The New York Times Hires Lord Haw-Haw--Excuse Me, William Kristol

The death spiral of the New York Times begins:

Kristol Clear: Times' editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal defended the [hiring of William Kristol]. Rosenthal told Politico.com.... “The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that’s a bad thing,” Rosenthal added. “How intolerant is that?”...

Many people would be interested in reading a newspaper that publishes the writings of a serious, respected conservative intellectual. But how many people oughty to read a newspaper that regards its mission as giving platforms to lying propagandists? The clueless Mr. Rosenthal and his equally clueless bosses have a problem: they cannot tell one from another. And this makes one wonder why anybody thinks they have any business running a newspaper.

Let's give the mike to Kristol himself, via Anonymous Liberal:

Kristol in March 2003: We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts...

I suppose the Times could still recover if it broke its contract with Kristol and fired Andy Rosenthal in the next week. Otherwise... let's start the countdown: I say ten years before the Times as we knew it is gone.

---

But let's go visit Anonymous Liberal some more:

Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar: Here's a sampling of some of Kristol's most impressive contributions to our political discourse....

August 26, 2002: Reading the Scowcroft/New York Times "arguments" against war, one is struck by how laughably weak they are. European international-law wishfulness and full-blown Pat Buchanan isolationism are the two intellectually honest alternatives to the Bush Doctrine. Scowcroft and the Times wish to embrace neither, so they pretend instead to be terribly "concerned" with the administration's alleged failure to "make the case"...

April 4, 2003: There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular...

April 28, 2003: The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states...

March 22, 2004: [T]here are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together. This is a far cry from the predictions made before the war by many, both here and in Europe, that a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath. The perpetually sour American media focus on the tensions between Shiites and Kurds that delayed the signing by three whole days. But the difficult negotiations leading up to the signing, and the continuing debates over the terms of a final constitution, have in fact demonstrated something remarkable in Iraq: a willingness on the part of the diverse ethnic and religious groups to disagree--peacefully--and then to compromise. This willingness is the product of what appears to be a broad Iraqi consensus favoring the idea of pluralism...

July 26, 2004: What the Bush administration did say--and what so many reporters seem to have trouble understanding--is that Iraq and al Qaeda had a relationship that, by its very existence, posed a potential threat to the United States...

March 7, 2005: Just four weeks after the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, it seems increasingly likely that that date will turn out to have been a genuine turning point. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, ended an era. September 11, 2001, ended an interregnum. In the new era in which we now live, 1/30/05 could be a key moment--perhaps the key moment so far--in vindicating the Bush Doctrine as the right response to 9/11. And now there is the prospect of further and accelerating progress...

April 4, 2005 (re: Terri Schiavo) After all, we are a "maturing society," as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution...

November 7, 2005: Last week the Bush Administration's second-term bear market bottomed out...

November 30, 2005 (column titled "Pelosi's Disastrous Miscalculation"): All this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi. I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory...

April 4, 2006: What was striking, following the mosque bombing, was the evidence of Iraq's underlying stability in the face of attempts to undermine it. The country's vital institutions seem to have grown strong enough to withstand even the provocation of the bombing of the golden mosque..

Comments

[piotr]

And yet, what to do? The positions of the columnist have to be evenly divided between "Left", "Right" and "Inane".

David Brooks is about as competent columnists to occupy a "Right" slot as I can recall. Much above the average. Kristol merely returns to the norm that was represented by Safire. Brooks, at some occasions, produced reasonable columns which was just confusing. Kristol offers Safarian level of clarity -- read carefully, understand that the exact opposite is the truth.

[Roger Bigod]

You missed the other outrage: the imprimatur of a Sunday book review for Jonah Goldberg's book, praising his scintillating wit.

What will they buy next? A Pulitzer for Fox News? A MacArthur for Rove's creative approach to the electoral process? A Nobel Prize in literature for the "Left Behind" series?

[Neal]

Think of him as the third point of the political triangle--liberal, conservative and neo-con. With the coming demise of the Bush administration how will the bright light of the Project for a New American Century carry on? Bill will do it, he'll do anything for PNAC and Israel. He'll even accept a paycheck from the NYT.

[Joe S.]

It's hard to think of a movement conservative who fits Brad's criteria: "a serious, respected conservative intellectual." And it is hard to think of many conservatives who have maintained their integrity against the blandishments of the conservative movement. Maybe Posner? (Certainly not Brooks, but at least he writes well.)

