Considering how partisan the New York Times has proven itself, I found it immensely strange when they hired Bill Kristol to write a column.
The assumption is that they still want a conservative perspective on the editorial page, and David Brooks ain't it. That's breeding a conversation about who can and should replace Kristol.
Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform doesn't want the Times to hire another idiosyncratic voice. If the Gray Lady is looking for a conservative viewpoint on the page, he says, "you can't have Fanta in there; you need classic Coke." He thinks David Brooks is interesting, but "you can't read him and have any understanding of why Boehner and Mitchell and the NRA do what they do." He's similarly skeptical of emerging conservative thinkers who pose sweeping revisions to conservative ideology. ("Get elected dog catcher and then tell me these ideas are going to work for everyone.") His pick for a conservative that could best articulate the party's stance would be Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard.
Norquist probably thought Kristol was a fine choice in the first place--Barnes is just a more avuncular version Bill Kristol. Both are policy wonks and Washington insiders--providing valuable insights when Republicans are in power--totally useless when they aren't.
The "right" choice for a columnist to replace Kristol depends a great deal on what the Times is trying to accomplish. Who is the audience? What kind of information are they look for? What kind of perspective would prove valuable?
What they need, and what they might think they need could be two completely different things.
Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield--see a TNR critique of his work here--said his top pick would be columnist Victor Davis Hanson, a writer for the National Review Online and a fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Hansen is a compelling writer, but he's more of an exegete of conservative doctrine than a barometer of contemporary conservative political views.
His second pick would be Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, whom Mansfield calls "pleasurably contentious."
Pundit David Frum's name is floating around the blogosphere as a pick to replace Kristol, but his money is on City Journal editor Heather Mac Donald. "A great New York newspaper needs a great columnist writing about New York," Frum said.
Nobody cares what David Frum thinks, but his picks are closer to the ideal than any I've heard so far. Goldberg and MacDonald are rare conservatives indeed--orthodox in spite of self-imposed exile in the deep blue, existing in two worlds and thus able to translate between them. Either one would be a good pick.
Mark writes: Well Ann Coulter would be inspired, Steyn's a non-pareil, Camille Paglia might make their heads explode, Hanson is 1st rate, but Jonah Goldberg is pugnacious, wonky, literate and echt Manhattan. By co-incidence I went to a talk he gave yesterday in a committee room at the Houses of Parliament. He looks and sounds just as he seems on video. The photo is blurry because as I took the shot I was telling him what the American Right needs to do. I guess I made him laugh.
Comments (1)
Good riddance to Kristol.
I'd vote for Jonah Goldberg.
He is an orthodox conservative who actually understands and effectively communicates/contends with libertarians and liberals in a very entertaining and enlightening way.
I don't know Heather MacDonald.
Posted by Jeremy | January 27, 2009 9:19 PM
Posted on January 27, 2009 21:19