Neocon Celeb Scribbler Bill Kristol Gets NY Times Column
So now the New York Times has hired Bill Kristol as a weekly columnist.
Can it be true? Sure sounds like it.
In one sense it doesn't matter. What's one more or one less reactionary on the op-ed page.
But there is one troubling aspect. What is it with the Times and the now thoroughly discredited neocons?
David Brooks, Roger Cohen and now Kristol. Each and every one is a neocon who supported the war in Iraq as part of a grand plan to re-make the Middle East.
4000 American dead later (and God knows how many Iraqis), with Iran in the drivers' seat we put her in, and the Times thinks that the likes of Bill Kristol has something of value to tell its readers.
He doesn't. The only thing I want to hear from bloody Kristol and the neocon thugs is an apology. But that won't happen.
Being a right-winger means never having to say your're sorry, no matter how much damage you do. So long as you are on the Right, you can just keep going and going. Lying and lying. Advocate one war after another to preserve the interests this bunch holds dear.
And it won't cost you a thing. On the contrary,
What a country!
As for the Times, one cannot help but lose respect for a newspaper, one of the best in the world, that hires columnists based on their celebrity. Assuming the Times wanted another conservative, there are many out there who don't have anything like the exposure Kristol already has. With or without a berth at the Times, there would be no escaping Kristol who -- as a key part of the Eastern Neocon establishment -- is ubiquitous.
Ubiquitous and utterly predictable, a West Sider's idea of a conservative.
With all its resources, the Times could have chosen anyone, and gotten him or her. Instead it went for celebrity. In addition to everything else that is wrong with this choice, it is utterly cheesy.
Yes, what a country, one I do no know anymore.
The Times and most if not all other newspapers in this country are compromised. They know things they will not print. Personal corruption, elected bodies not following any laws of the country at the local, state or national level.
You see the tracking of terrorists can be used to track reporters, editors, and publishers.
If you hope for the old institutions to help, forget it. The NYT is over, WPO is corrupted also. Fasten you seatbelts and hold on for the crash and Dictatorship. I wish it to be not true but I can see no honest public institution of influence.
You cannot kiss your country goodbye it is long gone!
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 28, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goebbels is dead, so obviously he wasn't available.
Allow me to plead guilty to felony Godwinism.
Ah, but wait. Godwin gets a New York Times Column, and Jonah Goldberg publishes a book called "Liberal Fascism" with a Hitler smiley face and no one says peep.
I hereby withdraw my guilty plea. Instead I say, Lay on Mofo, and damned be he who whines enuff.
December 28, 2007 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone was complaining about populism on another thread. Well, this is just one more example of why populism is highly underrated. When the establishment becomes totally corrupt, we better hope there are some country bumpkins out there willing to fight back.
December 28, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
pop·u·lism: A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
This is what the Democratic Party used to practice, remember? Nah, you're too young. You probably only remember the full support the Dems provided to the Reagan Revolution which gave tax breaks to the rich and cut benefits to the poor, and then the Clinton years when "American manufacturing" became an oxymoron, and finally the Bush II years when the Dems rolled over for more tax breaks for the elite, bloody expensive war and the loss of civil liberties.
December 28, 2007 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone needs to explain how populism is anything more than political technique, let alone any flavor of coherent philosophy. Otherwise, what exactly has the past twenty-odd years worth of blathering about Hollywood elites, Massachusetts liberals and PC Thought Police been but a textbook example of this definition of populism?
December 31, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista.
"what exactly has the past twenty-odd years worth of blathering about Hollywood elites, Massachusetts liberals and PC Thought Police been but a textbook example of this definition of populism?"
Absolutely, the above could be considered "populist" manisfestations and I would add Yuppies to your list. But the list is hardly exhaustive and subject to change.
How to form/define a coherant philopsophy out of phenomenon that is temporal in nature and akin to cat herding is a task beyond most mere humans. Unfortunately, powerful actors with the talent, means and will to do so have managed to harness populism and steer it their way. Your "political technique" in action.
December 31, 2007 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
Yes indeed. Thank you for restoring a fraction of my old naive faith in the potential level of discourse in this neck of the virtual woods. But I find a disturbing tendency here to impulsively embrace populism strictly upon reflex, and without any refined perspective on, or appreciation for, the cynical potential it has proven time and again throughout modern history. Now, let's saddle up and commence to herding some felines.
January 1, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
the discussion of the issue by you and others and MJ's question elsewhere along the lines of "what's wrong with populism?" (which was for me, a suprisingly naive statement to see coming from someone with his experience in politics, unless he was being disingenuous) inspired me to check out the quality of the entry on populism on wikipedia. I found it quite sophisticated and nuanced as to current and past usage of the term, the up and down sides, historic examples, etc. and I highly recommend it.
January 1, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intrusive Realities
that is temporal in nature and akin to cat herding is a task beyond most mere humans. Unfortunately, powerful actors with the talent, means and will to do so have managed to harness populism and steer it their way. Your "political technique" in action.
Are you a powerful actor?
Do you have talent, means and will?
Are you trying to steer this discussion your way?
Is this your "political technique" in action?
Are you satisfied with life and other love ones situations? Have you pulled a cocoon of unreality around you and treat intrusions as abnormal things that do not exist?
I call the discomforts into our society today "Intrusive Realities". Those things we try to “cure” with the same fantasies we cover our lives in.
