This could be interesting…
January 1, 2008, 4:52 pm
Posted by David Gibson
The New York Times is adding William Kristol as an op-ed columnist. Good choice, I think. They need a successor to William Safire. David Brooks has often been called the conservative that liberals like, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a compliment.
Are there so few conservatives worth hearing from that the Times has to give a weekly column to someone who already has his own magazine? We can all read The Weekly Standardif we want to know what is on Kristol’s mind. I would prefer to hear from someone else.
If that means that they’re dropping David Brooks — which I assume it does — that is very sad comment about the terrible state of our political dialogue. While I may be labeled with those who may be the “liberals who like David Brooks,” it is because he is measured, reasonable and presents his arguments cogently — even for those of us who may more often disagree. I don’t personally find such a level of clarity with William Kritol who seems more intereted in ideology than any pursuit of rational argument. Also, as David Nichol noted, Kristol has various vehicles for his opinion whereas Brooks only other major venue is The News Hour, I believe.
Overall, I think that this panders rather than promotes a rich dialogue from what are traditional liberal and conservative spheres. I am disappointed in the Times, but sadly less surprised. Whether it’s the state of our climate, the blogs, our literacy issues, or whatever, I find it disappointing that this paper would reject a thoughtful conservative voice for one that I believe often presents in more of a screed.
David N, you make a good point about Kristol already having his own platform. I wonder if that relationship (with the Weekly Standard) would change? It seems an great potential conflict.
David P., I see what you mean, but I wonder if it would matter who they chose…Given the state of political discourse these days, anyone would likely be a food fighter, no? I also think that in many ways Kristol represents the neo-con right, and has voiced some interesting reservations about his past. But very few. I think he would be able to have a much bigger pulpit now to let us know what the White House and the GOP are thinking. That could be valuable, as the Bush GOP doesn’t really engage in any kind of dialogue.
Also, who would you suggest instead?
BTW, I don’t think Brooks is leaving. Kristol may be there to bring more balance to the likes of Krugman and Dowd. Personally, my far and away favorite is Bob Herbert, who has real passion and conviction, and does the legwork. Otherwise, Anthony Lewis was the last cool-headed clear-eyed liberal, seems to me.
I saw nothing about Brooks leaving…any evidence that this is so. How about Kristol is a replacement for Judy Miller (as suggested by someone at TPM, I think). Same politics, same unfortunate friendships, same capacity to overlook the facts–though Kristol will at least not be on the “news” beat as she was.
All of us lovers and daily readers of the NYT are going to have to come clean; it has the worst op ed page of U.S. newspapers. The WASHPOST is leagues above it, for its columnists and its opinion pieces. Gail Collins, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert are the only credible writers on the NYT op-ed page. Maureen!!!! should go back to her convent high school for further instruction in composition and just about everything else. I don’t think it has to do with liberal/conservative so much as it has to do with bad/ignorant/cute/too clever by far (take your pick) decisions at the top.
Thanks for the clarification abuot David Brooks. I wrongly jumped to a conclusion without reading the source article. I sadly agree with Margaret about the caliber of Maureen Dowd’s commentary and her appreciation of The Washington Post columnists. Perhaps my own reaction to Kristol is too ideological as well as I’m still reeling from his article about “why a Republican will win” the national election. David G.’s point about giving a more inside look at the thinking of the neo-cons and others is valid, but I see Kristol’s insinuation into this main stream as a further legitimation of neo-con thought. Is this a value for our treasured “free” political dialogue or a creep towards something else? The questions for you editors and boards always, I’m sure.
David P., I do think that Kristol’s addition is more likely “creep” toward a more combustible op-ed page, and thus one that is read more intently. But he does represent a POV that’s very much out there. And I agree in general about the WaPo op-ed columnists, though Charles Krauthammer dishes his ideological licks pretty well. My lament is that so few columnists can criticize their own tribe–have so little capacity for soul-searching when things go south for their team. I also think the Times or any page would benefit from a columnist with the religious and moral chops of say EJ Dionne, or a red-state type who would reflect the values of so much of America that never get aired in the Times or elsewhere. At the end of the day, William Kristol is another Beltway fellow, maybe different collored stripes on his tie.
The problem with Kristol is that over the last few years neo-con “thought,” such as it may be, has so blinded him to the obvious facts before his face. Perhaps he was selected exactly because the editors thought his ideological fantasies would be easy to refute or mock?
David G. Can you start a new post canvassing for alternates to Kristol–i.e., an honest neo-con or con?
Just read an article on commondreams.org site by John Atcheson on “William Kristol and NYT: Symptom of a Greater Malady” which makes some good points with sharp claws.
I am revolted by Kristol but I marvel how liberals are reacting so violently to his appearing in the New York Times. Engagement is nothing if we suffocate it with unreasonable rules. My sense is that Brooks profits from his engagement with the liberal newspaper. Atcheson’s article appears puerile to me and the commondreams site reminds me of the nastiness usually associated with right wing blogs. Further, it is a good move because many conservatives feel left out of coverage, believe it or not. Apparently, most conservatives seem to applaud the move. I wasn’t aware that Kristol was canned from Time magazine.
Are liberals trying to redefine the word engagement. Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Amazing.
Does the NYT really have “the worst op ed page of U.S. newspapers?” If not, it must be nearly the worst; the same increasingly tired folks coming back to us, time and time again (does it ever remind you of your local friendly diocesan newspaper?). The Washington Post is indeed miles ahead of it (thank heavens for the internet). Do I really need to read Krugman – or Frank Rich, on Sunday? Don’t I know exactly what they’re going to say and what line they’re going to take before picking up the paper? and that I will like it because I agree with it mostly?
As for Maureen Dowd, I have a theory about her, which goes as follows: the NYT, in bad trouble some years ago for the way it treated women, felt, in its ham-handed way, that it must have a women’s voice. And Dowd fills the bill — she writes precisely the sort of column that a certain kind of man thinks will appeal to women — catty, clever, gossipy, and superficial. Meanwhile the real stuff (i.e., of the man’s world) is left up to Rich, Brooks, Herbert, Kristoff, and the rest of them. The idea that women might have things to tell us about the world in general, and not simply about the “women’s world” seems not to enter their minds there in Times Square. Otherwise, they’d be signing on someone like Samantha Power to do their foreign affairs columns, or someone like Anne Applebaum who writes about all sorts of things for the WaPo (and did a splendid book on the Gulag, to boot).
As for Kristol, let’s wait and see. I will try to approach him with an open mind, but it will be hard.
No question Dowd has an acerbic pen and will fry anyone within distance. How we can translate that into incompetence is beyond me. How many journalists have won Pulitzers!! The woman is no Peggy Noonan nor the like who are fronted merely because they are women. Maureen Dowd is an accomplished journalist and did not just emerge as a pretty face. She spares neither the right nor the left. In the kitchen she works in (politics) some people cannot take the heat so they minimize her. The truth is we need more irreverence with reference to politicians who feel they can lie to us with impunity. Here is a brief bio of Ms Dowd.
Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a columnist on The New York Times Op-Ed page in 1995 after having served as a correspondent in the paper’s Washington bureau since 1986. She has covered four presidential campaigns and served as White House correspondent. She also wrote a column, “On Washington,” for The New York Times Magazine.
Ms. Dowd joined The New York Times as a metropolitan reporter in 1983. She began her career in 1974 as an editorial assistant for The Washington Star, where she later became a sports columnist, metropolitan reporter and feature writer. When the Star closed in 1981, she went to Time magazine.
Born in Washington D.C., Ms. Dowd received a B.A. degree in English literature from Catholic University (Washington, D.C.) in 1973.
It should also be noted that Gail Collins is also a columnist for the Times. Of more import perhaps is the fact that a very good woman writer, Anne Quindlan, preceded Dowd on the op-ed page. She was exceptionally good. So the Times entry for women did not start with Dowd.
Here is Erica Jong’s take on Kristol’s appointment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2573812
Here is Jack Schaefer’s take on the Kristol appointment in Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2181266/nav/tap3/
Good piece by Shafer…Thanks for the link, Anthony. I think Shafer makes some good points. What I think is most egregious is the knee-jerk antipathy to Kristol by so many liberals. Of course you’ll disagree with him. That’s what op-ed columnists are FOR! And the parallel with Safire’s appointment is spot on. On the other hand, I think Shafer tries to limit Kristol’s weakness to his support for the Iraq War. That’s not really it; rather, it is his accuracy, it seems. But as I said up top, it could be–should be–interesting.
David,
I think you’re right. The Kristol column will be interesting, at least for a year. Schafer names about five alternative columnists at the bottom of his piece; I only recall reading Chapman; any knowledge of the others?
Anthony
The other names are largely unknown to me. I’d post them on Peggy’s thread above, as I don’t think anyone has really come up with very convincing candidates.
Nicholas Clifford says that Maureen Dowd
What, then, about this column, written before the invasion of Iraq? Some people got around to saying such things a lot later; Dowd said them in March, 2003.
I meant to add:
To Nicholas Clifford: Do you find that column of Dowd’s “superficial?”