats, not worthy of being listened to, while those who believed in the right to the bitter end were “serious”.
Thus we still live in an era in which you have to have been wrong to be respectable. You’re not considered serious about national security unless you were for invading Iraq; you’re not considered a serious political analyst unless you spent the last 3 years of the Bush administration predicting a Republican comeback; you’re not considered a serious economic analyst unless you dismissed the idea that the Bush Boom, such as it was, rested on a housing bubble.
That’s why the firing of Dan Froomkin now makes a perverse sort of sense. As long as the right was in power, he was in effect the Post’s designated moonbat, someone who attracted readers but didn’t threaten the self-esteem of the self-perceived serious people at the paper. But now he looks like someone who was right when the serious people were wrong — and that means he has to go.
TheWeek is unsure of the motivations:
but there’s no question that the decision to fire an “independent minded, new media, presumably not-that-expensive, non-Washington-cliquey voice on politics” like Froomkin is yet another “self-inflicted wound” by a struggling old-media stalwart.