Our answers are not real and there will be no change in the intrusion but delusional. The body is in the present and the mind is in the past or future and therefore the humanity and reality of existence for the mortal body experiences is nowhere at all.
Without the unity of both our mind and body in the present working to respond with solutions supported by others in the same state of being and agreeing to support the fixes nothing will change. A faux façade or cover may be placed over the intrusion. The delusional society and individuals will say it is not my problem, it does not affect me, and notice it no more until it bites them.
Communities solve problems! Communities that are real must have the members invested in each other both financially and emotionally and be working together in the present to affect the future and remember the rewards of past achievements where they were successful together.
Is any of this in our life today? Is there a movement to unite into community? This movement is what I would call a Populist movement and it first requires Community, being connected first and then the actions come after a yes answer to the question; will it result in “Greater Community Good”.
When have we thought of the “Greater Community Good” or is the question, “am I getting all the benefits myself”?
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
January 1, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell,
Gee, I wonder who that could have been.
Meanwhile, a quick review of recent accomplishments of American populism: dismantling the Liberal Media; draining academia of its liberal elite; challenging the loose morals of the Homosexual Agenda; tax reforms allowing people to keep more of their money; liberating our robust economy from the liberal nanny state; confronting secular humanism and winning the War on Christmas....
December 31, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
E.J. Dionne also sees populism brewing in this campaign:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/pitching_populism_in_iowa.html
When the public is unhappy with the status quo you are likely to get populism of one kind or another. Democrats have just been miserable at channeling the angst towards progressive reform. What would you prefer instead, a New York billionaire and a bunch of his elitist cronies trying triangulate the election process to make darn sure no uppity progressive has a shot at the Oval Office?
December 31, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell,
What cynical impulse do you draw from to even wonder if I might prefer such a state? Please risk the strain on your intellectual capacities, bluebell, and try and wrap your steamy head around the idea that populism may not be any more of a political movement than any other empty rhetorical vessle wating to be filled -- like patriotism, for example.
January 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we'd win more elections if we had fewer people who hold their own intellectual capacities in high esteem and more who were willing to find out what's important to all those rubes out there in flyoverland.
Well, at least I've reminded myself why the New York Times doesn't help us win elections.
January 1, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell provides a fortunate example of my argument about how populism works. Note how bluebell draws on emotional triggers to characterize an idea, asking rhetorical questions insinuating preference to the status-quo of political expediency and inequality of public discourse without the slightest hint of interest or curiosity about the elements of the actual argument under discussion. With an emphasis on ideological gut reaction over actual knowledge and reason, I become the "privileged elite" to bluebell's "populist." Steven Colbert couldn't do it any better.
January 1, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Emotional triggers to characterize an idea" win elections. If you can't link a gut reaction to knowledge and reason, none of your knowledge and reason will ever be implemented in policy.
January 1, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, what color have you chosen for your armbands?
January 2, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
caught my eye this morning, with "populism" on the mind, thought it might interest you as well:
from Jeff Gettleman's report from Nairobi in the Jan. 2 New York Times.
P.S. I appreciate you challenging people's thoughts on this because, though a shiksa, I am extremely myopic and the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the eyeglasses thingie always got a "gut" reaction from me. :-) (Indeed, I think its this gut reaction kicking in when I get queasy about TPM Cafe mobs attacking some "DC elite" poster because of who he is more than what he's saying--the anonymous-posting-enabled blogosphere itself tends quite populist, for good and for ill, complete with emailing mob actions using verbal abuse.)
January 2, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peggy Noonan was a working class kid who decided that the liberals were being snooty to her -- so she took Roosevelt's rhetoric and attached it to Ronald Reagan's policies.
It is this aspect of populism that Zionista is wary of -- if people fail to analyse past actions and intended policies they end up voting for the guy who makes the most promises and gives the best speech.
January 2, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peggy Noonan was also a Catholic working class kid and by 1980 half the Catholic vote was ready to bolt the party in a populist backlash against the social changes of the 60's and 70's. Neither Noonan nor Reagan created that backlash, but they knew how to speak to it. Meanwhile, the Democrats were out to lunch. Nearly 30 years later they still haven't found a candidate who can give a barn burning speech on the values in the Sermon on the Mount. If they could, they might get some millions of those Catholics back in the fold. Populism is going to be there when people are angry, fearful or feel disenfranchised. If you aren't prepared to take advantage of it, direct it and lead it, someone else will be along to do it.
January 2, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Reagan Democrats in Michigan bolted in a large part due to racism which Reagan was also playing to.
My other question is: And how do you think that worked out for them?
January 3, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista:
Thanks for patiently explaining to folks like me where you are coming from with respect to the notion of "populism". Lukacs' Democracy and Populism, which you recommend in another post, is now on my 2008 reading list (and I'll hopefully get to it by 2010 :-)). Let me review what I think I now understand.
1. First, it is perhaps convenient but really misleading to cast "populism" as any kind of political movement. Rather, it seems, populism is more appropriately understood as one effect of inequities between rich and poor, and often manifests itself as anger directed at this or that real and/or perceived group of elitists.
2. Second, populist sentiment can be tapped into for "good" or for "bad" political ends. Thus, as I think you point out, the political right in this country, railing against the coastal elites in Hollywood and New York and countless other "others", have exploited populist sentiment to destroy civil liberties, cultural expression, and preserve the very economic inequality and the type of hatred of "others" that demogogues like the bigoted and neanderthal Pat Buchanans of the world seek to preserve.