You are unlikely to see honest conservatism in a newspaper, even if you could find a conservative with integrity. It is a harsh creed, unsuited to mass propaganda. Read Russell Kirk for a flavor.

If the Times wanted to move right, it could have hired a libertarian, instead. Admittedly, John Tierney was a bad experience. But there are plenty of smart libertarians around, and many of those have integrity.

[RW]

The Washington Post is given 5 years before its flatulent editorial policy ineluctably drives it into irrelevant (but duly 'balanced') mush: Give the NY Times 7 years, just because it was so glorious in its prime and our regret at its passing should acknowledge the loss; it's a nostalgia thing.

[stefan]

Moreover, Bill Kristol may in large part be where he is because he's Irving Kristol's kid. Otherwise he'd be treated as 'just a hack'? Or is this a misreading of how Bill Kristol got to be where he is now?

[Thads]

Whom do you have in mind, Brad?
Whom do you consider a serious, respected conservative intellectual?
(Milton Friedman is dead...)

[Roger Albin]

More of the drive for "balance." Having failed spectacularly with Tierney, they now try someone else. Joe S. above hits the nail right on the head - where can you find an identified movement conservative who isn't an intellectual failure? Certainly not any member of the Kristol family.

To be fair, the Times hasn't done very well with their columnists in general. Brooks is a hack, Friedman is a pompous windbag, and its unusual for Dowd or Herbert to produce anything of substance. Kristof is a decent journalist and Frank Rich writes well but Krugman is really the only one writes well reasoned pieces supported by evidence.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Apparently Rosenthal cannot distinguish a conservative from a neo-conservative, so he should not have his job.

The Internet will not kill newspapers. Newspapers will kill newspapers.

[marc sobel]

How do you define "I say ten years before the Times as we knew it is gone." The Times as I knew it after having subscribed for aproximately 55 years is long gone. I know now that any article on any Democrat will be an intellectually dishonest hit job, that anything in the News of The Week in Review will be unreliable, that any review of any political book will be an intellectually dishonest right wing apologetic. I am in a quandary whether to invest in the time necessary to read any given article with the critical judgment required. I find that if there are more than two unidentified sources in the first five paragraphs, it's not worth my time.

My father used to call the mclaughlin Group, the screamers, but he watched it to see what the right wing talking points were. I don't have his patience.

The only good thing I remember from Safire was during the end game in Watergate, saying people in the White House were quipping, "Stonewalling Does Not Misprison Make". I knew he had made it up because knew the Cavalier Poets were something none of those Thugs would have heard of.

[Jeffrey Kramer]

Kristol isn't just one of the gang that sees invisible ponies everywhere. What makes the hire so disgraceful is his repeated insinuations that everybody who doesn't see the ponies hates America and hates The Troops.

But he says it with a smile and without cursing, and for Joe Kleins everywhere that's all that counts.

[otto]

Latest Kristol offering:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6071

After the attacks of Septe-mber 11, no one can escape knowledge of the dangers facing the world. And as anti-Judaism, anti-Americanism, and general hostility to the West increasingly merge, the little state of Israel and the entire Jewish people seem once again caught in the crosshairs of history... [I]n a sense, we are all caught in those crosshairs. In Jews and Power, Ruth Wisse only hints at how the experience of Zionism has relevance beyond the Jews. But if Zionism is an attempt to marry power and morality—to join religion and liberalism, tradition and modernity, patriotism and principle—then America has a great deal in common with Israel. Indeed, all the people in the world who wish to stand against both death-loving Islamic fanaticism and soulless European postmodernism—what are they, if not Zionists?

[Cranky Observer]

> Many people would be interested in reading a
> newspaper that publishes the writings of a
> serious, respected conservative intellectual.

In all seriousness, who is such a person? I used to try to read a variety of serious conservative commentators but since 2004 (and realistically, since 2000) I have not found any such.

If there is a person out there who claims to be a serious, thoughtful conservative, for whom did he vote in 2004?

Cranky

[macquechoux]

My,my,my. Whatever happen to the notion of diversity of ideas?

"Apparently Rosenthal cannot distinguish a conservative from a neo-conservative, so he should not have his job."

And this is important, why?

Frankly, I think they should add one of those smart libertarians,too. Boudreaux would be a good choice. (There are many more.) I think Krugman has it too easy preaching to the choir.

[esb]

Kristol ... neither conservative nor liberal, but Likud.

[bob h]

Is it possible that Sulzberger, et. al. fear a competitive onslaught from Rupert Murdoch, and loading up with charlatans like Kristol is aimed at bolstering the Times among this readership mentality?

[Bruce Webb]

Tyler Cowan, Bruce Bartlett, Andrew Samwick.

At least they can write. I don't trust any one of them, then again I am pretty left of center. If the NYT wants to give an active podium to effective advocates of the conservative position I would suggest any one of the above. They can be trusted to present the current party line in a reasonably logical way. That can't actually compensate for the fact that their underlying case is based on counter-factual assumptions, then again if you know you are guilty you still want the best attorney you can afford.

As the quotes suggest Bill K has blown most of the cases he has defended, time for a more skilled advocate. Until Bartlett kind of screwed the pooch on the 'Democrats are the real party of racism' thing in the last week or so his trial record was practically unblemished. Lots of people read him and don't even realize he is playing for the other team. And Samwick is pretty impressive as well. Plus he seems to be a really nice guy. Whereas I wouldn't trust Kristol alone with my puppy, those teeth were apparently born for gnashing. You want your conservatism with a human face? Try some guys who are at least putatively human. Are they honest conservatives? Well I don't know that there is such a thing. But at a minimum they are convincing conservatives who will not purposely detach themselves from the reality-based continuum. Which at this point is all we can ask.

[RW]

Bob H is on to something I think: In a political and social environment that fosters or at least permits media consolidation and control then the power to extort economic rents and defend territory becomes critical. The NY Times problem is that hiring specific right-wing voices will not protect it in an arena in which entire organizations are seen as either for or against movement conservatism; i.e., animals like Kristol know which hands they can freely bite independent of where their current pay check is coming from.

[Kate G.]

"I think Krugman has it too easy, preaching to the choir?"

What on earth can that mean. Are you under the impression that Times Columnists get extra money or favors for writing something that pleases the public? Or that Krugman, of all of the Times columnists, never gets hate mail? Or that we don't know for a fact that far from "preaching to the choir" Krugman was forbidden to use words like "liar" in a column on George Bush even though that was demonstrably what was required? He has been excoriated, attacked, and even stalked (anyone remember luskin?) and you think that he "has it easy" because a few of his reader's agree with his methods and conclusions? The Times has a number of slots to fill in their op ed section--if they want to spread the joy they could give out one to every single political community, or they could take a strong line that there is one and only one right way to approach american history and politics. But if that is what they are doing there either is no "choir" or the Times, by sheer body count on the conservative side, has decided that the choir is composed of right wing hacks and the rubes they write for.

And in any event what does Krugman's work have to do with the hiring of Kristol? Kristol's history as an apologist, propagandist, and smear artist really stands on its own. He has an excerable history of being wrong on every major political and cultural trend he has commented on. Kristol's work, like Jonah Goldberg's and the rest of the stable of right wing hacks, is a prime example of what patronage jobs are. Neither of them is responsible to the facts, history, their readers, or their concsiences and thus they, of all political commentators, can continue to lie, obfuscate, and promulgate unpopular and failed political programs. Because it is not the vigor or intellectual rigor or novelty of their arguments that is being paid for when the checks are cut. It is merely their role as propagandists for the wealthy and the war mongering.

As others in the bloggosphere have pointed out the Times could, if it chose, have a steady stable of writers who were actually of different political stripes and backgrounds: we could have actual blue collar workers turned writers (Barbara Ehrenreich) we could have scientists, we could have libertarians (real ones), we could have constitutional scholars, we could have actual feminists and not just women with those weird private parts and even weirder private issues (like Dowd,) we could have had steve gilliard (damn it!), or Digby, or hell anyone other than phoney and phoneier (brooks and kristol) or hack and hackier.

My response to Rosenthal's bathetic bleat "“The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that’s a bad thing,” was "If Only!" Try to get one in seven who is a well respected thinker in anything at all and get some respect. And please "how intolerant is that?" what, has he been listening to Rachel Ray non stop? No wonder the coverage at the Times has gotten so bad. They think the whole object is to give something as fakily cheerful and as easily read in thirty minutes as a Rachel Ray spot.

And I've got to give a shout out to Bob Herbert whose work is extremely well written and passionate and also tied fairly concretely to actual events and persons. Aside from Kristof's endless wanking and score keeping on the subject of africa Herbert is the only regular times columnist to a) write about non white people and b) to have actually affected any significant social change--with his columns on the mass victims of america's drug policy in a texas town.

Kate G.

[Bloix]

The threat is not Murdoch generally but the Wall Street Journal in particular. The Times, which is trying to become a national general-interest paper for the rich, identifies its biggest competition as the Journal, which is trying to become a national general-interest paper for the rich. The Journal even has a Sunday edition now (they call it their "weekend" edition.) Look at the ads in the Times and the Journal: their advertisers are trying to reach the same high-end readership with their luxury goods and issue-oriented advertising. In order to expand into the market of wealthy readers around the country, the Times needs a wingnut presence on the op-ed page that can go toe-to-toe with the Journal. That's the reason for Kristol.

[Bloix]

The threat is not Murdoch generally but the Wall Street Journal in particular. The Times, which is trying to become a national general-interest paper for the rich, identifies its biggest competition as the Journal, which is trying to become a national general-interest paper for the rich. The Journal even has a Sunday edition now (they call it their "weekend" edition.) Look at the ads in the Times and the Journal: their advertisers are trying to reach the same high-end readership with their luxury goods and issue-oriented advertising. In order to expand into the market of wealthy readers around the country, the Times needs a wingnut presence on the op-ed page that can go toe-to-toe with the Journal. That's the reason for Kristol.

[Kate G.]

Bloix and RW said what I meant to say, but more pithily. I'd also like to recommend everyone sashay, or mosey, over to Corrente to read their column on (essentially) why the master's tools will never take down the master's house or rather why you can't expect progressive politics from the wealthy uber classes. People who want to buy yachts and bulgari jewlery just don't actually want to read any political coverage that makes them unconfortable or that would lead to them having to pay extra money for social services, progressive policies, or really anything. In that sense hiring Kristol is a lifestyle marketing choice. What is deadly serious to people who care about the actual political choices Kristol advocates (or attacks) is not deadly serious to the times. They see employing Kristol as no more significant than putting mallard filmore on the comics page. We see the Times Real estate as important, they see it as a way to make money. We see political stances as important, they see it as global positioning and marketing. No wonder Andy Rosenthal is surprised at the backlash. He hired a different clown for the kids party and suddenly the neighbors are complaining that its ruining the whole neighborhood. He can't figure out what the fuss is.
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful

[Joe S.]

I want to comment on two of the comments.

Bruce Webb came up with a pretty good short list of prospective winger columnists with integrity. But are they conservatives, or just libertarians? I think the latter. I think that an honest conservative--unlike an honest libertarian--is at a tremendous disadvantage in public discourse. Americans can tolerate a huge amount of inequality in income, but they will not (yet) tug at their forelocks in front of their betters, which most strains of conservatism require. (John Holbo did a wonderful post a few years ago that touched on this tangentially. Tocqueville noted this, too.) Remember, the richest man in the world goes by "Bill Gates:" not "Mr. Gates," or even "William Gates III." It is therefore very difficult to push honest conservatism to an American audience.

I think that Kate G.'s point on the Kristol hire as a marketing choice is a brilliant one, but I would like to correct her on one factual point. "People who want to buy yachts and bulgari jewelery just don't actually want to read any political coverage that makes them uncomfortable or that would lead to them having to pay extra money for social services, progressive policies, or really anything." Not so. Some rich folk are Democrats, and still like toys. Maybe about a third to a quarter of them. They are the ones who want to pay higher taxes, even if their yacht would be a bit smaller as a result.

[robertdfeinman]

If one wants to be charitable towards the Times, one could assume they picked Kristol just because he is controversial. Generating buzz is what sells newspapers.

We can expect the blogosphere to have a field day in the future dissecting his columns. Each time this is done the Times gets some free publicity.

The reason people have a problem finding a "conservative" intellectual to suggest instead is because conservatism is defined by what it is against, not what it is for. It has no set of core beliefs. Just look at a typical set of talking points: smaller government (smaller than what?), less taxation (less than what?), fewer regulations (fewer than what?).

There is no coherent philosophy for anyone to put forth.

[Joe S.]

Robert D. Feinman:

There is no such single thing as "conservatism," but Kirk did allude to at least one positive program (which I lift from Wikipedia):

1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Points 1, 3, and 5 outright reject the Enlightenment and are the ones that I think most Americans would abhor. (Maistre's conservatism is even scarier.) Every adult would sign onto #6 (albeit for different reasons); most Democrats would sign onto #4, although not talismanically. #2, IMO, is a matter of personal style.

Of course, movement conservatism rejects everything but #3, and maybe #4. The ideology of movement conservatism is a fairly consistent industrial feudalism.

[RW]

"...a typical set of talking points: smaller government (smaller than what?), less taxation (less than what?), fewer regulations (fewer than what?)" is typical of what most would call a libertarian philosophy I think but I do agree this position is generally incoherent.

Conservatism is probably another matter: Change is unwelcome to those in power (as their vassals wisely agree) and power and its privileges as relentlessly coherent as the higher status foot on the lower status neck.

[robertdfeinman]

Defending the status quo is not a philosophy, even for those who benefit from the current arrangement. "Conservatism" is all about privilege, but to sell what is, fundamentally, an unpalatable idea for the masses they speak of a golden past which allegedly existed and which they propose to return to.

That's the ideological myth, but as for what conservatives want to accomplish in terms of practical policies they are not in favor of the status quo, they are in favor of increasing their privilege. Even if they were really just interested in keeping things exactly as they are, this is unrealistic. The world doesn't stand still and even conservatives need to come up with policies to address change circumstances.

I can state the liberal philosophy: all people are of equal worth and should be allowed by democratic processes to determine their own social system. Everything else is implementation.

Now let me hear the "conservative" version...

[RW]

Conservative version: People are of unequal worth and the social system appropriately sorts them to their god-given station. Everything else is implementation.

Those who believe this are naturally those the system has appropriately allocated therefore, io ipso, that system is the right one.

[Lewis Carroll]

AFAIC, the Times could have had a much more intellectually honest, and truer, conservative, by just choosing Kristol's colleague at the Weekly Standard, Christopher Caldwell.

I don't usually agree with him, but I at least get the impression that he's a member of the reality-based community.

[Bloix]

Note that Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal is the son of former Times editor A.M. Rosenthal, and that Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. is the son of former publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger.

To these guys, being the undistinguished son of a successful father is a job qualification.

Another member of the same generation, Adam Bellow - son of Saul - actually wrote a book titled "In Praise of Nepotism."

[macquechoux]

"What on earth can that mean. Are you under the impression that Times Columnists get extra money or favors for writing something that pleases the public? Or that Krugman, of all of the Times columnists, never gets hate mail? Or that we don't know for a fact that far from "preaching to the choir" Krugman was forbidden to use words like "liar" in a column on George Bush even though that was demonstrably what was required? He has been excoriated, attacked, and even stalked (anyone remember luskin?) and you think that he "has it easy" because a few of his reader's agree with his methods and conclusions?"

By the way most highly educated editorial writers usually never have to use the word "liar," they use facts, truth, and the words of the accuser to show them for what they are.

I think it is safe to say the majority of the Times editorial readers are Democrats, liberals, progressives, or any mix thereof. (The choir.) I think it would be for more stimulating to have another economist, a libertarian, to add balance and be able to respond to one another's editorials in the same paper.

[Delicious Pundit]

I agree with Bloix -- this is about the NYT extending its brand out into the driveways of the gated communities in suburban Birmingham and Atlanta and Dallas. Where is the Upper West Side going to go, after all, now that New York Newsday is long dead?

[Glenn P.]

I have to ask, is the Lord Haw-Haw in Prof. DeLong's title of his post a reference to Lord Cardigan in George MacDonald Frasier's Flashman series? Flashman calls Cardigan--a memorable buffoon (sp?) of the first order--Lord Haw Haw.

[Kate G.]

Maquechoux,
What is your evidence that "the majority of the times editorial readers are democrats, liberals, progressives...?" Facts, please? But in any event we are not arguing over whether they should choose another economist or a libertarian--they have chosen a pundit known primarily for his shtick, not his knowledge or his expertise. I myself could write Kristol's columns, if I could keep my gorge down, by simply auto-generating attacks on liberals and democrats while using subroutines that would fill in the blanks with charges of anti semitism, cries of nationalist fervor, and bootlicking grovelling towards whatever republican strong man Kristol is currently backing.

But lets say I accept the absurd premise that the NYT's base readership is all liberals/democrats and what have you. Why would it follow that any kind of "balance" is required on the op ed page? In the good old days newspapers had a readership and gave the readers what they wanted--the Boston Herald still writes pro-catholic, pseudo populist, anti government screeds. That's their market niche. So why should the NYT replicate the phony war of ideas on its op ed page. As a reader I'm certainly not interested in whatever tweaked up propaganda the far right wants inserted into our discourse. If I want to know what they think I can hop over to their pay for play web sites or read a Murdoch paper or just turn on the d*mn TV. So if there *is* a choir and it *is* democrats/liberals why should they be forced to read Kristol? Did someone pass a new "fairness" law which applies only to right wing ideas? Is this the equivalent of insisting that with every healthy meal we also ingest some significant portion of poison just to keep things interesting? In a real free market of ideas liberals and dems would select among the writers they wanted to read and conservatives would do the same. I doubt very much that we'd be clamoring for Kristol if we had the chance to read Molly Ivins *and she's dead.* IF the NYT is a house organ for liberal ideas why should we yield the floor ever to ideas whose basic falsity and vapidity have been well demonstrated?

[Bloix]

The Earl of Cardigan, who commanded the Charge of the Light Brigade, was called Lord Haw Haw for his arrogance and his snorting speaking voice. But the name generally refers to William Joyce, an Irish-American who lived in Germany during WWII and worked as a Nazi radio propagandist broadcasting into England. He was called Lord Haw Haw because he ranted and raved in an affected upper-class accent. The British hanged him after the war. I would think Brad is referring to him, not the Earl.

[bob h]

"People who want to buy yachts and bulgari jewelery just don't actually want to read any political coverage that makes them uncomfortable or that would lead to them having to pay extra money for social services, progressive policies, or really anything."

You can understand the political composition of George Stephanopous' Sunday program with this model, as well, where George Will has pride of place, and the advertisements seem to be aimed at those seeking private asset management. You don't want to upset these people with inconvenient truths.

[John Emerson]

Caldwell played a significant role in the disgraceful, well-choreographed smearing of the Wellstone funeral. He may be capable of writing intelligently, honestly, and well, but he's also quite capable of descending into the lower depths of gutter journalism and hackery. (IIRC his Wellstone-funeral piece compounded its well-timed, creepy toolishnes with highminded remarks accusing the people at the funeral of profaning the sacred and corrupting the political dialogue, or some such boilerplate conservative pseudo-philosophy cribbed from C.S. Lewis).

Leading to my second point: granting the formal possibility of "an honest, intelligent conservative", don't we need to consider the possibility that the species is extinct in today's world? There are a lot of people who have been sitting at home muttering dark things about George W Bush, but almost none of them have gone into opposition or gone public at all, and most of them were cheerleading for Bush long past the time when such behavior was excusable.

I argued in 2004 that Kerry was by default the left candidate, the liberal candidate, the centrist candidate, the libertarian candidate, and even the conservative candidate, and I think that events have shown me to be right on this point.

But none of the conservatives realized this. The whole bunch of them should spend the next five years or so sitting quietly in the back of the room with paper bags over their heads.

[Kate G.]

I argued in 2004 that Kerry was by default the left candidate, the liberal candidate, the centrist candidate, the libertarian candidate, and even the conservative candidate, and I think that events have shown me to be right on this point.

John Emerson,
I worship the ground you blog on, and have for some time.

Kate G.

[piotr]

There is a small problem with having a "conservative" columnist to "balance and stimulate". Someone pulled this list of the feature of conservatism:

1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked; etc.

But if it was just the matter of sticking to some principles, weird, selfish or sound, whatever, we would not be so exasperated. One problem is that politically ambitious conservatives figured that straight facts will not give them sufficient popularity, so they should disregard the truth. Systematically.

Fact based war-mongering not popular enough?

Global warming would have politically inconvenient consequences, like requiring taxes and regulations as a response?

Tax cuts not popular enough because many voters worry about the government having sufficient revenue?

The solutions are to lie, lie, lie, and make lies points of virtue and shiboleths.

The second problem is conducting campaigns of hatred. Highly cultured conservatives like Cristol would apply lies freely, and participate in campaigns of hatred using more elegant code phrases.

The third problem is that in the past The Times had a policy of not correcting the lies of its columnists, even if Safire was producing them at astonishing clip.

[chris]

Most of the NYT's readership is in New York and surrounding areas where Zionists are influential. So it is quite natural that the NYT would adopt a Zionist warmonger as a columnist. After all the NYT supported the Iraq war, did it not?, and gave Judith Miller a bully pulpit from which to spew her...you know what. They only got rid of Judy, as I recall, AFTER her mendacity was exposed and the war she pushed went so very sour.