Hitting the sharp thing on the flat part

Matt Taibbi writes about politics for Rolling Stone (the converse of my dream job, writing about music for The Economist, but I digress). He gained fame (or infamy, depending on your ideological leanings) in 2004 for his harsh, but honest, depiction of life on the road with the bumbling John Kerry campaign.

But Taibbi is no fan of the neocons and their hellspawn, a point he illustrated brilliantly in a recent article, "Giuliani: Worse Than Bush." In the piece, he portrays the former mayor of New York City as a conniving opportunist who got rich off 9-11, hopped into bed with anybody willing to write a check, and is now planning a Swift-Boat-style attack on Hillary Clinton, hiding behind a PAC ominously named "Stop Her Now" and funded by the same shadowy forces who so successfully smeared Kerry's military record.

Aside from his conclusions, however, I particularly enjoyed his ability to turn a phrase and distill an otherwise complex point down to a level that could be understood by anybody with better than a 3rd-grade reading aptitude. For example, here's his analysis of the secret to Bush's two-term existence in the White House, and how Giuliani is the perfect candidate to tap into that success:

"Yes, Rudy is smarter than Bush. But his political strength -- and he knows it -- comes from America's unrelenting passion for never bothering to take that extra step to figure shit out. If you think you know it all already, Rudy agrees with you. And if anyone tries to tell you differently, they're probably traitors, and Rudy, well, he'll keep an eye on 'em for you. Just like Bush, Rudy appeals to the couch-bound bully in all of us, and part of the allure of his campaign is the promise to put the Pentagon and the power of the White House at that bully's disposal."

Obviously, we live in a very superficial world, where style trumps substance at every turn and elections are decided by positing which candidate would be a more affable drinking buddy. That's not to say there are no legitimate reasons for voting for a Republican -- but millions of people who lined up behind Bush did so against their own economic and even social self-interests (hello, Log Cabin dwellers!). To use Taibbi's words, if they'd taken that extra step to figure shit out, they might have decided faux swagger and flag-waving make for good soundbites and 30-second TV ads, but comprehensive health care and a tax policy that doesn't favor the richest 10 percent of the country would actually improve their lives.

Thomas Frank addressed the issue thoroughly in his book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" But that's the point. It took Frank an entire book to state his case. Taibbi summed it up in a paragraph. That's hitting the nail on the head.