Indeed, currently, as E.J. Dionne points out in a column cited by another poster in this thread, the "brewing populism" he sees appears to be manifesting itself in increased support for that great progressive from the left, Mike Huckabee. Similarly, even on this progressive website, we see posters from "the left" pointing, sheepishly perhaps but pointing nonetheless, to the "left sounding" essence of a Pat Buchanan (the ultimate modern-day otherer in a sea of otherers) or a Ron Paul, who would soak the poor by abolishing the progressive federal income tax, as defenders of the common man or woman. You've heard this line of thinking, to wit: "Yea, Buchanan might be a right-wing nut and a hater of all "those people", but he rails against corporate and social elitists so he's really OK." Hogwash!
3. Finally, populist sentiment I think can also spur change for the good, but the key is to respond to such sentiment in the way that the powerful folks on the right wing of this country have responded over the past 30 years are so, which of course has been at the expense of American working people. Let me posit, for example, that populist sentiment of the 1930s helped to spur the introduction of social security, labor law protections, and other progressive components of the New Deal. What I posit is simplistic I know; the 1930s was also marked by the evils of racism and xenophobia and various other phenomena that we now look back at with shame. Indeed, even in the 1930s, for every Walter Reuther there was a Father Coughlan too.
Happy New Year Zionista and thank you for your inispensable contribution to the TPM Cafe.
Bruce
January 1, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dionne wasn't just talking about Huckabee:
January 1, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's right, but the point is that Huckabee has a "populist" appeal, as does Edwards. I think Edwards is the kind of guy who can harness populist sentiment for the good, absolutely. I personally hear Edwards loudly and clearly and it resonates. And by the way, please note that I mistakenly inserted the wrong link for Father Coughlin in my post above and it was replied to before I could correct it.
January 1, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind words, Bruce. You obviously have a firm grasp on the points I am trying to make. If you will indulge one more recommendation, please move the Lukacs book to the top of your list. Trust me, you can't go wrong on this one in an election year. Better Days!
January 1, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever since the Times hired Nixon hack William Safire for its op-ed column back in the day there has been a policy in the Times of balancing intelligent columnists with morons. So if we have two intelligent columnists (Krugman and Rich) they have to be balanced with two idiots not just one (David Brooks). Kristol fills the empty second idiot position nicely.
December 28, 2007 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
while Safire's selling of the lie of an Atta-Saddam link might have helped the NYT "sell" Bush's war, neither he nor the Times has ever disavowed the Safire war promotion. yellow journalism at its worst. Safire's only claim to worthiness as a columnist only flows out of his speech writing for Nixon...apparently a key credential for our corps of top columnists. George Will actually (as newsman) coached Republican buffoons. our American "free" press...the world's envy.
December 29, 2007 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add Tom Friedman to the list. Although he may not descend from the same intellectual movement, he has basically argued the neocon line since 9/11. He hasn't really rended his garments and torn his hair in embarrassment for arguing that line, and he is complicit in the Iraq disaster. He hasn't earned back his credibility.
On the other hand, there is no one arguing the liberal-left foreign policy line. None of the other writers have FP chops, although they might argue from the left-liberal perspective.
December 28, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to mention Friedman as well. Not only hasn't he disavowed his support of the Iraq debacle, he seems to think that a similar approach will work in Iran.
December 28, 2007 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thankfully, he's on leave.
December 29, 2007 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That last paragraph should be:
On the other hand, there is no one with foreign policy or security expertise arguing from the liberal-left perspective, although Herbert, Krugman, and Kristof may often talk about foreign policy issues.
December 28, 2007 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
Have the Dems or Repubs, or any leading presidential candidates, repudiated the PNAC Principles?
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
The discreditation of neoconism has been greatly exaggerated. In fact it lives on with Obama and Clinton favoring military expansion, with both major parties wanting to intervene everywhere and with all the leading candidates believing in American Exceptionalism.
December 28, 2007 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries. The corporate media is already telling us that it really, really is Mission Accomplished this time in Iraq. Good thing--and convenient--that we are getting this message right before our economy implodes. In that way, the politicians hope we don't link the trillion-plus dollar Iraq Adventure with our economic decline.
This is what happens when your government is run by crony capitalists (as opposed to real capitalists).
December 29, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, Judy, Judy Judy. I think it became clear that NYT was at least holding hands with the Neocons when they held up the illegal spying on Americans story for over a year. Talk about enabling. They claimed that they held back one of the biggest stories of WH illegal activity in our times so as not to influence the election, which is bad enough. But it was only released because Risen was going to publish his book exposing the story. I’d also throw Time into the mix of “liberal media” that has come to promote the company line.
PS Will Mr. Kristol’s first piece explain how he came to write for a paper that he was demanding be prosecuted for treason less than two years ago?
December 28, 2007 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me? I think it is in the genes.
His father (misdirectedly) started on the far left. As he aged he moved to the right, ending WAAaay out there.
Son Billy, having started with soothing tones but on the right side, and finding himself also completely wrong, then moves further and further to the right trying to justify and argue his correctness.
Both these "intellectuals" are not. Both are as stupid as the year is long. And yet the media hangs on to WK. Why? Well, you can answer that one, can't you?
Just put your lips together -- like this -- and blow.
There are so many so-called "intellectuals" on the right who wouldn't know a Hypothesis, Theory or a Refutation if they were run over by them.
