Should the Hacks Succeed?
Katha Pollitt complains about Ross Douthat’s appointment to the NYT op-ed page, finishing with this irritable bit of counterintuitive thought:
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.
Now, I’ve made my feelings about Ross’s appointment fairly clear, so take anything I say with a grain of salt, but, assuming Pollitt actually believes this, this strikes me as a deeply cynical exercise in intellectual bad faith. Partisans and hacks may want the other side to put forth their worst defenders, but shouldn’t anyone who considers herself an intellectual hope for the best from her political opponents? I know that, at least when it comes to the world of letters and public debate, I want to see the other side’s best thinkers and writers succeed. Pollitt would no doubt respond that “dull, complacent apparatchiks” who traffic in “fact-free” press releases are actually more representative of what conservatism is. I disagree, naturally, but even if that were the case, why wouldn’t you want to give the loudest megaphones and most prominent positions to those minority voices who don’t represent the abysmal status quo? Strikes me that the humanitarian — indeed, the liberal — view here would be to wish the best for those you disagree with, not angrily curse them to be led by what you think are their worst tendencies.
Pollit is probably annoyed that there is already one moderate on the Opinion page to complement the sea of liberals. The Times is sinking fast and needs to stop the bleeding. Obviously print media is suffering, but a little balance might stop some of the defections from the moderates and conservatives.
— Paul O'Pinion · Mar 20, 12:44 AM · #
It’s funny that you’re making this argument while only addressing the weakest part of Pollitt’s post (the strongest part is her observation that “Douthat seems unusually averse to engaging with women intellectually” and female liberals are less psyched about his selection than male liberals).
Strikes me that the humanitarian — indeed, the liberal — view here would be to wish the best for those you disagree with, not angrily curse them to be led by what you think are their worst tendencies.
Sure, I guess, but a rational liberal (or conservative) would be more concerned about the well-being of the country as a whole than the well-being of their political opponents, and they might think that the country’s well-being would be improved by the conservative movement falling flat on its face. Being a liberal doesn’t actually mean being too broadminded to take your own side in a quarrel. I mean this isn’t a college debate or something, the ultimate objective is to actually change policy—radically, in Pollitt’s case. It’s not hard to understand why Pollitt would prefer a weak opponent to a strong one, maybe it makes her less of an intellectual but I suspect she wouldn’t be bothered.
— asfd · Mar 22, 04:47 PM · #