Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The Times’ new conservative voice
In late January we speculated on who should replace Bill Kristol on The New York Times‘ op-ed page, and this week the Times announced the hiring of Ross G. Douthat, a 29-year-old senior editor, writer, and blogger at The Atlantic. According to Times Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal, Douthat (pronounced DOW-thut) is likely the youngest columnist the paper has ever had.
In an interview with Marvin Olasky last fall, Douthat, co-author of Grand New Party: Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream, talked about the future of the Republican Party, especially its role in leading the charge to simplify the tax code.
Topic: Media, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top41 Comments to “The Times’ new conservative voice”
One of the very best of the non-ideological conservatives, one very much committed to the redemption of the Republican Party. Left unmentioned is that he is Catholic and pro-life.
Report comment to moderator
Wow the media is sooooo liberal!
Seriously, Douthat is a real conservative intellectual and will probably be a good addition to the op-ed page. Kristol was a party-line spouting lightweight, so this is a definite improvement.
Report comment to moderator
This can only be good. Too bad Ann Coulter wasn’t available for this gig.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: Maureen Dowd is enough, thank you.
Report comment to moderator
I would have preferred Coulter too. She does a very good job of making conservatives look like raving hate machines.
Douthat will bring respectability.
Report comment to moderator
I think if you give her the chance, Coulter can skewer R idiots just as easily as she does D idiots. I’d love to see a 60 Minutes style “Point Counterpoint” between Mo Do and Ann Coulter. Ann would clobber Maureen.
It would be a verbal 3 hit fight: MoDo hits Ann, Ann hits MoDo and MoDo hits the mat.
Report comment to moderator
Maureen Dowd comes from a family of Republicans.
I have often wondered about how many people change their party because they are in rebellion?
Report comment to moderator
#7 as opposed to changing when you grow up.
Report comment to moderator
Just to clarify…that was not directed AT Bob…just an observation in reponse to his post (:{D>
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER makes a powerful point. Coulter clearly demolishes Dowd in debate! Console your selves. Feel good about your ideology and definitely stick with the cable champ, Ann Coulter.
It’s cruel and unfair for someone who couldn’t last as a FOX panelist to be the vastly superior writer! BTW, Collins at the NYTimes is even better than Dowd — funnier and more devastating (in print).
Report comment to moderator
I like Mr. Douthat’s work quite a bit. I suppose I’m slightly biased given his kind words for an article of mine on political theology. To read Douthat on Rowe on religion & the American Founding see the following:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/christians_and_the_constitutio_1.php
Report comment to moderator
Does he know the NYT is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy? I guess having any job with the socialists destroying them as fast as they can, is a plus.
Report comment to moderator
Ha! Calling for Ann Coulter to represent the Republican party in a respected newspaper is like calling for gasoline to put out a fire.
As a Democrat, I hope you succeed in that.
Report comment to moderator
#13 Steve G
Why are you a Democrat?
Report comment to moderator
Why are you a Democrat?
Because my views are closer to theirs on most issues than to the Republicans. Primarily on the social safety net, public education, not mixing government and religion, gay rights and environmental issues.
I am, as I’ve said a number of times, reluctantly pro-choice but I’m actually open to changing my position on that. However, the other issues I named I’m firm on, so on balance, the Democrats are a better fit for me than the Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
#15 Steve G
Thank you. I will think on your answer.
Report comment to moderator
So you acknowledge that there are “respectable” conservatives, but you prefer that the general population believes that conservatives are necessarily “raving hate machines.” That says a lot, and I believe it’s typical of the left-wing mindset. It’s not about engaging in reasonable public discourse, but about demonizing the opposition so that they won’t be heard. I believe that’s a result of the relativizing of truth.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Actually all it says is that my deadpan humor doesn’t always translate well to written communication.
Report comment to moderator
REE — Wouldn’t you concede that “demonizing the opposition” is bad if the opposition are angels but a good public service if the opposition are demons? Now, which would Ann Coulter be? Hmm. Maybe she’s the one demonizing the Republicans — by being a demon!
Report comment to moderator
He’s from the young generation of conservatives, not one of the old guard. Sweet!
I like him. I’ve read a few of his articles.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, getting Ann Coulter would be huge coup for them. I’m happy that she irritates the left. It’s a badge of honor and would be an enormous money-maker for the New York Times.
Obviously this man is a better choice if the paper wants to remain “respectable.” He might not be as famous or popular, but I imagine he will win a lot of new readers to the NYT.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not the point. I have mixed feelings about Ann Coulter, but the point was that Steve said that he would prefer that a “demon” such as Ann Coulter be the public face of the Republicans as opposed to someone more “respectable,” with the implication that it’s better for Republicans to be marginalized than for their ideas to be represented in a reasonable-sounding way.