The country is being led by idiots.
And media is the enabler.
December 28, 2007 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post reminds me of my college days. I was a Philosophy major for awhile. While doing that, I learned that the Philosophers think they should be the ones who lead the world. They call it the "Philosopher King" theory. I am not sure anybody took them too seriously. The Philosophy professors were very bright people, some extremely bright. But I never met one who was a leader. To put it mildly, they get bogged down in the details. They are smart enough to come in out of the rain, they just don't notice when it is raining. They couldn't properly manage a shoe shine stand. Such is usually the case with most intellectuals. Our country's problem isn't that we don't have bright people in charge. Bush and his people aren't all that dumb. Our problem is we have people in charge, including the congressmen/women, who are putting their perceived personal interests before their duty.
December 29, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I learned that the Philosophers think they should be the ones who lead the world." Randy, you're overgeneralizing from Plato, not to mention omitting Plato's reliance on Socratic dialog, with its suggestion of discovery and disagreement. Plato was a serious and not nice conservative, but philosophers aren't as a whole, and even Plato is remembered as a great thinker because he wasn't a Strauss clone.
Is Kristol replacing Roger C., who I gathered was a temporary import from the Tribune, or is the right wing expanding influence even further. I swear, much as I distrust Clinton, I could vote for her for her line about the vast right-wing conspiracy alone.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 29, 2007 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad MJ correctly identifies Roger Cohen as a supporter of the Iraq War."Neo con" by itself doesn't seem accurate.Perhaps ,"left neo con".Or "right wing DLC", which is a bit tautological.
Krisol ? Whatever. I have no difficulty with the Times hosting a variety of views. If only they actually would host a variety of views. If Kristol, why not Katha Pollitt? Or give the
Firedoglake women a voice. They'd raise some eyebrows.Or if a right winger for God's sake, someone whose every column can't be predicted from its first 4 words.
David Brooks actually seems like a reasonable human being . Of the commentators mentioned here , the only one who wouldn't have me fumbling for the parachute if he slipped into the seat next to me on a 4 hour flight. Not because I share a single one of his positions. Lord No. But because he seems to acknowledge that his aren't the only possible ones.
And while I'm at it ,can any one but me remember Norman Podhoretz as an exciting young literary critic first "Making It" ? And Commentary , worth reading?
When you lose your perspective that's the 8th age of man . Everything else follows and you cease to be interesting or persuasive. Like Bill Kristol,in fact.
Come to think of it Sulzberger did us a favor .
He could have recruited someone good.
December 29, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on Flavius, you aren't in the 8th age yet. Isn't that when you watch your first 7 on television and you can change channels with a flipper? You're still blogging. :)
December 29, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Kristol's problem is less that he is a neo-con, indeed presumably a crowned prince as Irving Kristol's son, but as Dan Quayle's chief of staff he is a Republican hack. It is less his ideology but that like those on the far left he is factually challenged.
I am not sure I understand this whining about Times. Arthur Krock, James Reston Arthur Salzbuger were hardly to be confused with the Nation. The Time's Op-ed pages have Krugman, Friedman, Collins, Dowd, Cohen, Brooks and now Kristol. Hardly a rightwing cabal. Mainly people who far more knowledgable about facts than virtually anyone writing at TPMCafe.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 29, 2007 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Name one "fact" that the morons Brooks and Kristol know that we at the Cafe don't know.
December 29, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kwintessence of Kristol:
On Sept. 18, 2002, he declared that a war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." A day later, he said Saddam"past the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons. On Feb. 20, 2003, he said of Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction.... Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world." On March 1, 2003 -- 18 days before the invasion of Iraq -- Kristol dismissed the possibility of sectarian conflict afterward. He also said, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president."
December 29, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
excellent NYTimes material. if he only plagiarized as well he could be hired simultaneously by Washington Post.
December 29, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Daniel.
December 29, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the NYT hired him to see if the Farce News crowd would experience cognitive dissonance when they reflexively bark "Liberal Media."
December 29, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
it gives an unexpected resonance to the phrase "liberal fascism."
December 29, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
of whom only Krugman and Dowd opposed the war.Hardly an anti war cabal either.
Since that's their day job, chances are you're right that they all , Kristol included, are more knowledgeable about facts than the users here.But despite all that impressive knowledge they've got ahold of the conclusions they draw are sufficiently different that it's enough to make you think that it's not all that bad to be factually challenged. Or indeed to wonder whether factually challenged isn't actually short hand for :I don't agree with your conclusions.
In any event while on this "just the facts, mam" kick: Arthur Salzburger never wrote for the Times,C.L. Sulzberger did.
December 29, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still submit the challenge - name one "fact" of significance about any matter of significance that William Kristol is more knowledgeable about than the Cafe users. He's certainly less able to analyze the significance of events such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq than we are. I base this on his previous moronic analysis of that situation.
December 29, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uncle! You win! I give up! That would require me to actually read Kristol .I'm willing to do many things but that's a bridge too far.
December 29, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mainly people who far more knowledgable about facts than virtually anyone writing at TPMCafe.
Er, wrong. A psychology professor at Berkeley conducted a 20 year study of 284 political and economic pundits and their "forecasts". He ended up with 82,361 predictions and came to this conclusion:
Since Bronto1 has already done shattered Kristol, I hereby offer the Friedman Unit, aka, F.U.
