Q&A: Fred Barnes, conservative pundit & Washington reporter
The veteran reporter/pundit is retiring after half a century of working in the DC Swamp
Veteran Washington journalist and conservative Fred Barnes announced this week that he’s retiring after 50 years of covering politics in the Swamp.
Barnes, who has been not just a pundit but also a reporter and magazine editor, worked at the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Star, The New Republic, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Examiner. He also was a regular on PBS’ “The McLaughlin Group.”
Below is the interview I had with him for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in 2001. Here’s s a link to a new Powerline podcast, where he’s interviewed about his long career, how journalism has changed since the 1970s and what he thought about covering Reagan and Trump.
'Reform conservatism' vs. 'reactionary liberalism'
May 12, 2001
Fred Barnes has worked hard the last 20 years to make himself one of Washington's most visible conservative pundits -- in print, on TV and on radio.
A regular on 'The McLaughlin Group' from 1988 to 1998 and a former Washington correspondent for The New Republic, he is currently co-host of Fox News Channel's 'The Beltway Boys' and a regular guest on D.C.'s talking-head circuit.
Most important, Barnes is the executive editor of The Weekly Standard, the magazine he co-founded about six years ago with editor/publisher William Kristol and John Podhoretz. The conservative magazine, backed by Rupert Murdoch, has been highly critical of President Bush's foreign policy, especially concerning his recent dealings with China.
Barnes, who will visit Pittsburgh Tuesday to give a speech about 'The new political climate in Washington,' spoke to me by telephone from his offices inside the Beltway.
Q: So what is this 'new political era in Washington' that you'll be talking about?
A: Well, it is new, it is the Bush Era. ... Bush has brought some changes - at least the beginnings of some changes. One, he has tried to change the tone of Washington. I can't say that it's been massively changed, but it has been changed a little bit.
His theory is that only one side of the political debate in Washington can have a dramatic effect by just changing the way it acts. While Bush is a conservative and a partisan in many ways, he has not criticized Democrats by name.
He has invited them to the White House. He's gone to their retreats. He's had social events with them. He gives them nicknames. He's acted in a way that he thinks is changing the tone and I agree it's changing a little bit. Some Democrats have responded better than others.
Another Bush theory I agree with is this: We had 60 years of crisis in America - World War II, the Cold War, and the sort of self-created crisis of Bill Clinton. Now we've finally returned to normalcy.
It's taken a long time to get here, but it's a different time and a new era, when a president doesn't feel he has to be in front of cameras and sticking his nose in everybody's business every day. ... It's time for a less conspicuous president.
Q: I suspect you think this will work in the long run?
A: It seems to be working so far. There certainly are skeptics, a lot of Democrats and some Republicans as well. The Republican argument is that Bush is not using the Bully Pulpit as he should and could, both for the country and for his own good politically. Bush actually thinks that by not using it as much, he's helping himself politically and I tend to agree with that.
Q: You were an early fan of George W. Bush. Is he doing better or worse than you thought he would?
A: Well, he's doing a little better. He turns our to be shrewder and more canny and more Washington-savvy than I would have thought. He'd only spent one year here, in 1988, when he was helping his father run for election for president. He turns out to be awfully adept at playing the Washington game. That's my biggest surprise.
Q: Have you been disappointed by anything so far?
A: I think he's overreacted a little to criticism on the environmental issues. But most of the things he's done either way on that issue haven't been particularly significant. Getting out of the Kyoto Treaty - it was already dead. Restudying the question of arsenic in the water, well, even the decision Clinton made a couple days before he left office wasn't going to go into effect until 2006. So most of the things haven't really been that earth-shattering.
Q: Your magazine has been especially tough on Bush's foreign policy of late.
A: On China in particular.
Q: What is it that The Weekly Standard is pushing for or complaining about?
A: It's very simple. We're pushing for what I would consider the principled conservative position: And that is to not appease China but to confront China when China misbehaves.
During the Hainan hostage interlude, China misbehaved, China was at fault. Yet it was the United States saying 'We're very sorry.' That didn't make any sense to us then or now.
In truth, Bush has gotten tougher — lately. He said he would do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan. He's started surveillance flights again, though not quite in the same place. They're selling some significant arms to Taiwan. Bush has criticized China on human rights, for repressing religion, and so on.
But during that (hostage) period he was a little weak. And the world saw it that way and they saw the 'very sorry' as an apology.
Q: How do you characterize The Weekly Standard's foreign policy? You guys have called it 'benevolent global hegemony.'
A: That's kind of a mouthful. I'd call it 'Reaganite.' It's very similar to Reagan's policy. Obviously, the Cold War is over. But it's internationalist and it's a policy that both defends American interests and values around the world.
Q: Is The Standard pushing sort of an old-time kind of nationalism?
A: Well, people here have written about 'national greatness conservatism.' Bill Kristol and David Brooks have written about that and, to be honest, I don't think they've defined it well, because I don't know what it is.
Q: Are you guys alone on criticizing Bush's foreign policy?
A: Well, we sort of stepped out boldly on China during the hostage period. I thought there would be a number of conservatives out there with us criticizing the White House. It turned out there weren't. We were all alone.
There's a different way of looking at that, however. One of the things that Bush has done as president, most effectively, is to lock up a conservative base.
Conservatives don't want to hear criticism of him. They just want to back him. The handling of China was fine with them, though it wasn't the conservative approach, I don't think. I met with Jesse Helms, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, during that period. He was 100 percent behind Bush. So we didn't have many followers.
Q: Has the conservative movement - the Reagan Revolution - run out of gas?
A: No, it hasn't. With Bush pushing some rather bold conservative initiatives — missile defense, Social Security partial privatization, bringing the free market into Medicare — I believe it may have gotten a second wind under Bush.
Q: For a libertarian like myself, what Bush does -- these limited reductions of government, etc. -- isn't much. I'll die long before I ever get happy, I'm sure of that.
A: From a libertarian standpoint, Bush is not going to provide much satisfaction. From a liberal standpoint, he's going to provide a lot of pain. From a Republican conservative standpoint, he's trying to do pretty much what's on their agenda. It's not to produce revolutionary change, but at least to produce some significant change.
Particularly, what's interesting is when you see the Democrats. They have reacted as reactionary liberals. They want no change. You can't touch Social Security. You can't change Medicare. You can't change the ABM Treaty. You can't reform education.
So it comes down to a 'reform conservatism' versus a 'reactionary liberalism.' I think politically the benefit there goes to the reform conservatives -- and that's Bush.