I just read Jennifer Rubin's latest, and I did so with a certain awe. I had no idea that such blind ignorance from a major, mainstream publication could stumble its way into print. Some might object that Rubin's musings are instead mere, knowing hypocrisy, which of course blankets all commentators. But I would object to that objection. When plunging into manifest hypocrisy, we always commit the necessary mitigations to print as well -- bluntly, "This isn't hypocrisy," or, "This may seem hypocritical but it really isn't," or, "This is hypocrisy for good reason" -- yet one will find no such weaseling in Rubin's piece. Hence it is, as noted, just awesomely blind ignorance.
Of what, in particular, do I speak? This: "Santorum on social issues is not a conservative but a reactionary," whereupon Rubin proceeds to condemn reactionaryism in toto:
A reactionary is one who seeks to return to a previous state of affairs. It is not a conservative outlook, which in the Burkean sense looks to people as they are, prefers modest over the radical solutions and builds on the existing morals and habits of the society.
As well as existing institutions and traditions -- like, say, Medicare in its existent, traditional and institutional form, whose obliteration by Paul Ryan through voucherization Rubin supported in April of last year as a "very serious budget document ... [that] is remarkably nonradical" [emphasis original].
Is that in fact hypocrisy? Sure it is. But is Rubin even aware of it? It doesn't appear so. It seems to reflect more of a profound cognitive dissonance. She's simply oblivious, utterly oblivious, as she thrashes about in her shallow assaults on all but her partisan love, Mitt Romney.
There's a word for her kind, which I won't use, but it ain't "commentator." And its essence is to be found, daily, in the once-respectable Washington Post.