Friedman Unit
Or this classic exchange between David Brooks and Bob Woodward on MTP:
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 29, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and without the classified or top secret intelligence reports, without confidential and executive privileged communications, without the contacts, time, and expense accounts of the Brooks, Friedmans or Bill Kristol, hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters throughout the world knew the Iraq war was not necessary and had it right in 2002.
December 29, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
...hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters throughout the world knew the Iraq war was not necessary and had it right in 2002.
And, unlike Wrong-Way Kristol, Brooks, Friedman, etc., our concerns on the issue were given very little news space in 2002 or after.
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 30, 2007 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this a symptom of the Internetization of the press?
I used to buy a newspaper and read anyone on the editorial page. It used to be as informative as anything else I could find. Now that I live in Fort Worth, I have two remaining "newspapers," both of which have recently reformatted to essentially eliminate any national editorialists. With the death of Molly Ivins, both newspapers have been reduced to publishing mostly local writers and letters-to-the-editor - and they they only publish letters that have local interest. Forget any coverage of national politics without a strong local connection.
Both newspapers have also sharply cut international coverage, even AP, and the papers themselves have shrunk. All that is left are the comics, and I still don't like comics on the Internet. Their short format makes searching for them more trouble than they are worth. Even the fish prefer to be wrapped in Saranwrap rather than a modern newspaper.
When I want to read a columnist I find that columnist and read him or her online. Columnists no longer attract an audience to other columnists. They have each found niche markets. The synergy that used to be created among columnists with similar points of view died when economics made competition between newspapers inside a city too expensive and the Republicans permitted consolidation where one city newspaper would buy out its competition and shut it down.
That has to have changed the New York Times' business model. The recent dropping of "the wall" is an indication. They have given up mass marketing of opinion because they can't sell it. Now their revenue stream is advertisements carried by each niche columnist. Unfortunately, that is also true for the news. The mass newspaper no longer builds a columnist or reporter. Now the columnists and reporters put their imprimatur on the organization and attracts online eyeballs to the organization. The "newspaper" no longer sells its editorial position and news to the mass public. There's not enough revenue from department store advertisements to support it.
I don't think the fact that the New York Times is hiring Kristol builds Kristol in any significant way except to dinosaurs who think that newspapers still exist as mass market distribution of news, opinion and advertisements. Kristol is a known brand, and the New York Times desperately wants his niche audience. Craig's list, Google, shopping malls and Wal-Mart have killed newspapers, and the NY Times is just struggling to find some way for the corporate entity to continue to exist without being a mass media distributor.
Hiring Kristol just gets them the revenue from one more niche market of eyeballs. He brings them that assured revenue, and they don't care what his opinions are as long as his readership - on the Internet - doesn't drop.
Hiring Kristol merely demonstrates that the New York Times "newspaper" is a dead fish flopping on the beach because the tide has left them high and dry. The purveyors of wing-nut welfare are worms who are feeding off the carcass of the dead mass consumer newspaper called the New York times.
December 29, 2007 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The recent dropping of "the wall" is an indication. They have given up mass marketing of opinion because they can't sell it.
Please, the wall was never about marketing for present or future income. The wall was about keeping the criticism out of general circulation thus lowering the heat on the administration. Before the wall NYT’s opinion articles were counted in the top pages of web destinations. Since the wall has been lowered they have not come close to where they were before.
Management’s actions in establishing the wall are inline with withholding information that was critical to Democracy and the observance of law. In fact one could say they were co-conspirators in the activity and subversive towards the country by not reporting ongoing criminal activity against the Citizens of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 29, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that any of Kristol's followers are going to subscribe to the NYT just to read him. I don't see that this is about revenue. Maybe it is about wanting to say they are not left-wing. In any case, it seems like a stupid, unimaginative use of their resources, and a disservice to their subscribers.
Why not get someone interesting? A thoughtful, fact-based right-wing person would be okay. Or give someone on the left a bigger platform-- Katha Pollit, Salim Muwakkil, etc. Find the next Frank Rich.
Or go another direction-- give a column to Jim Wallis or someone else who would comment intelligently on religious affairs. Heck, I think I'd even read someone like Rick Warren, from the megachurch in California, to get a sense of what is going on in the moderate evangelical world; it would be interesting and useful information, even if I didn't agree with any of his opinions.
Or do what they did when someone was on leave and rotate a variety of people through 6 or 8 week stints, spread the wealth (of media access) around.
Kristol is a right-wing lackey, like Brooks, and I can see no reason why the NYT needs another one of those. It just seems dumb.
December 30, 2007 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A thoughtful, fact-based right-wing person..." - an oxymoron?
December 31, 2007 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't about subscription revenue.
Subscription revenue has (in modern times) never done more than just reimburse partially for the distribution costs for dead trees. The only revenue that matters to a newspaper or news organization is advertising, and for that you have to have numbers of eyeballs (or circulation for the dead tree editions) to sell to advertisers.
Kristol is a guaranteed stream of readers that can be sold to advertisers. He is a brand name with a guaranteed market. As the NYT shifts to an largely an online organization outside New York they no longer need to concern themselves with subscription revenue. No additional dead trees to move. Advertising covers it all, just like it does for the Greensheet shopper or the weekly alternative newspaper.
December 31, 2007 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think you've put your finger on the Times' reasoning, Rick. It's not about increasing readership or web pages viewed, or adding "balance;" it's about pandering to conservative advertisers and giving Times' ad salespeople a talking point for their sales presentations.
