US politics challenge

[cherdanno]

If you are a liberal, name conservative thinkers/journalists/columnist that you find very much worth reading. If you are conservative, the same with liberal writers.

[cherdanno]

FWIW I can only name one (Ross Douthat), unless Andrew Sullivan counts as conservative...

[hrothgar]

I read Andrew Sullivan quite frequently. (He certainly describes himself as a conservative) I used to read Safire. I hope that Douthat will do a better job with his slot...

 

I tend to perk up and pay attention when I hear comments by Brent Scowcroft or James Baker. I don't always agree, but do consider them worth listening to.

 

Edward Luttwak is always provocative, though I think that he is starting to lose it...

[Winstonm]

I refuse to watch Fox News, so by definition that makes me an extreme left wing nutcase. I have found much of what Ron Paul says about foreign policy and the outrageous costs of our military spending to be a refreshing change.

[Al_U_Card]

Since Bill Buckley left us.....so did my interest in conservative p.o.v.

 

Ron Paul is somewhat more libertarian but I do like Obama's "conservative" positions on most things...

[y66]

I read David Brooks' column regularly. I read Megan McArdle's blog occasionally. I read Karl Rove's WSJ columns occasionally but never while eating.

 

I don't know Ross Douthat. Will check out his stuff.

 

Edit: I watched a few Bill Buckley shows on YouTube last year. One with Noam Chomsky. Have never seen anyone dismantle Buckley like that. I felt bad for the guy.

[hrothgar]

Speaking about Sullivan, his blog had an interesting pointer today

 

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/cl...tive-fallacies/

[helene_t]

"The American Thinker" is a decent website, from what I have seen.

[kenberg]

Mostly I read the Washington Post. The Times at times. There are three conservative writers for (or they are reprinted in) the Post that I regularly read: George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gerson. I don't really consider Robert Samuelson a conservative although we can include him if you like. No one would call him a liberal I imagine.

 

 

Of these four I like Robert Samuelson and, much to my surprise, Michael Gerson the best. I think Samuelson is intelligent and informed, and approaches matters with an interest in getting to the right answer. I really can't think of a time when I thought he let ideology get the best of his judgment. And he writes clearly. Gerson was a speechwriter for Bush (perhaps explaining my surprise) and has strong religious beliefs (perhaps further explaining my surprise). He speaks of many things. When he speaks of blending conservative views with compassion I believe that he really means it. While I find Samuelson the more informative on economic matters I often find Gerson the more interesting. He had a column the other day I found unreadable (way overstating the significance of a poll that found Republicans don't like Obama) but that's rare.

 

I think the 2008 election has basically driven Krauthammer and Will over the edge. Will does still bring in some of the most obscure but interesting historical tidbits though.

 

I am responding to this challenge as if I were a liberal, but that is probably not exactly correct. I usually vote for Democrats, but it's not the same thing. I like the columnist Davis Broder a lot, who I think also usually votes for Democrats and who may also not count as a liberal. I also like Anne Applebaum a lot. I suppose she is a liberal but not very. I suppose Republicans could take note of my somewhat split personality but they probably won't.

 

 

Incidentally, I think this challenge is a fine idea.

[Winstonm]

One of my favorite minds is that of Glenn Greenwald. I have heard him accused of being liberal, but that is not my take. He used to crucify Bush and now he is equally harsh on Obama - doesn't sound like a liberal to me.

[y66]

Am intrigued and moved by Douthat's Easter week blog posts. Can't remember the last time I saw someone in his profession taking such a clear, heartfelt stance on something they so passionately believe in. Read some of his other posts. I like this guy. I think I can learn a lot from reading his stuff.

