Asymmetric pontification

Now here's a hard-hitting piece of political journalism.

Dylan Byers, Politico's media critic, opens by quoting Ryan Lizza's description of "asymmetric polarization"--that the Democratic Party has inched leftward, while the GOP has skyrocketed to the right--and then moves to a general discussion and rather unmistakable condemnation of the Sunday talk shows' refusal to book Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein's book-length expansion of this theme. Byers wags his finger:

[T]here's a fair chance the thesis is being overlooked because none of these shows want to appear partisan. Which is exactly how -- and why -- asymmetric polarization works.

But get this. How does Byers open his piece, in his own words?

Whether you agree with the thesis or not, 'asymmetric polarization' is at the very least a compelling topic for debate -- and a pertinent one, as it underlies many progressives' frustration with the deadlock in Washington.

Whether you agree with the thesis or not--which is like opening a discussion of Earth's geology with the line, "Whether you agree that the Earth is spherical or not, it sure is a compelling topic." In other words, Byers does almost precisely that which he bemoans the Sunday shows for doing.

The distinguished (and, by the way, best) literary critic Harold Bloom has famously lamented the death of irony. But Harold, you're just looking in the wrong places.