Of course, now he claims that this was an attempt at humor and he doesn’t really feel that way at all. Perhaps, but many do.
Report comment to moderator
I have never had occasion to speak his name, but I have mentally pronounced it ‘DOUBT-hat’ and will continue to do so.
For the record, I saw Steve’s comment as humorous.
Report comment to moderator
I got your point, REE. Nevertheless, don’t I have a point too? You are coming down very hard on shaddenfreude, a relatively minor flaw that is commonly shared by Republicans, too.
At the moment, Democrats have a lot better things to do than to root for Republicans to get their act together — such as get an agenda actually enacted! You’re the ones who will put your best foot forward. And you will use it to kick us in the pants, of course, as any good opposition party is supposed to do.
Meanwhile, so sorry that your media stars are a thorn in the flesh for you, but there was a time your party loved their sharpness.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: That’s not the point. I have mixed feelings about Ann Coulter, but the point was that Steve said that he would prefer that a “demon” such as Ann Coulter be the public face of the Republicans as opposed to someone more “respectable,” with the implication that it’s better for Republicans to be marginalized than for their ideas to be represented in a reasonable-sounding way.
I was joking. I don’t think Ann Coulter’s prominence is good for anybody. I prefer moderation and respect in political debate. I prefer dealing with an opponent’s actual views rather than first creating distortions of them to make them appear ridiculous. I don’t like people who willfully spread false information.
And I apply that to left and right alike. Coulter’s only real interest is, I suspect, her bank account. She offends liberals yes, but she does it by making conservatives look like hateful, vicious people. Though as Kyle shows in #21, some of them obviously don’t mind that.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, “hate” has become the most blatant buzzword in our culture war. It just means that she disagrees with liberals. It means that she is not afraid to satirically point out their faults and foibles.
The criticism of Ann Coulter points out what a lot of conservative pundits have been saying. The Left does not have a sense of humor. The few funny liberals, such as Stephen Colbert, are never castigated for being hateful or vicious, although their humor is just as acerbic as hers. The added bonus with Coulter is that she is smart. Her books have footnotes.
Ann Coulter claims that she has always been that way. I imagine that she was the kid in class that made it a lot more interesting, even if she was sent to the principal’s office a lot. I imagine she was the kid who said what other kids wished they had the courage to say.
Report comment to moderator
RPN: I have never had occasion to speak his name, but I have mentally pronounced it ‘DOUBT-hat’ and will continue to do so.
I read it as “do-that,” but I know that’s wrong. I didn’t know the right pronunciation before reading this article, though.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle: SteveG, “hate” has become the most blatant buzzword in our culture war. It just means that she disagrees with liberals. It means that she is not afraid to satirically point out their faults and foibles.
When you refer to widows as “enjoying their husbands’ deaths,” you’re engaging in hate, Kyle. I don’t care what party you’re in, that’s just deliberately offensive. She was criticizing them (women whose husbands died in the 9/11 attacks) because they were being politically active. Lisa Beamer and Ted Olsen both lost spouses in the attacks and wrote books about it, but Coulter doesn’t criticize them for capitalizing on their spouses’ deaths because they’re conservative, so it’s ok.
What about: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn’t go to the New York Times building.” That’s her only regret, eh?
(Wishing death on your enemies seems to be acceptable Christian practice these days.)
How about: ““Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots.” (From the opening pages of “Treason.”
That you defend this says a lot about you. None of it good.
The criticism of Ann Coulter points out what a lot of conservative pundits have been saying. The Left does not have a sense of humor. The few funny liberals, such as Stephen Colbert, are never castigated for being hateful or vicious, although their humor is just as acerbic as hers. The added bonus with Coulter is that she is smart. Her books have footnotes.
LOL! “She’s smart! She has footnotes!”
Colbert is not personally vicious as Coulter is. And you’re simply displaying selective vision in saying liberals don’t get castigated. Michael Moore — who IS, in my opinion, close to Coulter’s level of offensivenes — gets criticized all the time. He has his fans, as Coulter has hers, but he also has a lot of detractors.
Ann Coulter claims that she has always been that way. I imagine that she was the kid in class that made it a lot more interesting, even if she was sent to the principal’s office a lot. I imagine she was the kid who said what other kids wished they had the courage to say.
If what she says is what many conservatives want to say, we’re in deeper trouble than I thought.