I'd be surprised if the Times didn't add more "conservatives" to their stable for exactly this reason.
December 31, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right.
They have figured out that they are no longer a big single broadsheet newspaper with a single editorial position and sales to advertisers based on circulation of the entire newspaper.
Instead they are a whole series of niche markets, each of which can be sold separately to different advertisers. News and opinion will be totally separate markets, selling to completely different groups, and neither will piggy-back on the reputation of the other the way they have when the only number their sales department had to sell was total circulation numbers.
News is going to be somewhat more fragmented (in a market sense) but opinion will be completely fragmented. They will be attaching ads to each news or opinion item the way Google does. Their job is to find someone who can provide a reliable stream of readers so that statistics will convince advertisers to buy ads.
They'll also be pumping up the reputation of their editorialists in order to increase readership. This is what the reputation of the Gray Lady will be good for. Kristol is going to have to sell enough ads to cover his salary and his share of overhead, unlike what he has done at the Weekly Standard. He just doesn't have to finance distribution also.
More conservatives? No doubt. But what other categories are out there that will make good niche markets? They have a science writer, Nicholas Wade, who is excellent and who has written an outstanding book called "Before the Dawn" about what DNA research has been able to prove about the evolution of man. (People have worn clothes for 72,000 years. Body lice and head lice split at that time, and neither can live more than 24 hours away from the warmth of the human body. Body lice are found only in clothes, head lice only in hair. P.4 of BtD)
Will they start hiring religion writers from the evangelists? What will the niches be in 5 or 10 years? But today's national New York Times is dead. It just hasn't had time to lay down yet.
December 31, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"liberal media" my ass.
December 29, 2007 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are few things I agree with Bill Kristol about. But I am in perfect agreement with this perceptive 2003 comment of Bloody Bill's:
"Still, the simple truth is that a great democracy like ours deserves a first-rate newspaper of record. And the New York Times isn’t it."
Certainly much more on target than his comment that there would be no strife between Shi'a and Sunni. Apparently coming from his vast technical knowledge and expertise...just what the Times lacks.
December 29, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
VLaszlo said:
Well its obvious to all that Mr. Kristol took it upon himself to take the position at the NYT so he could work from within to elevate this newspaper to the professionalism of The Weekly Standard, thereby becoming a truly patriotic instrument of this great country.
December 29, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be that Kristol will help elevate the profitability of the New York Times to the exalted levels of the Weekly Standard, also.
December 31, 2007 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
In these recent years I have been learning to do without. I am learning to forgo the rights of citizenship once granted to me by the U.S. Constitution. I have even moved my copy of Magna Charta from my bookshelf to a box that holds my other science fiction paper backs. But I draw the line at Cervantes, the reason for which is exemplified by this current discussion.
I’m entertained to observe this little clutch of would-be Don Quixote’s rushing to defend the honor and good name of the beautiful and most Christian noble woman, Lady Grey. Only a knight errand of good lineage can see her comely attributes and appreciate her marvelous character and pious goodness. We common village folk know her by another name, a worker in that oldest of professions. The knight understands that for her to keep the company of someone of inferior class is an affront to the proper order of society. We villains understand that such associations are momentary and merely a commercial liaison, a natural part of the riot of life.
I do not intend to chasten these newest Dons. There is a lesson in Cervantes novel that suggests that if one imagines oneself an honorable Sir and pursues noble albeit imaginary conflicts with fanciful enemies of the Good, one may actually become that which they imagine themselves to be, a knight. It is just that, as I say, I have been learning to do without. While I may wish to have access to a “newspaper of record,” pragmatism requires me to answer this question in regard to the tryst between William Kristol and the Lady:
“Lady Madonna,
Children at your feet,
Wonder how you manage to make ends meet.”
December 29, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Carlyle Group now owns the Magna Carta - and probably the NY Times as well.
December 29, 2007 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the establishment is gearing up for the Two Minutes Hate against Iran again.
This Bush administration cannot end quickly enough.
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2007/09/impeach-bush-before-he-attacks-iran.html
SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com
December 29, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Kristol choice is also unfortunate because if the NYT is to have any claim to being a "national" newspaper it ought to bring in some perspectives from beyond the northeast. If they had to bring in another conservative, couldn't they at least have found one to speak from a southern or western perspective? Or why not add a voice from the left coast?
December 29, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how much money the Times actually makes, and who is paying for that fancy new hi-rise on W 41st street?
Something is rotten.
December 29, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just say that the New York Times are following the lead of the New York Knicks, and hiring Kristol to 'right' the ship is like hiring Isiah Thomas to do the same.
Sulzburger must be a drinking buddy of Jimmy Dolan's.
December 29, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that as a show of good faith and wishing to be as balanced as the competition, the Washington Times will now hire Paul Krugman.
December 30, 2007 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure I understand your complaint. Fox News does have Alan Colmes.
December 30, 2007 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
So true!
Jan
December 30, 2007 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does Alan Colmes have to do with my post?
December 30, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colmes is an ineffectual, docile pet while Kristol is not. But it is how the scales are balanced in our great American, Corporate bought and owned press.
December 30, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Murdoch/Ailes look for Democrats who need a paycheck, when he finds one, he hires him/her. Make no mistake, the Dems on his payroll know their place when they appear on FOX.
Kristol is not a second or third tier player like Colmes, the NYT won't have much, if any, control over him.