[y66]

Whoa. Can't believe the guy who's credited by David Brooks for authoring the "best single roadmap of where the G.O.P. should and is likely to head" writes stuff like this about Tea Party organizers:

 

Their message is intertwined with a sense of disenfranchisement and all kinds of inchoate cultural resentments, they've brought various wacky extremists out of the woodwork (you know, like Glenn Beck), and just as George W. Bush benefited from having opposition to his policies identified with peacenik marchers in Berkeley and Ann Arbor, so Barack Obama probably benefits from having the opposition (such as it is) associated with a bunch of Fox News fans marching through the streets on Tax Day, parroting talk radio tropes and shouting about socialism. Obama is a very popular President, at the moment, his unpopularity among Republicans notwithstanding, and it's awfully hard to see the Tea Parties doing much to change that reality in the short run; if anything, they're far more likely to reconfirm the majority in its opinion that American conservatism is increasingly wacky, echo-chamberish, and out-of-touch.

The opposition (such as it is) indeed ... vraiment ... bien sur ... c'est ca even.

 

This guy has blog cred.

[PassedOut]

As a moderate to conservative business person, I do find it unfortunate that "conservative" has come to mean "incapable of reason." It's good to see that a few conservative writers can articulate reasonable positions. (Too bad that quality almost disqualifies them from running as republicans these days.)

 

If emotional namecallers like Limbaugh and O'Reilly, who dominate the main-stream media these days, continue to represent the republican party, then the party will become more and more irrelevant. As it stands today, the republicans in congress are almost a total loss.

[y66]

Why we drink tea ... from Andrew Sullivan's blog.

 

My Mum And Starbucks

 

So I ordered the fancy-ass Tazo London Fog Tea Latte at Starbucks - because a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down. It cost over $3. And when I started to drink it, I got this Proustian feeling. Starbucks have discovered the old cup of cha that my mother reared me and my siblings on. The same strange blend of hot water and milk and sugar; the same black tea steeped a little too long; the same impact on the nose and lungs on a cold damp evening. All that's missing is that ritual: the English zen of making the tea.

My mum (yes, I have to use the English spelling) made around 10 of these a day. We were either drinking tea or the kettle was boiling. If my parents were having a fight, the kids upstairs listening to the uproar would wait until we heard the voices fade and then the all-clear siren: the sound of the water being drawn and the kettle being readied. When I told my poor mother I was a homosexual, it was her first impulse: "Oh my God, I'd better make a cup of tea."

My poor mum. Funny how a cup of tea reminds me how much I love her.

Have never read this guy's stuff before either. Am now a confirmed fan. Got to get out more. This thread is helping.

[y66]

Started reading Grand New Party by Douthat & Salam. Good stuff. NYT review here.

[Lobowolf]

As a moderate to conservative business person, I do find it unfortunate that "conservative" has come to mean "incapable of reason." It's good to see that a few conservative writers can articulate reasonable positions. (Too bad that quality almost disqualifies them from running as republicans these days.)

 

If emotional namecallers like Limbaugh and O'Reilly, who dominate the main-stream media these days, continue to represent the republican party, then the party will become more and more irrelevant. As it stands today, the republicans in congress are almost a total loss.

On the whole, do you find leading liberal writers markedly more rational and reasonable?

[PassedOut]

As a moderate to conservative business person, I do find it unfortunate that "conservative" has come to mean "incapable of reason." It's good to see that a few conservative writers can articulate reasonable positions. (Too bad that quality almost disqualifies them from running as republicans these days.)

 

If emotional namecallers like Limbaugh and O'Reilly, who dominate the main-stream media these days, continue to represent the republican party, then the party will become more and more irrelevant. As it stands today, the republicans in congress are almost a total loss.

On the whole, do you find leading liberal writers markedly more rational and reasonable?

On the whole, I find the terms "conservative" and "liberal" useless today for classifying writers. It all depends upon the topic being discussed and how much the writer knows about it.

 

For example, on baseball I would much rather read George Will than Al Gore. Not so on global warming.

 

Paul Krugman thinks that Obama should be spending a lot more money to fix the economy. How do the words "liberal" and "conservative" even apply to that disagreement?