Her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors was a fairly well-done lawyer’s analysis of Clinton’s scandals and perjury. After that, she apparently decided that unhinged ranting sells better.
Which may mean that Llama has a future in punditry, should he choose to pursue it.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle: The Left does not have a sense of humor.
What you mean is, “the left isn’t willing to laugh at a stream of insults, distortions and outrageous personal attacks from an egomaniacal demogogue, and I have to conclude they have no sense of humor or else I might be forced to wonder if maybe she goes too far.”
Isn’t it ironic that she hates the feminist movement and yet is herself — as an unmarried, childless professional career woman — the epitome of it?
Report comment to moderator
While Ann is a better representative of the conservative movement, she would quickly become boring in the NY Times position. The first few times you hurl words like “communist” and “traitor” at other people, folks are gonna take notice because it’s pretty shocking. But after you’ve hurled it 50 or 60 times, the shock wears off and people begin to realize you’re nothing but a boor and contribute nothing to the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR — That just goes to show, the NYTimes is so biased and unfair to be a written text rather than an oral broadcast where contributors like Coulter can show themselves at their best. Perhaps is the NYTimes turned itself into a 6-hour time slot on AM radio, it wouldn’t have to fear bankruptcy!
Report comment to moderator
Ideology isn’t the reason newspapers are in financial straights. The product and distribution model is outdated. The Seattle Post Intelligencer is considering becoming an online only newspaper. I think that’s what will happen to all but a few newspapers. If the NY Times doesn’t survive as a print edition, I doubt any newspaper will survive in printed form.
Report comment to moderator
I think that day is coming, Anlir. What I’m wondering is why they’re not moving there faster. Eliminating print editions would save a ton of money, and it won’t be long before pretty much everybody is reading the news on the Web or a mobile device anyway.
Report comment to moderator
That’s why I bought a Kindle, SteveG. I now download the Sunday NY Times for .75 cents instead of paying $5.00 for the printed version. Alas, I’m probably helping to push along the demise of print editions. But I feel the train is about to leave the station on that one, and I just decided get on board now instead of waiting.
I am happy to see the NY Times keeping a conservative columnist on the op-ed page. There’s nothing more boring than reading only one side all the time.
Report comment to moderator
He’s also the first non-Jew to hold the “conservative” columnist job IIRC. He’s certainly the first one in decades. Safire, Brooks, Kristol. The NYT is is really bad shape financially, and may not be around that much longer. I guess they thought they might as well finally hire a gentile to go down with the ship.
Uh, Coulter was available. She may not have been interested, but she was certainly available. And just like Bush and Rush Limbaugh, her popularity is falling off a cliff. Her latest book has sold 100,000 copies, which is a lot for most authors. But her last one sold over 200,000, and the one before that sold over 400,000.
He’s certainly quite intelligent, but he’s not all that conservative. He only seems so compared to what passes for mainstream conservatism these days, like Limbaugh and Kristol. Yes, Kristol is a party line spouting lightweight, and that party line is Israel First, Last, and Always. That’s pretty much the touchstone of “conservatism” these days. Douthat will certainly toe that line, if he doesn’t spout it quite as non-stop as Kristol. He may add in “pro-life” and school vouchers, and lower taxes, but that’s about it. He’s not much of a conservative by the historical parameters of the term as used in American politics.
This is a joke, right? A money maker? Hardly. It would be the exact opposite. The NYT may call itself a national newspaper because you can buy it in a Barnes & Noble in Duluth, but the vast majority of its subscribers are in New York City, and almost all of them are in Manhattan, and there aren’t a whole lot of conservatives there. Why would conservatives start subscribing just because Ann Coulter was writing a weekly column? They wouldn’t. It would only appear once a week, and they could read it online for free. So the paper would gain few, if any new subscribers from conservatives if they hired Coulter. But they would lose thousands, if not tens of thousands of current subscriptions from outraged liberal readers.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve never understood the obsession with whether an individual is a Jew or not.
Report comment to moderator
Then you probably wouldn’t last long in the Human Resources department of the New York Times.
Report comment to moderator
Or a Hollywood studio for that matter. Those folks out in Hollywood seem to be even more obsessed with the question than the people at the NYT.
Report comment to moderator
But they would lose thousands, if not tens of thousands of current subscriptions from outraged liberal readers.
And even from the conservatives who have the good sense to not take Coulter seriously.
Report comment to moderator
“Collins at the NYTimes is even better than Dowd — funnier and more devastating (in print).”
Collins ROCKS!
Report comment to moderator
He’s certainly quite intelligent, but he’s not all that conservative.
Hard to be both, ain’t it!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!