December 30, 2007 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Times hired Kristol the same reason Brad Pitt marries Jennifer Anniston, then leaves her for Angelina Jolie and not a Beverly Hills physician or high school teacher. He never meets real people. Movie stars meet and marry movie stars. Insular Manhattan celebrities meet and hire other insular Manhattan celebrities.
MJ, what did you expect? That the Times would hire some brilliant UM professor/writer/thinker who has something to say? No way. Even a right-winger like Andrew Sullivan is too far beyond the west side island (gay, Catholic) to possibly land this spot.
December 30, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
For sure, you need to be safely right and "right" on Israel. Maybe Sullivan supports a Palestinian state or something.
December 30, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, looks like the Old Grey Lady is picking up a trick on the Upper East Side, in order to make a little pin money.
My first thought is of The Club, and the advantages and pitfalls of nepotism; Billy Kristol and Pinch Sulzburger both inherited their positions, and while i'm sure they have 'worked' at it, both are clearly ill-suited for the 'real world,' and so, they get by as best they can by relying on the connections built by their fathers.
However, the bulldog must be fed, which makes me wonder if there isn't a hidden 'wingnut welfare' payoff agreement to the Times, to allow its already besmirched Opinions page to become even more unhinged and reality free.
I am a Sunday Times subscriber, however, I think I may have to give that up now, because I simply cannot stand Billy Kristol and his smarmy lies. fwiw, I'm thinking about subscribing to the Sac Bee, since the McClatchy papers appear to be some of the last 'news' papers we have left in this country.
December 30, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I am a Sunday Times subscriber, however, I think I may have to give that up now"
I already have cancelled my weekly subscription. I do not want to pay to support the likes of Kristol.
December 30, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is another shoe to fall and a sock to see with all its sordid holes!
What day(s) will his missive(s) “A ‘Con’s Alternate History” appear and
who may be moved to a less prestigious news day like Saturday?
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 30, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Politico, Kristol will only appear once a week instead of biweekly. His first column is scheduled for January 7th (Monday).
Love the reference to Wolfowitz, another *always wrong* neocon.
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 30, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The clubbiness noted by Sean and leftAhead is part of the story, but not all. Dowd, Kristof, Friedman, and Herbert all have the strengths and weaknesses of reporters who moved up in the food chain. It means a shallow level of analysis, a narrow thesis if any, and except for Herbert a pretense of balance. Kristol is from a very different universe. (How a genuine scholar like Krugman got here is a harder question, but I suppose he rode on bipartisan credentials, work in Washington, and his becoming angrier only in the course of events.)
Dowd is about her own cleverness versus everyone. Kristof is about repeating that people are dying in Africa so that really someone ought to do something, but without reflection on actual policies and political divisions unless something gets to a level so outrageous that he feels maybe he ought to allude to it. For all his good intentions, liberal politics, and grounding in reality, even Herbert sounds similar time after time when he states that people are poor or dying in Iraq, with the assumption that this will convince someone of something. (Eventually deaths in Iraq did convince the American people, but it took years of failure and the gradual breakdown of any number of lies supporting the war's framework.)
Friedman is just an ideology to himself, which just happens to coincide with a conservative one since the war in Iraq. He got famous with the simple-minded idea that all he had to do was repeat "globalization" like a mantra, because supposedly once Macdonald's spread, peace and prosperity were at hand. What seem neoconservative are just kludges to sustain over time the breakdown of that. American workers were getting poorer, so we could adjust by saying the earth is flat and sell even more books. People were still getting poorer, even in India, but we could claim this was due to poor education in America and dependence on oil; this even had the virtue of reflecting a more or less liberal hope for education funding and alternative energies, and we could ignore whether education in the Third World and rates of innovation were better. Macdonald's did not stand in the way of war, but that was a temporary Islamic delusion that could be solved by the Middle East waking up or American intervention. Intervention failed, but that just meant the Muslim world had to solve things better.
The conservative game is entirely different. Brooks and Kristol begin as pundits and thrive by catering to a party line. Lying is cool to that end. Or compare how Dowd, the ultimate insider, always plays the outsider, whereas Safire loved to play the insider passing on the hot gossip or reading some dictator's mind. (Because of Safire's libertarian beliefs, they first replaced him with a dogmatic libertarian, who'd made his career in the Metro section arguing for privatizing everything down to subways, but Tierney probably was too overtly ideological and even too overtly silly rather than partisan for wingnuts who play to win.) This is a club, but it's not the club of Manhattan journalism. It's about Manhattan journalism letting in a more strident and powerful club out of opportunism and fear.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 30, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, more than once of late while listening to Pat Buchanan, I've been struck that he might be speaking from the LEFT. Scary times.
December 30, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may be too optimistic about things but I think all the "gnashing of teeth" about Bloody Bill is a little over the top.
The republicans scream constantly about "the liberal media". Under no circumstances could anyone consider Bloody Bill liberal. This gives the left a great comeback in the face of that argument. Does anyone really think the quality of news will suffer? I don't and I wouldn't judge my choice of news content based on whatever crop of columnists are on board.
My biggest problems with republicans is that they vote being uninformed - based on what they perceive the news to be...not really what it is.
If just a few republicans accidentally stumble on real news by following Kristol to the Times - I'm ok with it.
