So who would I like to see in the Kristol slot? Actually, Kristol. I was livid when they gave him the job, but he was perfect: a dull, complacent apparatchik who set forth the Bush line in all its fact-free glory. His columns were like press releases--you could hardly remember them two minutes after reading them. But his presence on the page reminded readers that David Brooks is not really what Republicanism is all about. Frankly, though, I don't see why there must be two conservatives on the page. Does the Wall Street Journal, the Times's national competition, have two liberals? That the Times, the closest thing we have to a liberal paper, cedes so much turf to the opposition, as progressive bloggers applaud, shows the truth of Robert Frost's quip that a liberal is someone so open-minded he won't take his own side in an argument.As a liberal, I can see the point. Kristol was, indeed, a useful idiot. But we need to tease out a couple things. Kristol wasn't merely a conservative who was bad on the issues, he was a columnist who was bad at his job. He was not so much a conservative columnist, as he was a GOP shill, a political operator who ran an advance office for the Palin 2012 campaign, out of the Times' edit pages. Paul Krugman may be a liberal, and a lefty, but he most certainly isn't shilling for the Democratic Party.
More than that, Kristol failed at the non-ideological essentials. Getting your facts right is a basic standard of the profession. There's no left/right to it--either Obama was in pews to hear Jeremiah Wright, or he wasn't. Either Michelle Malkin said it, or she didn't. These are basic rules that you can teach a 14-year old. And Kristol got them wrong. Often. He was, in sum, an incompetent foe, the sort of boxer who think road-work is for sissies. In the midst of writing a review of one of Ann Coulter's silly tomes, Christopher Hitchens once told a reporter, "If I can't fuck up Ann Coulter before lunch then I shouldn't be in this business." Indeed. And to even the most simple-minded liberal I'd say, If you can't fuck up Bill Kristol before breakfast, you shouldn't be blogging.
The dude was good for that first Monday morning entry, no doubt. But here is the thing--in the war of ideas you don't gain much by measuring yourself against the worst that your opponents have to offer. The thing about competing against jokers, is that it eventually makes a joker of you. Your ideas lose their complexity, their volume and heft, mostly because you don't need them to take down Kristol. You just need to read the corrections on the Times website. I don't see how that helps me become a better writer.
Frederick Douglass once said that "A man is worked on, by what he works on." We have direct evidence of what comes to those who spend their days sparring with Kristol. Is that really where we're trying to go?
As a side-note, people who think Ross shouldn't have gotten the gig and want to enumerate why are free to comment. People who simply think he's a douchebag should probably just have a drink. I'll be deleting those comments anyway. Which will simply make you more frustrated, thus making you drink more. I know, I know. Life is so unfair.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
But his presence on the page reminded readers that David Brooks is not really what Republicanism is all about.
Very annoying. Brooks attended all those Bush sit-downs and repeated the talking points ("He's so optimistic!") like the rest, just in his own soft manner.
It's like the "Buckley must be turning in his grave" lament. Buckley was an ultrawealthy scion, staunchly anti-black and anti-Civil Rights, anti-gay bigot capitalist champion who ran a money-losing magazine. He was an asshole and a huge part of the problem.
If Brooks and Buckley get/got the occasional nugget right, that doesn't change who they are or their role in the Vast Right Wing Doucheterrium.
But yeah, I guess Kristol is worse.
Apologies for the slight digression.
I can't stop laughing at this!
'Frederick Douglass once said that "A man is worked on, by what he works on."'
Holy shit, the man just stepped across centuries and kicked my sorry ass with that wisdom-weapon. Wow. That's like Marshall McLuhan and Marx distilled and rolled into one or something. Wow.
That column says a lot more about Politt than about Douthat. She seems to be upset that a conservative would be given any position of stature at a liberal publication, which as TNC points out is absurd.
Sure Douthat has said some off-color and flat out wrong things in the past, but who opens their mouth or sets fingers to keyboard everyday and doesn't have an extensive collection of things they probably should not have said? I would put Politt's whole column of whiny snark in that collection (aside: do they teach this unbearable liberal writing voice of self-righteous outrage at Berkeley and NYU? If so they should knock it off; it only sounds good to to other snarky liberals).
I don't agree with a lot of what Douthat says (I find his views on pornography for example to be a tad creepy), but I don't doubt his intellectual honesty and he's certainly not a party shill. I think he's an excellent choice.
I think it is always good for us to read smart versions of the other side. I think it will be especially good for NY Times readers to contend with a smart social conservative, since it is my experience that too many people think social conservatives are mouth-breathing hill billies. Kristol was a joke and demeaned the editorial page.
OK, everyone calm down for a moment, here. The graf in question is, like most are braying, an intellectually bereft argument. It's snarky, and a drop in the bucket.
Can we take a look at massive passage that precedes the one in question? "...but even for a blogo-pundit, Douthat seems unusually averse to engaging with women intellectually, even on perennial topics like abortion and birth control, where you'd think we'd bring something missing to the table..." That is the point of her column—the graf tacked on the end was a poor indication of writerliness as well as a sense of intellectual debate—but she dues have some valid points of debate.
I'd love to see one of Pollit's detractors take on the substance of her argument, the actual point of her column, and not the unfortunately distracting passage at the end.
Andrew: The Atlantic Teen Hunger Force Strike Team doesn't roll like that! Please remember what a vast wasteland surrounds T-NC on this particular domain.
Yo, dude . . unrelated, but I think it's a crime you posted a video of Aretha last week, and didn't even honor Chaka Khan on her b-day. your old schoolness is inconsistent, sir. i demand satisfaction. :(
@sublicon
I feel for you.
I'm not a massive fan of Douthat or anything, but Pollitt's evidence of his cro-magnon conservatism looks like the pull-quotes on the back of a straight-to-DVD Uwe Boll movie.
For example, she mentions his recent discussion with this blog on shame:
There's much more at The Atlantic--on gay sheep, the "vice" of masturbation, why "a little 'shaming' here and there isn't the worst response to sexual promiscuity"
Having read all those posts, I wouldn't characterize any of them as damning to his good-faith engagement with the issue, or as evidence of any deep-set sexism. I think Pollitt was on the hunt for WMDs in his archives, and this was the best she could find.
Also, isn't the real benefit of having a conservative in the NYTimes, and of the plurality of viewpoints in newspapers generally, that sometimes people of different political opinions than ours might be right? Heaven forbid we actually learn something, or discover the utility of a new way of thinking from our newspapers, as opposed to stocking up on rhetorical ammunition every seven days.
For all that I dig Katha Pollitt, her piece on Douthat seemed a bit cheap. Among other things, his exchange with TNC on shame and family and marriage was a real model of honest intellectual exchange between people coming from different philosophical perspectives. It was evidence of why he's suited for a high profile column, not why he isn't suited.
That said, she's onto something with her sense that Douthat is a bit weird and priggish on issues surrounding sex. I wish he would address the criticisms more directly.
Deleted. You were warned. It's not too early for that martini...
btw, I would have been over the moon with Reihan or Jim Manzi as the choice.
Even Conor or James Poulos.
Acuz those dudes don't front when they represent.
Krugman definitely isn't Schilling for the Democrats. He's Wakefield at best.
Actually, in my haste to make a stupid baseball joke I probably underrated Krugman. Pedro, maybe?
"he just has a bigger vocabulary and better hair."
Now that's just patently unfair. You left out "boyish good looks" and "a certain winsome eye when smiling for the camera."
In all seriousness, I think there's validity to Politt's critique of Douthat regarding his failure to engage with more female thinkers. I'd also suggest, though, that once he's on the masthead of the Times he'll be a lot more ecumenical in the objects of his writing and the figures he chooses to engage with. That mantle is vastly different than the blogger robe he's worn here at the admittedly fabulous Atlantic, and I suspect he'll wear it (and think about his role) differently. Which is all to the good -- though we'll probably miss his flashes of humor, it's a very serious job, and he won't take it as casually as Kristol seemed to do.
Okfine TNC.
Can I axe a question tho?
Is anti-factual pandering to your readership a good policy for reshaping the conservative movement?
And....it seems it would seem to destroy all your ammo for honest intellectual differences in debates with with your ideological adversaries.
Do you have a link for either the Hitch interview or, better yet, the Coulter review?
Here is another example.
Both Douthat and Ponnuru both often cite a Hamilton study where 70% of the respondents (highschool seniors in 2006) state they would not personally have an abortion, and that they support restricitons on abortions.
However, 60% of the same respondents are against overturning Roe.
And they never mention that.
TNC, I'm not a particular fan of this particular Pollitt column, but I do think she has something of a point that Ross's slightly more polite, distant-intellectual tone masks some pretty rote positions on conservative mores. It's one I think you generally agree with too, given your previous exchanges with Douthat on family. So I'm surprised to see you leap on the somewhat "damned with faint praise" compliment to Douthat that he is better than Kristol.
I suspect thought she doesn't come right out and say it that Pollitt is disgusted with the way liberal white male bloggers seem to be rallying to congratulate Douthat when they are the population least likely to be materially affected by his positions. To wit: I see a lot of people in here saying they don't see "deep-set sexism" in Douthat's writing. I'm willing to believe that a lot of these commenters are, of course, guys. And in my experience, guys don't tend to see a lot of sexism anywhere, not out of wilful blindness or anything, but in the same way that racism tends to be invisible to whites.
Anyway, I feel it pointless to argue this in the comments here knowing that they are not particularly sympathetic to feminists. But TNC, I'm a little disappointed that you seem willing not just to give Douthat a pass here but also to defend him against critics. This guy has some pretty retrograde views about women, and I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out.
The Hitchens piece. It's pretty great:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/16/061016fa_fact_parker
You can stop calling. We have a winner.
@Michelle
Got your point re: sexism, etc.
So rather than taking it out on Ross, who seems like a well-meaning, if (in my mind) misguided, man, shouldn't we be taking our feminist rage out on the Stinkin' New York Times for not hiring a female instead of Ross? Tell them, I refuse to read your free website anymore until you get a _woman_ conservative on your masthead!!!
I wonder if Katha Pollitt realizes that she is the liberal version of Bill Kristol.
That said, she's onto something with her sense that Douthat is a bit weird and priggish on issues surrounding sex. I wish he would address the criticisms more directly.
What you call Douthat being a "bit weird and priggish on issues surrounding sex" is the core of his conservatism. Douthat isn't a libertarian conservative that worships free markets or a neo-conservative that believes that all foreign policy difficulties can be solved by the U.S being more aggressive; Ross is a social conservative and what makes him a conservative is his belief that the sexual revolution was a horrible mistake, and the ultimate goals of his domestic policy ideas are to reduce sex out of marriage and restore the traditional family with mothers staying home with their children. This does make him seem "weird and priggish" and downright reactionary to most liberals, but given these premises Douthat is usually fairly logical and honest in his arguments and seems aware of the realities of the world. This makes him, for me, someone usually interesting to read, but one that I almost never find the least bit persuasive.
I think Douthat and Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg and their ilk are bad choices to lead conservatives out of their self-designed exile in the political wildnerness, because they subscibe to the basic schizophrenia of the conservative movement....the idea that economic liberty is good while social liberty is bad.
Encouraging the schizophrenic break with reality that is the current instantiation of conservative ideology is just not a good thing.
There is no altruism in nature, TNC.
I want a healthy and strong loyal opposition.
Douthat should see Politt's beef as a compliment, in my mind. As for her position, where ever she stands on the issues, if she's not ready to take it toe-to-toe with the best of the otherside, she not worth my time, Douthat's, or yours either.
I welcome his rise, not because I agree with him (I'm with more or less with Michelle), but because he at least talks the talk of reason. He doesn't demonize the opposition, and because of that us liberals can enter the dialog and fight the fight like civilized folk. That's my guess on why the blogosphere is so happy. Words not flames, better for everyone that way.
While I didn't much care for Pollitt's piece either, she does have one good point buried in there, as Michelle notes above. Many of Ross's social views have different consequences for women than they do for men, and I've never seen him address that head on. He should, because it would no doubt improve his arguments.
Overall, I like reading Ross, for the reasons others here have stated. My biggest doubt about him, however, was raised by George Packer in an otherwise positive blog post:
I haven't read Ross's book about Harvard, but I did read several interviews with him when it was released, and I came away with the distinct impression that he's doesn't share much in common with the people he says should be the future of his party. That isn't a liability in and of itself, but I certainly see how it could become one.
I don't think Douhat is a douchebag, but he is pretty crazy on some issues - like stem cells (mass murder!)
Personally I'd like to see the spot go to Glenn Beck, just so folks who read the Times get a glimmer of how crazy the Palinite hard-core of the GOP happens to be. Also, it would drive David Brooks crazy. I'm into a utilitarian pick, but contra Pollitt, I don't think Kristol quite does the trick in 2009.
The biggest problem with the Douthat pick is that he speaks for no one in political circles and is pretty much an intellectual/political diletantte. All you have to do is watch his co-conspirator to transform the GOP, Reihan , on bloggingheads to realize how politically irrelevant these guys - and presumably their thesis - are.
Ross is a social conservative and what makes him a conservative is his belief that the sexual revolution was a horrible mistake,
Yes, but he thinks it was a horrible mistake because it means women are allowed to want to have sex, and he finds that icky. Why can't they just lie back and think of England?
It's one thing to believe that there's a justification for a gender based division of labor centered around the belief that families exist to produce offspring, it's another to construct an entire philosophy based on refusing to think about women because they're eww, gross!
Then why in Jesus Name support Palin?
Like my nice Catholic mom said when she declined to vote for any ticket with Palin on it, "...that woman should stay home and take care of her kids."
"Yes, but he thinks it was a horrible mistake because it means women are allowed to want to have sex, and he finds that icky."
TR: Is that really his view or merely your interpretation of his view? I've certainly never seen him say that.
The thing on orgasm is mostly about monogamy being better for women, which whether you agree or not isn't the same as "icky women want sex." (Unless you think wanting sex and wanting multiple partners is the same thing) Mostly the actual people I know who reject birth control and abortion (as opposed to this notion of "Christianists" that mostly exists in social liberals minds and a few cultish groups) certainly think women desire sex and should desire it. John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" is fairly explicit about the necessity of female pleasure and Catholic nun Hidegard of Bingen was among the first to describe female orgasm.
Now people like Douthat likely do think women should only desire one man at a time, or at least should only act on desires in a monogamous relationship, but I don't think that's really the same thing at all. Even if they add the idea a woman should also desire a family, etc.
Thomas R:
Your position is willfully dense. Douthat's position opposing birth control and essentially insisting that women should be sexual only within marriage is a way to insist that men control female sexuality.
Douthat's description in "Privilege" of his time in bed with a woman whom he describes as "a chunkier Reese Witherspoon" certainly suggests an ickiness factor. Douthat describes her in an uncomplimentary way which probably makes her identifiable. Obviously, he does not care if he embarrasses her.
Why does he do so? Because she uses the pill. If Douthat actually believed that sexuality were sacred, he might treat her a bit better.
If Douthat had had genuine feelings for her, which she had then abused, then his actions might be understandable and (depending upon the circumstances) defensible. Yet his own writing indicates he had no feelings for her. Instead, he was in his own words "bored".
He is a lout and a jerk, masquerading as a moralist.
"he thinks it was a horrible mistake because it means women are allowed to want to have sex, and he finds that icky."
TR: Is that really his view or merely your interpretation of his view? I've certainly never seen him say that.
Well, consider this, from his book, Privilege:
One successful foray ended on the guest bed of a high school friend's parents, with a girl who resembled a chunkier Reese Witherspoon drunkenly masticating my neck and cheeks. It had taken some time to reach this point--"Do most Harvard guys take so long to get what they want?" she had asked, pushing her tongue into my mouth. I wasn't sure what to say, but then I wasn't sure this was what I wanted. My throat was dry from too much vodka, and her breasts, spilling out of pink pajamas, threatened my ability to. I was supposed to be excited, but I was bored and somewhat disgusted with myself, with her, with the whole business... and then whatever residual enthusiasm I felt for the venture dissipated, with shocking speed, as she nibbled at my ear and whispered--"You know, I'm on the pill..."