Okay, I’ll do it myself!
January 2, 2008, 3:25 pm
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
David Gibson must still be recovering from New Year’s Eve. So let me post my question myself: If not to William Kristol as the Times’s right, right-wing, con, neo-con columnist, to whom should the Times have offered the slot that would have had the respect of the paper’s readers?
I quickly flipped through the scholars of the American Enterprise Institute and see listed — somewhat surprisingly — my professor at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, Arthur Brooks, who has written extensively on philanthropy and is branching into other cultural and religious issues and perhaps is only temporarily with AEI. While his expertise is not as broad as Kristol’s he has cache with some of the same people who follow Kristol — though perhaps for different reasons. He is, I believe, a fine scholar and a voice worth hearing — even though he doesn’t have nearly the following or reputation. I’d throw his name in the hat!
While it is easy for me to agree with David Gibson about adding EJ Dionne to the NYT as a columnist, I find it much harder to recommend individuals who are at a different place on the political spectrum than I am. It’s a worthy exercise, however. How about George Will or Thomas Sowell? Both have the credentials and the writing experience to hold their own at the NYT.
John McWhorter is a young (compared to Kristol) black writer whose work I highly admire, even if I do not always agree with it. He is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. I think most would characterize him as a conservative, even if he does not always do so.
Peggy, I fell asleep at 10pm New Year’s Eve. It was sad. The problem is I fall asleep all the time. Everywhere. Anytime. As readers of the blog can attest…
I’ll admit I was being a bit provocative in praising Kristol, though I do think he’s an interesting choice. Citations here and elsewhere have scared up some of the howlers he has perpetrated over the years. But frankly, what more does a liberal want than a ranting neo-con to fume at? (And vice versa.) It is the guilty pleasure of the age.
Your question however, is a good one, and the difficulty in answering it also points up the difficulty for the Times or anyone else trying to find a conservative voice, or for conservatives generally: Namely, what kind of conservative? The Times has preferred the libertarian sort, like Safire and, to a lesser extent, David Brooks. But then there are political/ideological/neo-cons, which is the Kristol kategory, I think. But what about social conservatives, like George Will? Those are the types I’d lean toward, as might others on this blog, as they would engage issues beyond boring horse-race politics. But it’s tough–most of the name I can think of are too much on the religio-academic side.
Writing a column is tough, really tough. Most folks think you just spout 800 words through the blowhole two or three times a week, but those are the bad columnists, of which there are way too many. Column writing is like baseball (Will would appreicate this): if you get a hit one out of every three times at bat, you are an All-Star. It’s a tough transition to make for anyone who hasn’t been in daily or weekly journalism fr a while.
I dunno: Russ Douthat? Rich Lowery?
As I wrote on David’s thread I like this move and wonder why so many of us oppose it. What does engagement mean anyway. EVen though I am upset with him I would like to see Michael Novak write for Commonweal again. Does engagement mean picking the people we want to engage with?
My own view: it is not that we want the Times or CWL or any other publication to pick people we want to agree with or even engage with. What is always a pleasure is to find some one in some other place/camp than your own from whom you can learn something new or something that genuinely challenges one’s own views.
The problem with Kristol as with Miller (previously cited) is that they are not trustworthy either as to the facts or as to the vehemence with which they press their opinions. I think responders on David’s original post and here have made it clear they would warm to the challenge of credible, contrarian views. Kristol has shown himself to be not forthright, to put it midly, and to make claims that are not true–whether this is outright duplicity or outright ideological (in which case, Kristol has trimmed the facts to meet his opinions; I believe Safire in his day did the same, but Brooks does not). As bloggers elsewhere have shown (e.g. Huffington) Kristol speaks assuredly of matters on which he has proved to be woefully ignorant. The Times appears to have bought a can of worms.
I would maintain that we are still picking and that it is a matter of degree. I have seen many staunch and fiery union leaders get coopted by management. Who would have expected W to name a building after Robert Kennedy? I believe it was at one of your forums, Peggy, where some very vocal right wingers discussed civilly with many left wingers. Even Donohue behaved himself when you invited him to the forum on Anti-Catholicism. The best cabinet members have sometimes been from the other party.
I like the fact that Kristol was one of the first Republicans to criticize Rumsfeld and he opposed the nomination of Harriet Meiers to the Supreme Court.
As I see it the Times has everything to gain from this. Besides hiring somebody who wanted to prosecute it, the Times brings someone who necessarily will realize that he is playing to a different audience.
Granted Kristol is a strange bird and has contradicted himself and made numerous errors. Yet he is an influential conservative and should be engaged. I’m betting the Times made a good move.
The word propaganda comes to mind, Bill. And it follows from the word ideological. Kristol may surprise us. The Times may impose some discipline–like fact checking. That’s what editors are for. But Kristol’s record is not promising; and when it comes to fact checking, I am not sure columnists are subject to the same rules as reporters. Bill Donohue is face-to-face a courteous person, at least when he participated as a panelist in our event; that doesn’t mean I would have ever taken him on as a columnist. And it doesn’t mean he would have ever accepted. I think he has a different mission! And Kristol does too.
My vote is for Pat Buchanan.
Buchanan at the Times would be like Rev. Ike at the Vatican! But it might work.
BTW, I forgot about Nicholas Kristof, who is on a book leave. He is good and passionate and thoughtful, and deigns to hang out with evangelicals and other believers, even if he describes them the way Margaret Mead did the Samoans.
Alan Keyes, maybe?
“From gollies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night, may the good Lord deliver us!”
Here are some names proferred by Jack Shafer of Slate:
“After Kristol’s one-year appointment expires, I demand that the Times take my advice from 2004 and hire Steve Chapman, Heather Mac Donald, Alex Kozinski, or John Ellis as his replacement.”
I am familiar only with Chapman (and seem to recall him as a kind of economics-is-all kind of writer); anyone familiar with the others?
Here is Shafer’s take on the Kristol hire:
http://www.slate.com/id/2181266/nav/tap3/
Anthony