...is going to work for the New York Times as a columnist. Ross and I fight under different flags. But I expect he'll be at the Times, what he always was here--a swordsman of great caliber and greater honor. Here's to him. The roster won't be the same once he's gone.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I've been following his blog for a while, and he's one of the most reasonable and thoughtful conservative commentators I've seen in a long while. That's coming from my liberal perspective, of course, and I'm sure no doubt that the Rush Limbaughs of the world see him as a weak-kneed capitulator.
Serious question: could you link to a few *good* articles that you think he's written? Not just one, but a few.
Since the news of his move came out, I've seen a few complimentary articles about this man from liberals who say pretty much the same thing ("I disagree with him but he's still a good-faith conservative"). The problem is, none of these defenses have linked to examples to show that he really is an intellectually honest columnist. On the other hand, one of them *did* link to a bit of evidence that he has truly nutty and extremist ideas on abortion ("liberals believe in eugenics").
Seriously. What has be written to show that he really deserves column space in the NYT?
Shade,
This one from a couple days ago is a good example of him being sane:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/barack_obama_and_the_new_cente.php
Here are a couple:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/rush_and_olbermann.php
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/the_process_of_government.php
Also see our sparring match over marriage and child-rearing. And then just hop over and read through his archives. Just because a bunch of us liberal bloggers like him doesn't mean you have to.
The roster won't be the same once he's gone.
Yeah, it'll suck not having a conservative Atlantic blogger with such a rich comment section.
Oh wait.
Personally I think (without exageration) it is a boon to the world to have that guy on the pages of the NYT as opposed to Kristol.
I can't stand some of the things he says because they are so diametrically opposed to what I think of as right...however...the dude is always civil, thoughtful, informed and respectiful, at least as far as I have read. I'd take Douthat over 90% of the blogroll of the HuffPo any day of the week.
I don't know much about him - except that he tends to put me to sleep on Bloggingheads - but I have real trouble understanding someone who thinks that allowing stem cell research on frozen embryos that will ultimately be discarded is mass murder but who thought that invading Iraq was "just war." Seems kind of crazy to me. If a liberal were that incoherent and inexplicable, my guess is they wouldn't be taken seriously by the New York Times. Although its arguable that Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman are evidence that I'm wrong.
So The Atlantic put their franchise tag on Andrew Sullivan?
Eric, Mr. Coates, thanks for those links. They do make Douthat look like a much better choice for the NYT than Kristol was.
Haha I love the High Fantasy tone of this post. Does Ross fight with a katana, broadsword, or naginata?
While I enjoy your blog, I must complain that "a swordsman of great caliber" is a terribly mixed metaphor.
Mike
Douthat makes me nuts, but in a good way. I want to engage him, argue with him, ask questions. I don't want to ignore him. In that sense, he is a good representative of people that I disagree with profoundly, but with whom i still have to share a country and society.
keep up the good work at the NYT, Ross! i'll be reading you there (and hopefully i'll be able to comment on those posts/columns?)
I agree, it's a real coup for the Times, a surprisingly wise move that's the polar opposite of hiring on that hack Kristol who Douthat is replacing. A great leap forward for Douthat's career too. Who will take his place here?
Just because someone disagrees with your views doesn't make them "extreme" or "insane."
I hate to break to to radical lefties, but you're just as obnoxious and difficult as radical righties.
Most Americans find those who want no abortion under any circumstances (even rape) just as batty as those on the left that think we should have National Abortion Providers day (this actually exists).
Ross's arguements always make me think before articulating my response (for real or in my head). Assholes like Kristol, 95% of the Corner crew and ALL of the Weekly Standard are easy to dismiss because their ideologues and they don't have an ounce of intellectual integrity. Ross on the other hand is glad to acknowledge those who disagree and actuall ATTACK their stongest points head on.
Granted, Ross convinces me about 10% of the time, but I love reading him because I know he comes from an honest place and isn't an opportunist or ideologue.
Besides, a choir of progressive joining hands to remind each other how right they are sounds like an intellectual circle jerk to me....
I don't agree with your statement "Ross and I fight under different flags."
I think your end goals for the country and our generation are the same.
I enjoy Ross and Larison for very similiar reasons:
- I disagree with almost everything they write, but by the time I finish reading a post, I generally understand their reasoning for their position.
- They treat their sparring partners with respect.
- They aren't afraid to take on the intellectual laziness of people who are theoretical allies.
Ross and Kristol don't even exist on the same plane. It is nice to see NYT make a smart move.
I absolutely loved The Grand New Party, but I have since become convinced from reading both Ross and Reihan that Reihan was the movement genius behind the book.
On life-at-conception Ross totally reminds me of the high school debate teammate that got assigned to make argument for the loozer side. Arguing citizen rights for diploid oocytes?
He can't be serious.
Here's an example of a craziness post....dude is so far gone in christian accomodation that he supports postulating Death and Evolution as Punishment from God for the Fall.
@matko
Please read Ross's original post re: Darwin and Evolution and Jesus.
I'd hardly call that Christian Accomodation.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you failed to actually read what Ross wrote on the subject. Or possibly you attributed the emailer's suggestions to Ross.
Dude, I can read.
Now this is my kind of reader:
Further to your post, I wonder if you've ever read any of Tolkien's later philosophical musings about his mythology, in particular the essays and drafts collected in the volume Morgoth's Ring. Tolkien says that Morgoth -- the original Satanic figure responsible for the fall of the elves and (implicitly and off camera) the fall of humans -- imbued the physical world with a large part of his evil essence: "Just as Sauron concentrated his power in the One Ring, Morgoth dispersed his power into the very matter of Arda, thus 'the whole of Middle-Earth was Morgoth's Ring'". This explains why, from the elvish point of view, death is the "gift of men" because it gives them a ticket out of the fallen, Morgoth-tainted world. The problem with this from a orthodox Christian perspective is that death is supposed to be the punishment for the Fall and not part of the solution for the Fall. Tolkien was very much troubled by this deviation from orthodoxy and justified it by saying his mythology was just the elves' imperfect understanding about how things worked. But I find Tolkien's mythology/theology to make more sense and it certainly fits better with the idea that evolution "red in tooth and claw" is part of the residue of the Fall.
I think there's arguably an intimation in Genesis of the idea of death as a gift as well as a punishment - not a solution to the Fall, exactly, but perhaps a mitigation of it. After Adam and Eve have taken the forbidden fruit, God declares that Man is to be banished from Eden "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever," which could be read as a suggestion that the only thing worse than a life corrupted by sin is an eternal life corrupted by sin.
Douthat is a Christian-accomodationist...for example he subscribes to the idea that god created evolution, that the "intelligent designer designed evolution".
I wrote a much more thoughtful response, but it got lost somehow in the ether....So I'll give you this instead.
You can't point to one sentence in that in which Ross says, Evolution is a result of the "Fall." He just doesn't leap to dismiss the emailer's suggestion.
But to me, your bigger issue is that he dares to suggest Evolution is God's creation. What's wrong with that? Plenty of folks smarter than you or I embrace that idea.
That should only bother you if you're a pompus atheist who's not satisfied unless everyone else believes (or doesn't) believe what they think.
Those types only impress and convince other pompous athiests.
I hope I'm reading you incorectly. Otherwise, you're problem is not his capitulation to Christians, rather, it's that he is a Christian and is not embarassed about it. Having faith doesn't make you a "Christian-accomodationist."
While Ross is light years better than Kristol, as we came closer to the election last year, he descended into a kind of bitter funk when it became increasingly likely that the GOP's time in power was up. Some of it was, I'm sure, a way of insulating himself from what was coming, but at the point where he said that the stakes in the election "weren't that high," that was it for me. A recession, two wars, and eight years of executive overreach aren't high stakes? Dude.
So I stopped reading him regularly around that time. When someone would link to him on an interesting topic, I still check it out. He's leagues better than most of his ideological fellow-travellers at arguing his position, but he's kind of weak at sustained rebuttals. Maybe the Op-ed column will be a better fit for him format-wise, and I wish him well.
What about his habit of linking to hate sites and calling black women on welfare "welfare duchesses"?
Having faith doesn't make you a "Christian-accomodationist."
No, but using the Bible to explain death is.
Douthat:I think there's arguably an intimation in Genesis of the idea of death as a gift as well as a punishment - not a solution to the Fall, exactly...
Literal reading of the bible is simple evidence of intellectual prostitution in service of religious accomodation.
The selfish genes code for three things only....reproduction, survival, and death. Without individual death there can can be no species evolution. That is why there are no immortal species.
Death rocks and evolution rolls.
I'm not an atheist, I'm a practicing Sufi.
Douthat toes the line on Catholic accomodation, just like his pal Benedict the Bad Shepherd.
I respect all people of faith, except those that insist on prancing and braying in the public square, and using mob-rule to impose their supernatural beliefs on unwilling citizens in a republic.
And if you need further proof that Douthat is an intellectual whore busy servicing the christianist base, read some of his apologias on Palin.
Actually Ross was fairly critical of Palin, but I assume that your feeling is that since he doesn't denounce Palin as a retarded bible thumper he's a "whore."
I see. So only those that completely share your values and your judgements of others are worth listening to and everyone else is "prostituting" themselves to get political clout.
That must be interesting. It must be exhausting being so authentic.
Ross promoted Palin before she was selected. After her disastrous interviews, he admitted it was a mistake:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_the_unready_ii.php
That is intellectual honesty, something Kristol was notably lacking in.
Settle down please. This is getting silly.
Deleted. Enough, really.
he doesn't denounce Palin as a retarded bible thumper he's a "whore."
No I wanted Douthat to acknowledge Palin was a profoundly unqualified and intellectually impoverished ex-beauty pageant contestant that would still be a fishgutter in Wasailia if not for the accident of her looks.
I'd ask you to ignore matoko_chan, but I think you'll likely do that anyway.
Ross is probably the person here that's closest to me in politics, but good for him. Only thing he ever did that bothered me a little was quoting Steve Sailer respectfully, but he's young and maybe had his reasons.