December 30, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The funny thing is that the only op-ed writer that I really like at the Time is Frank Rich--he has consistently skewered Bushco and the neocons in such memorable and funny ways, that I'm sure the wingnuts have been racking their brains trying to counteract him. Unfortunately for them, you can't buy good writing like you can buy 'free speech.'
December 30, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paul Krugman is no slouch either.
December 30, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The funny thing is that the only op-ed writer that I really like at the Time is Frank Rich." I admire Rich, because he combines passion, a unique ability to capture the GOP miasma, and a sustained level of wit and style over quite a few words, whereas Dowd is genuinely funny only maybe a third of the time. On the other hand, Rich's subject is politics, and I admire that Krugman can bring something more, both because he genuinely can write about policy, he can work through it as an economist, and he can boil down harder ideas than the other writers even attempt like a good teacher. Somehow I won't wait for Kristol to explain in simple but logical terms why the Laffer curve really works.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 30, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically or not, Rich was actually a theater critic for the Times before he transitioned into his op-ed role--perhaps his experience with comedy, tragedy and farce explains his ability to contextualize the Bush regime.
Don't worry, Kristol will be too busy tubthumping about the 'grave existential threat' to have any time to spend explaining anything; who has time to think about how the bills get paid when there's a Clash of Civilizations to attend to?
December 30, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add, though, that the media's biggest problem just can't be an OpEd page. I am sure it shapes opinion, but it can't do so as much as news, whether the front pages or on TV. Otherwise, maybe Times editorials against the war would have affected things.
In fact, the item that most ticked me off this weekend was ordinary CNN coverage of the campaign Saturday evening. It was about how the voting at caucuses work in Iowa, with the lead of why coming in second can matter (because candidates who don't make a minimum number in the first round are cut, and caucus members must then vote for a second preference). But the whole thing was around why this might matter to, and help, Clinton.
No real reason it might help her more or to focus on her. The piece even noted twice that polls show a three-way tie. It used Biden as an example of the likely loser in first-round votes, effectively helping to make him a loser. But mostly it effectively made Clinton a more likely winner, as the one people expect to win (and the piece noted that voters are swayed by who is likely to win and thus beat Bush). Despite the three way tie, Obama was mentioned once, for his rebuttal to the idea that Clinton would pick up on the second round. And of course Edwards was not mentioned at all.
That means massive, mostly positive coverage for Clinton. It means small but very positive coverage for Obama. It means zero coverage for Edwards. I can't believe he's hanging in as long as he has. If the media could vote him off the island any sooner, they would.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 30, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your analysis is better than CNN's. People for Hillary are part of the Clinton machine. My Iowa brother likes Biden but expects he'll move to Edwards when Biden doesn't get 15% in his caucus. He also likes Obama. He can't stand Hillary. His wife will be supporting Edwards.
On the plus side, the Iowa media is lot more even-handed than cable news. From what I could tell being down there both the newspapers and local TV are trying hard to cover all the candidates.
December 30, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think assigning an extremist columnist is another symptom of a paper that is neglecting its obligation to try to discover the truth. Kristol is just another sign of the slide of the Times. From Wen Ho Lee to the defense of Judy Miller a decline in how reporting is managed can be seen.
There is a lot of great reporting at the NYT just as there is at WaPo but that doesn't mean they aren't read with a skeptical eye now. How would Sy Hersh's My Lai reporting or the Pentagon Papers or Watergate be reported (or not reported) today?
I think more columnists were pro-war or on the fence than against. I recall few people at least disputing the WH WMD line before the invasion of Iraq. Often, more influence is applied interpreting news than the reporting of bare facts (even when those facts are not questionable). The whole Iraq WMD story was not just disseminated through Millers' false reports or Condi quotes about mushroom clouds. Many readers internalized this misinformation through the preaching pundits.
The op-ed pages are read by many more studiously than the news pages and while most look for opinion that reinforces their views, a lot of misinformation is digested. It’s true that Kristol is so far right that his direct influence is only among true believers. But extremist neo-conservatism, which should be in its death throws, has just received an endorsement, another little stamp of approval from the number one, world class, paper of record.
December 30, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think assigning an extremist columnist is another symptom of a paper that is neglecting its obligation to try to discover the truth.
Apparently, the truth has nothing whatsoever to do with hiring Krazy Kristol. According to Andy Rosenthal, the Times' editorial page editor, "...The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that’s a bad thing". “How intolerant is that?”
How someone that is *always* wrong can also be a "serious, respected conservative intellectual" is not explored by Mr. Rosenthal.
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 30, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
...a serious, respected conservative intellectual...
Yet some may look at Kristol’s screeds (and his stewardship of WS) and decide that he is, given his chosen profession, a pathological liar. Here is an incomplete list of lies from MediaMatters.
...the delusional is no longer marginal.
Undeniably.
December 30, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good link. Here is what Kristol gave to Fox News as an explanation for why Dennis Hastert should not be blamed for the fallout from the Mark Foley scandal:
This is what the New York Times calls a "serious, respected conservative intellectual"?
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 30, 2007 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it is one thing to hire a reporter or columnist and then discover that writer is a lying shill for the administration. It is quite another to hire some one you already know fits that profile.
Apparenty the Times feels a need to publish bald faced lies about the Democratic nominee under the cover of a by-line instead of in unsigned editorials. They're just getting their ducks in a row now.
December 31, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
gradioc said:
Excellent observation, especially when the administration he shills for is so frikkin anti-American and evil.
January 2, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink