I think my feelings on Bill Kristol are well known. (I've been reading Rob St. Amant's etiquette post and its comments, recently, and I can't figure out if I'm breaking a rule by linking to myself in the first line. If so, please, Rob, forgive me. It's a link for clarification, not traffic, I promise). Kristol was brought in for a one-year trial at the New York Times last year when they needed a conservative replacement for William Safire, and his trial will be up in January. George Packer in his New Yorker blog today makes a good case for The New York Times to end the experiment:
It’s not just that he was fundamentally wrong at least every other week throughout the year (misattributing a quote in his first column, counting Clinton out after Iowa, placing Obama at a Jeremiah Wright sermon that Obama didn’t attend, predicting the imminent return of a McCain adviser named Mike Murphy who ended up staying off the campaign, all but predicting a McCain victory, sort of predicting that McCain would oppose the bailout, praising McCain’s “suspension” of his campaign as a smart move, preferring fake populism to professional excellence and Joe the Plumber to Horace the Poet, urging Ayers-Wright attack tactics as the way for McCain to win, basically telling McCain to ignore all the advice Kristol had given him throughout the year, but above all, vouching again and again and again, privately and publicly, for Palin as an excellent Vice-Presidential choice). What the hell—it was an unpredictable year. The real grounds for firing Kristol are that he didn’t take his column seriously.
Add to this that Kristol himself says he feels "ambivalent" about keeping the column, and you have a perfect recipe for replacing him.
(What's that? Someone who did a half-hearted job and, at times, even damaged his employer's credibility through his own poor sourcing, might face consequences? Words mean something? Clearly we aren't really dealing with a left-leaning media elite here, because we've seen today how the left treats its traitors).
So... who should they choose to replace him? What should the modern editorial page even look like? In a world where anyone with a library card (or access otherwise to a computer) can become a columnist, is this even an important decision?
Well, yes. I think so. And I think the New York Times owes it those of us that read it daily (and to those who might start) to really think this through. So, because I know Andrew Rosenthal has nothing better to do with his Tuesday night than read what I have to think, here's a little meditation on what a good, nationally-read opinion writer should be.
A regular columnist should...
- be someone with established credentials in the ideology or area of expertise in which she or he is going to write. Think Paul Krugman, who had twenty years of work in economics and publishing before he was brought on at the New York Times.
- be someone who will take the time to engage in current debates, while keeping an eye on the overall history at issue: meaning, I don't want to see someone regurgitating campaign literature on the op-ed page, but I don't want someone writing treatises to the glory days of William Henry Harrison every week, either. It's a newspaper, not a history lecture.
- be someone willing to do intellectually rigorous research and then, having come to a conclusion on any given topic, to take the next, necessary step: to boil that argument down into a concise piece that isn't written simply for policy wonks or fellow strategists, but for the broader audience of moderately-informed readers who peruse the op-ed page.
- not talk down to us (Maureen Dowd, pick up the phone, that's me calling you).
- not write in political code.
- not make things up (still ringing, Dowd).
- not fake what she or he doesn't know.
- ask questions as often as she or he presents answers.
- admit her or his own biases.
- understand the value of the platform she or he is being handed (and should not mock the paper openly on "The Daily Show," like Mr. Kristol, or be someone who already has a plethora of opportunities in which to get his or her opinion out into the air -- again, I'm thinking of Kristol, Fox news commentator and Weekly Standard editor and sometimes blogger). Like it or not, even conservatives would acknowledge that an op-ed in the Times can set the conversational agenda -- in person and online -- for the day. These columns are widely e-mailed and syndicated, and they float around forever online. People (like Kristol) have used them successfully to call for war, and they have used them successfully to call for peace, for environmental reform, for further investigation, for impeachment, for... think of some major event in the last century, then search it + "New York Times" + "op-ed" and see what you come up with.
In short, I think they should hire someone who can write eloquently, think deeply, and engage even those who disagree through sound but ethical argumentation. George Will, it turns out, has a job, and so I have no idea who to nominate otherwise. Maybe I've set the bar too high... but there must be conservative thinkers out there who can do these things well, and I sincerely, deeply hope the Times will choose one of them. And then, if that's a success, I hope they'll show Maureen Dowd the door (maybe it could be shaped like the front door of the New York Post) or just give her column inches over to Paul Krugman for a while.
What I'd really like to see, I'll admit, is someone from the blogger class get elevated to the big page, because upon review, everything I've listed above (except the last, and with some alteration to the first) are the criteria I apply to good political blogging.
So... who reads on the right? My usual conservative reads would be disqualified here for a number of reasons, but I'd love to hear anyone who's got a suggestion for a Kristol replacement. Think big, think wacky, think unlikely. Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? Who could make the right side of the Times page relevant again? (Packer has promised to put his suggestions online today, but I think the death of a friend may delay that column a while).
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
Gimme a while. I'll get back to you.
The simple fact is that the idealogical linchpins of the conservative movement have largely been discredited (check my blog for one). Almost all conservative pundits have decided that re-writing history is better than coming up with new ideas. Did you know FDR's programs didn't actually improve the conditions of the Great Depression, despite oodles of evidence to the contrary? You do now, courtesy of our friends on the "right" wing.
rated
A month or two ago I was very critical of Kathleen Parker in one of my posts. But she gained some respect during the last 6 weeks of the election. I know she has a job, but maybe she can move over to the Times for a little promotion.
Or perhaps Chuck Hegel needs a job now that he is leaving the Senate, unless, of course, he gets a job in Obama's cabinet. . There's a conservative I can respect.
Bill Kristol could get a job for [Closed] Salon, perhaps. He's their kind of guy—committed to the notion of the provocative. I really think that's why the press has liked him, because he can reliably deliver the bizarre, which incidentally is also what the recent Republican agenda has been. And Salon loves to shock people, as evidenced by its headline choices, so he'd fit right in.
Buchanan and Will are the immediate thoughts I have when I fish around in my brain for Republicans who have a sense of sanity and know when to support their leaders (consistent with their personal ideology, I mean) rather than merely cheerlead unconditionally (which is what I think Kristol did). Kristol seemed to have the same problem that Bush had (which made him a poor commentator, and more of an apologist): he confused stubbornness with commitment.
Ross Perot might be a fun guy to get in there as a stopgap. He at least has a point of view and had some predictive power. I don't know if he's a writer, but they could get him a typist or a ghostwriter or Dragon Naturally Speaking or something.
Or Paul O'Neill. His The Price of Loyalty was a good read and convinced me of his sincerity both to principle and country.
Or how about Kevin Phillips? He's got a point of view, too, a willingness to write, and an understanding of the Republican party even if he's not warm to the present incarnation of it.
It's not that I think Rove isn't interesting in some way, but I see him as so intensely Machiavellian that it scares me to encourage him. Then again, maybe if his efforts were out in the open, that would be a net improvement. Cheney somewhat the same, I suppose.
Or they could woo away Shepard Smith. You were wanting him to burst forth. I wonder if he got his own space if he'd grow into something interestingly different than Fox News was leading to.
Personally, I like Maureen Dowd. (Maybe I haven't seen the negative things you're complaining about.) But the Democrats have way too few people capable of articulating a coherent response to the bullying the Republicans dish out, and I'm glad she can stand up to them.
You have offered up a truly puzzling puzzler, Saturn. I think I'm stumped.
Again, well done!
Umbrella -- I admit, I threw that name in at the end so as not to make everyone stop reading up front. ;)
James, I think you're right, the criteria might eliminate... everyone! And you're right on in about the tendency among many (on both sides, but notably on the right recently) to re-write history to support a point. Should have been on my list!
Proco, Kathleen Parker's name came to mind for me as well, but just because of the past few months. I don't know enough about her before the Palin piece to really judge whether she's partisan or ideologically conservative. But Chuck Hegel... that's an interesting idea. Very interesting.
Kent, clearly if I get a promotion, I'll have to take you with me to spell check! (doh!) I like the O'Neill suggestion on principle, though I don't know what his writing is like (Ron Suskind, who wrote or co-wrote that book with him, I can't remember which, is an amazing writer). Someone of that stature who left the administration would be ideal, but there just aren't that many people who qualify.
Kevin Phillips -- his American Theocracy is on my reading list right now, but from what little I know of him and his work, that's a really excellent suggestion. (And Randy agrees -- thanks, Randy!)
Shepard Smith... he'd have to give up his place at Fox to write an op-ed column, and since he's very adamant about being a journalist, not a commentator, I can't really see him doing it (plus it would pay a lot less).
Maureen Dowd drives me nuts, but that's for another post.
WhoN -- I think Peggy Noonan has a gig with the Wall Street Journal, which she probably wouldn't or shouldn't give up. I'm with you on Buchanan.
MTN, I think Huckabee gets disqualified by the fact that he's probably going to run for president again in 2012.
Are you saying Cheney or Rove meet any of your 10 should bullets?
Cuz, i'm just saying that neither meet "not fake what she or he doesn't know." Not that Kristol ever met that standard, or that he's Strausian belief system would allow him to think it valid.
Palin is interesting, but she's probably too busy reading everything and anything to find the time to write.
Does it cross the mind of some that there are no interesting conservatives that meet the 10 standards offered, and less than a handful of self proclaiming conservatives who measure up to a William Safire or Bill Buckley?
How about y'all conservatives just take credit for the pyscho-drama musings of Maureen? ;-)
Christopher Buckley, who lost his job at his own dad's mag.
Andrew Sullivan.
Silkstone, I read Andrew Sullivan every day, but I think he's had his chance at being a national voice for conservatism during his time at the Atlantic... beyond which, I'm not sure I could take a year or five of bi-weekly columns that recommend again and again that I read his book. I love C. Buckley's writing, but I don't think he'd be willing to give up satire.
Heh, Roger, I think we're in danger of crowning him King George here. But I don't think the Washington Post would look kindly at him if he traded laterally (and slightly up).
The choices are so meager.
Frankly, although I once considered myself Maureen Dowd's number one fan--I'd sooner see her replaced than Kristol. She has become a drag--a major drag. And she takes herself even more seriously than Rush Limbaugh...not an easy thing to do.
I have always advocated giving big mouthed conservatives as much rope as they ask for. If they are digging holes...I would offer them more shovels. I hope the Times eventually gives the job to someone like Limbaugh...or a Kristol clone.
Never ask someone to shut his mouth if he is trying to insert his foot into it.
We need more Centrist columnists on both sides, in my opinion. No way am I implying that the charges of a "liberal media" are true, it just seems that both sides pundits are clearly partisan. I like that when my guy/gal is on, and then I start throwing things when the right wing gut twisters get on air or page.
George Will is conservative. I thought his realistic observations on McCain throughout the crux of the election was fairly spot on. I know some will disagree, but Will is nothing if not articulate and calculated in his sources and word choice. Kristol, to me is a hack. Bringing in another hack a la Rover boy or the Dick is a step backward.
GREAT POST to me in its essence believe me. We need good solid, objective journalism from both sides. But I guess seeing Dan Rather crucified in his legacy forever because he dared to report the TRUTH about George W. Bush leaves me a bit jaded and cynical.
rated
Hear, Hear! Why another partisan hack? Why not someone capable of representing real independent thought? I would personally like a philosopher to be given the opportunity. Admittedly, I am biased because I am a philosophy teacher but philosophers are almost exclusively trained in argumentation and thusly, by necessity, construct arguments taking opposing points of view into full consideration by addressing them in their text.
A rigorously argued philosophical essay would almost never be as one-sided as political columns. I teach my students arguments for 'A' and arguments for 'not-A' equally and frequently reinforce the notion that I am not endorsing either 'A' or 'not-A'.
Perhaps the only benefit, as dubious as it may be, to being a political columnist is never having to publish your apology for being wrong.
I second the Christopher Buckley nomination.
Sorry for the repetition; I'm just musing.
... Does it distinguish from palinoconservative? :)
It's not mine, but I agree it's evocative. It appeared, apparently, in the late 1970s but I think it gained much wider use during the Bush II years, to distinguish people like Will, Buchanan, and others from the upstarts (even if not too different in age) like Kristol and Krauthammer.
And NO WAY to George Will who said middle-class Americans are better off now than ever. Where do they come up with this stuff?
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota.html
I, too, love George Will and have enjoyed Chris Buckley's excoriation of the current right as it relates to his father's vision.
Alan Simpson has dabbled in media from time to time and was memorable on the short-lived PBS show with dimunitive Robert Reich called "The long and short of it."
Like him or hate him, Newt Gingrich happens to be a very, very intelligent human being. He seems a little too cravenly obvious in his desire to get back in the game, but he certainly whistled one over the dog sled of Sarah Palin the other day.
For a rather dry recitation of matters economic-related I would submit that Mitt Romney would be excellent there. While politically tone deaf on so many levels, that man has an incredibly insightful grasp of economics.
There was a female writer from Reason Magazine who contributed to the Boston Globe on occasion whom I thoroughly enjoyed but whose name I simply cannot recall ...
James Baker, Bush the Good, and Brent Scowcroft would be people from whom it would be worth hearing.
Jeff Jacoby currently serves as the token conservative for the Boston Globe and is not half bad.
Jacoby is so far out on the right wing, though; he's fine on the Globe, given the role he plays, but I think without some heavy counterbalancing his moralistic rantings would damage the credibility of a more middle-of-the-road paper.
I'll toss in a name that may not as familiar - Steve Chapman. Chapman's a libertarian and has been on the Chicago Tribune's editorial board for 20+ years. I certainly don't agree with all (or even most) of his positions, but he writes and argues in a straightforward, clear manner. And even surprises me at times. To his credit -- again, arguing from a libertarian point of view -- Chapman has been a harsh critic of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration's abuses of power.
But above all, Roe has damaged women. As the abortion culture spread, so did unwed motherhood, domestic violence, woman-hating music, and divorce. Why blame Roe? Because Roe degraded pregnancy, changed it from an awesome event with grave consequences to a mere hassle, easily gotten rid of, called forth a vast industry whose single purpose is to nullify something unique to women: the growth of life in the womb. In any culture that makes child-bearing cheap, child-bearers will be treated cheaply, too.
Columnists do not spend their time behind the scenes as a influential de-facto Republican operative lobbying Republicans for their favorite causes (ex.--Sarah Palin) and then use their "column" to promote the very causes they are lobbying for. He's simultaneously a newsmaker (or would-be newsmaker) and a "columnist" writing about stuff he wants to make into news.
He's a Republican propagandist who has absolutely no ethics.
Shalom,
ZWrite
PS -- By the way, Saturn, I was unaware that your views on Bill Kristol are "well-known." You might want to be careful about your ego.
Couldn't agree more with you for disqualifying Sullivan for self-promotion. Will is old and tired, in my book. I like the Jeff Jacoby call.
Can Newt Gingrich write? He had some stupid ideas, but at least many of them were original stupid ideas.
Big Ed, as for who v. whom, I think you mean the headline on the cover, and while I share your grammatical grief, I can't share the blame as I didn't write it.
zwrite... um, thanks for the ego check? That's sloppy writing on my part, I guess -- I don't mean known the world over, just known among the few who read and comment regularly. Just me trying to follow my own rules and get my bias out up front.
Scarborough gets a little loud at times, but he is not nearly as knee jerk as some of the other clowns out there.
I watched that fossil Lou Dobbs for the first time during the beginning of the economic implosion. Holy Shit, is that guy far gone.
What about William Weld? Don't know if he can write opinion pieces, but he's a heckuva a novelist. And he's funny.
What a fabulous post! What an interesting question.
Though I have to admit, as I started reading it---I got a bit ahead of myself and for a few moments I thought Kristol's departure had actually be announced. It wasn't until after the Congo line had wound once around my condo that I realized you were only fantasizing.
Disappointed as I may be, I can only wonder why Christopher Buckley wasn't in and Kristol out the day after Buckley had resigned his previous post.
Do you think Condeleeza can write? Maybe the question should be, do you think she has a brain of her own? If she does, she might bring an interesting prospective.
Re Maureen Dowd. I once LOVED her work. Then, she it was if she had been stolen by the pod people. In the last few weeks, she has written the occasional column that harks back to her glory days---and then, wham--she writes another slam of Hillary. Makes me nuts.
I'm not concerned about preserving the credibility of the New York Times. That was compromised a long time ago. But a lot of bright people continue to read it, so I guess a good conservative contributor would be a good idea. BTW, I couldn't believe my eyes when reading that the NYT was host to lots of conservatives. Like who?
I reached almost the end thinking that my pick would be a new name, but alas, some bright posters beat me to it: Newt Gingrich. Second choice, Charles Krauthamer. Both are brilliant, accomplished writers (NG has written so many well received books I was amazed at the question about his writing ability) and my only concern would be whether they have any interest in writing for the New York Times at this point in its decline.
The rule holds true: good articles produce good reactions, except of course for a chronic contributor who on this occasion decided that it was relevant to point out someone's sexual orientation.
M.a.h, Condoleeza Rice did have a intellectual life before the administration, but I could only see her as a columnist a few years from now, as I think right now we'd be in for a year or two of either defensive or apologist columns (the latter of which I'd read with interest).
Rob, Gordon, the trouble I have with Gingrich as a columnist is that he's still a party player -- a possible candidate for 2012 and a possible new head of the RNC. Krauthammer has a job at the Post... though maybe he'd switch if he's feeling overshadowed by George Will. Heck, maybe Will would move over.
Saturn:
I am sure that there are dozens of excellent conservative writers all over the nation.
How do I know? I've lived in four major metropolitan areas and there were excellent conservative writers in each one. In addition, I was in the business and used to regularly read out-of-town papers. Today, I often read excellent conservative columnists on RealClearPolitics.com.
To name people in a post like this seems counterproductive because none of the readers are going to know the names unless you live in the city where those writers work. One poster wrote about columnists in Boston, and they might very well be the best suited to replace Bill Kristol although I'm not familiar with their work.
Here's Point No. 1 of my rambling post -- The editors of The New York Times KNOW who these writers are. You might not know about the excellent conservative columnists in Detroit, Denver, and Dallas, but they do.
Here's Point No. 2 -- The Times, inexplicably, has decided to appease the conservatives who regularly complain about liberal bias by hiring a well-known conservative operative. The newspaper got what it deserved -- someone who is unethical, unfair, unbelievably predictable, unwilling to write anything that will hurt the conservative cause, only interested in politics, and the furthest thing in the world from independent.
Here in Chicago, a conservative named Stephen Chapman sometimes surprises his Chicago Tribune readers with an opinion that goes way outside the conservative box. I'm sure there are writers in other cities who do the same thing.
In short, what The New York Times should do is hire someone who can, well, WRITE -- and be provocative and insightful.
The irony, of course, is that an unknown columnist hired by The Times would become well known in short time -- and, in the long run, be more pleasing to conservatives than a piece of junk like Bill Kristol.
And, by the way, most of these local writers do NOT have the kind of expertise that you call for. And they should not. A specialist like Paul Krugman adds a lot to the mix, but I would rather have a generalist who can look at issues from a fresh perspective.
Shalom,
ZWrite
That's the LAST thing we need -- another egomaniac trying to promote himself or herself for yet another political office via yet another forum. I've had enough of the Pat Buchanans of this world.
Shalom for good,
ZWrite
I'd go with Kathleen Parker, Kevin Phillips, or George Will - with a definite preference for Phillips.
If they get Rich Lowry, I'm canceling my subscription.
Yes, me, too. And I totally believe that the editors of the New York Times know more than I do about who's good and who's not, who's writing thoughtful conservative pieces, who's popular where, etc. I'd almost say I trust them, but the Kristol pick makes me wary...
I'm still very much in favor of someone with a detailed knowledge of the history of the area in which they're writing. I don't think comment on current events can be as deep as it should be without knowledge of what's happened before or what can happen in a similar situation. I'd guess most of the writers you're talking about (like Stephen Chapman, who's been writing in national conservative publications and sitting on the Tribune's editorial board since 1981) actually would qualify under this -- if they've been writing and reading about politics constantly for any stretch of time.
Jacoby oozes decency with every phrase yet, I wonder if he can deliver consistenly on a national/international level although this administration will give much fodder to whomever gets the post.
I absolutely love Bill Weld. He is the poster child for me of what I republican ought to represent.
As such he is absolutely despised by the party at this point in time. He was a great governor in that he demanded efficiently delivery of services, threatened privatization to wake up the bureacracy, and stayed out of the bedroom, as he would say.
He had a great line attributed to him in an interview when the interviewer spotted an Armadillo. When asked, he claimed he liked it because it reminded him of himself. The interviewer asked him if it was because of its tough exterior to which he replied, "No, because it is rather slow and stupid." He then elaborated by saying that an Armadillo, if in the middle of the road, could survive the passing of an oncoming car by just holding still, but their reaction is to jump at the wrong time, thereby becoming grille food.
He bailed out of boredom and was to become Ambassador to Mexico for Clinton, but Jesse Helms stuck it to him and tanked his appointment. That boredom was part of what made him so appealing as a politician. He essentially conveyed an attitude of "Look, I really don't need this job. I can quit tomorrow and go back to earning $400K in the private sector, but I thought I would try my hand at it. If you don't like what I'm doing, vote me out. I can take it." Ah, for more nobless oblige pols...
So, yes, he would be a great columnist, but I do not think he would pass as a conservative by today's neandertha --- Uh, conservatives.
He's on his second wife, has a new do, and seems to be quite content making obscene amounts of money practicing corporate law while still being able to go Boar hunting in the Adirondacks without catching shit from a couple of low-level oppostion flacks. He also gets to play poker, ingest amber colored fluids, and not get second guessed for showing up at functions allegedly stewed or hungover, either.
Bill Weld, Pete Wilson, and Christie Todd Whitman. I remember them being interviewed during the 1996 convention in San Diego by some talking head while passersby at the convention yelled "Baby killer" at them.
Way to go. Who needs to understand how to appeal to population centers like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts to build a governing coalition?
I have to stop this. Somebody please come and take away my belt and shoelaces.....
A republican who is pro-life is out of touch but, a gay marriage protester who loses elections in virtually every state isn't? I like Bill Weld but, he is a Rino.
Extremism and intolerance is alive and well and safely nestled on the left these days. People I know were afraid to put a McCain 08 on their car for it may be keyed or worse.
The left has grown angry and intolerant -watch the rumblings when the Messiah does not deliver as expected. Pat Robinson will look like your Pete Wilson in comparison.
The left?
Threats against a new president historically spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than ever before. The Secret Service would not comment or provide the number of cases they are investigating. But since the Nov. 4 election, law enforcement officials have seen more potentially threatening writings, Internet postings and other activity directed at Obama than has been seen with any past president-elect, said officials aware of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue of a president's security is so sensitive.
That's not the left.
Saturn:
I agree.
Here's my position:
For -- Someone who has been a successful professional writer/reporter/columnist for several years and has a "detailed knowledge" of a wide variety of subjects, including politics.
Against -- Someone who has NOT been a writer, but is a specialist. Ex.--A politician (Gingrich) or political operative (Kristol) whose interest is NOT writing; ex.--Economists. They would be great if their column was on their topic of expertise and not a general interest column.
Frankly, I'd trust the veracity of a political column written by a longtime general interest columnist from Miami or Seattle or wherever whose experience includes political columns more than I'd trust a political column written by an "expert" (like Kristol). Sometimes, experts can't be trusted.
Shalom,
ZWrite