I was sifting through some piles of paper and came across this February 2006 NYT article by Kit Seelye, which was also the subject of one of my first blog posts. Seelye noted both the evolving pace of news-making and the evolving prominence of political newsmakers (in relationship to other public personalities, like, say, sports stars, daytime hosts, and various kinds of opinion-mongers in many different media) [e.a.]:

[I]n 1998, Monica-mania struck.

”I told CNN there was no reason to take this briefing live,” Mr. McCurry recalled. ”But they said, ‘We get 100,000 more households when you’re on the air.’ ”

Ever since, the White House briefings have played out in real time against the daytime dramas, giving the world a glimpse into the daily push-me, pull-you in a democracy of making news (or not) and trying to report it. Now, with cable channels, reality television, talk-back live and blogging on the spot, with viewers and readers hip to stagecraft and expecting to be taken behind the scenes, there seems no turning back.

Mr. McClellan, for one, said he wouldn’t dream of trying to unplug the briefings.

”We have no intention of not broadcasting them,” he said. ”They serve a purpose for both the White House and reporters.”

That was a wise decision on McClellan’s part (back when he was still loyal to GWB), for the reasons he stated. And he was backed up both by a Republican predecessor and a Democratic predecessor [e.a.]:

Mr. Fleischer recalled a virulent period with the media (and Democrats) in May 2002 after a New York Post headline proclaimed that ”Bush Knew” in advance about the Sept. 11 attacks.

”That was a vicious explosion that lasted a week,” he said. ”But the president calculated the press would go too far, and they went so far in their accusations that the country was far more inclined to believe the president than the press.” Several polls at the time showed President Bush maintaining his high approval ratings of 75 percent throughout the episode.

”The public perceives the press not as watchdogs but as attack dogs,” Mr. Fleischer said.

Mr. McCurry saw the same dynamic.

”The public hates the people in that room,” he said. ”My standing up there and getting pelted with rotten tomatoes during Monica probably helped Bill Clinton because people say, ‘What is wrong with the people in this room?’ ”

Check out the required character traits, look inward, cleanse yourself of impurities, and sign on … if you dare:

Brought to you by the Center for American Progress.

Did you know that there is a special kind of “progressive” “thinking”?

Matthew Yglesias, CAP’s highly touted new hire, still writing from his old perch at the Atlantic, may just give a hint of it. Last time I read his blog, he was proposing that public intellectuals simplify their commentary to a level that even a Manhattan-bred and Cambridge (Mass.)-educated ignoramus like him can understand without, you know, actually having to read or study the wisdom of the ages.

This is perhaps a good time to note that I’m not really a fan of historical analogies as a mode of argument. The reason is that accuracy in historical characterization is rarely particularly relevant to the point the analogy-maker was trying to make. But under the circumstances, there’s actually not much need to make the analogy. At the end of the day, I think I understand what Brooks is saying here perfectly well and I don’t know anything about Disraeli. To me, the interesting thing about the use of the analogy is simply that for whatever reason modern-day conservative reformers don’t like to site Eisenhower and Nixon as predecessors even though they would make more familiar references.

No more references to Disraeli! We don’t know anything about him! We’re only Harvard graduates!