 

One thing is for sure: If a writer takes the position that government is never the solution or is always the solution, I discount his or her writing.

 

I favor personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and a responsible foreign policy. At one time, those were all republican values, but now they are not.

 

I agree with, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But I don't agree with claiming "it ain't broke" just because you don't want to fix it. And that's just what republicans do these days.

[awm]

While not exactly on topic, I wanted to mention that I've recently been reading some of the Economist's online debates. The Economist is perhaps hard to categorize on the American political scale, in part due to being a British publication (they seem conservative on fiscal issues and liberal socially) and the debates are very well done, with well-articulated and informed positions arguing from both sides.

[hrothgar]

While not exactly on topic, I wanted to mention that I've recently been reading some of the Economist's online debates. The Economist is perhaps hard to categorize on the American political scale, in part due to being a British publication (they seem conservative on fiscal issues and liberal socially) and the debates are very well done, with well-articulated and informed positions arguing from both sides.

As I recall, The Economist's Raison d'état dates back to the debates surrounding the Corn Laws...

 

To this day, its defined more in terms of trade liberalization than anything else. (This is part of the reason that I like them)

[hrothgar]

I forgot to mention Andrew Bacevitch... Definitely well worth reading.

 

Still waiting for the for the opposite side of the aisle to make any kind of contribution.

[Winstonm]

I forgot to mention Andrew Bacevitch... Definitely well worth reading.

 

Still waiting for the for the opposite side of the aisle to make any kind of contribution.

I concur. I read his last book and it was terrific.

[y66]

Who is Michael Savage?

 

Good story by Kelefa Sanneh in this week's New Yorker.

 

Radio host Michael Savage is an anomaly: nearly as contemptuous of his fellow radio stars as he is of President Obama. His daily broadcast, “The Savage Nation,” is one of the most popular talk shows in the country.  The magazine Talkers ranks Savage third on its “Heavy Hundred” list, behind only Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and estimates that he reaches more than eight million listeners weekly. What he gives those listeners is one of the most addictive programs on radio, and one of the least predictable. San Francisco is his adopted home town, but he delivers his analysis and anecdotes in a vinegary New York accent, occasionally seasoned with Yiddish. He yields to no one in his disdain for liberals, not to mention illegal immigrants, gay-rights activists, and Judge Sotomayor. Just about any news story leads him back to his central thesis: that lefties are ruining the world, or trying to. Earlier this year the British government put him on a list of twenty-two “hate promoters,” who had recently been banned from entering the country. His regular listeners know him to be a marvelous storyteller, a quirky thinker, and an incorrigible free-associater. He records two or three hours of live radio every weekday, customarily working from a home studio. Savage is sometimes seen as an heir to earlier radio provocateurs, like Father Coughlin and Bob Grant, but his chief influences were the personalities he listened to as a kid: Symphony Sid, Mel Allen, Jean Shepherd. Mentions his new book, “Psychological Nudity: Savage Radio Stories.” Savage was born Michael Alan Weiner, in 1942, the son of Jewish immigrants. He graduated from Queens College with a degree in biology, and, in 1974, he settled in the Bay Area with his wife, Janet Weiner. In 1978, he earned a Ph.D. in nutritional ethnomedicine from the Unviersity of California at Berkeley. As Michael A. Weiner he built a small empire as a consultant and the author of a string of crunch advice books. But he was unable to ascend the academic ladder, and became convinced that he was being discriminated against because of his race and gender. Mentions the AIDS epidemic. Savage started his radio career in 1994, at KGO, and he got his own show in 1995. By 2000, radio stations across the country were broadcasting him. When Savage gets really apocalyptic, it can be hard to separate his political observations from his medical complaints. Listen to him long enough and you may be persuaded to think that liberalism is code for all the stupid things we just can’t conquer: weakness and decadence and human frailty and death itself.

[y66]

Saw a link to this post by Tyler Cowen on Andrew Sullivan's blog today.

 

What is progressivism?

 

Arnold Kling asks this question, so I thought I'd try a stab at it, but trying to cast progressivism in the best possible light.  Of course my answer is not exclusive to Arnold's, as we might both be right about the elephant.  From an outsider's perspective, here is my take on what progressives believe or perhaps should believe:

 

1. There exists a better way and that is shown by the very successful polities of northwestern Europe and near-Europe.  We know that way can work, even if it is sometimes hard to implement.

 

2. Progressive policies offer more scope for individualism and some kinds of freedom.  Greater security gives people a greater chance to develop themselves as individuals in important spheres of life, not just money-making and risk protection and winning relative status games.

 

3. Determinism holds and tales of capitalist meritocracy are an illusion, to be kept only insofar as they are useful.

 

4. The needs of the neediest ought to be our top priority, as variations in the well-being of other individuals are usually small by comparison, at least in the United States.

 

5. U.S. policy is not generally controlled by egalitarian interests,  So it is doing "God's work" to push for such an egalitarian emphasis at the margin.  At the very least it will improve the quality of discourse, even if the U.S. never actually arrives in "progressive-land."

 

6. Limiting inequality will do more to check bad governance than will the quixotic libertarian attempt to limit the size of government.

 

7. Skepticism about the public sector is by no means altogether unwarranted, yet true redistributive programs are possible and they can work and be politically popular; we even have some here in the United States.

 

8. We should support free trade, more immigration, and more foreign aid, but the nation-state will remain the fundamental locus for redistribution.  That means helping the poor at home more than abroad; a decision to do otherwise would destroy political equilibrium and make everyone worse off.

 

9. State and local governments are fundamentally to be mistrusted (recall segregation) and thus we should transfer more power to the federal government, which tends to be bluntly and grossly egalitarian, when it manages to be egalitarian at all.  That is OK.

 

10. The United States has to struggle mightily to meet the progressive standards of western Europe and we should not equate the two regions in terms of their operation or capabilities.  Yet there is an alternative strand in American history, if not always a dominant one, showing that progressive change is possible.  Think Upton Sinclair and Martin Luther King and the organizers of early labor unions.

 

11. The evidence on economic growth is murky and so it is not clear that doing any of this carries much of a penalty in terms of future growth.  In some regards it will enhance the especially beneficial sides of economic growth, even if it does not boost growth overall.

 

In due time I'll be writing more systematically about why those views are not, on the whole, my own.  But not today!

 

It would be interesting to see a progressive try to sum up an intelligent version of libertarianism.

[kenberg]

I mentioned before that although Michael Gerson (a.) is religious and (b.) was a speechwriter for Bush, I find him interesting. Colman McCarthy is a writer i often found many reasons to disagree with but who can be quite interesting. Both of these gentleman gave support to my faith in them by their tributes to Eunice Shriver today.

 

It is difficult to explain to thos of a new generation how dominant the Kennedys were in the 1960s. I voted for her brother John in 1960 and hoped to vote for her brother Robert in 1968. The Special Olympics are a magnificent achievement.

 

In addition to the tribute, their were of course some pointed remarks about moder life.

 

I quote from McCarthy:

 

 

"I've often wondered why no biography, nor even a New Yorker profile, has been written about this singular woman who bettered the lives of uncounted millions of the otherwise rejected. Of late, we've had biographies of Brooke Astor, Helen Gurley Brown, Julia Child, Mae West and Gypsy Rose Lee (two of her, no less). Apparently fewer people are interested in reading 400 pages about a life of unglittery goodness and giving. About a woman who was faithful to one husband, one church, one mission -- and, worse, who was never jailed, never overdosed and never threw things at stakeout reporters. ?

 

 

And from Gerson:

 

 

"It is, in some ways, an odd movement, applying the values of the Kennedy clan (relentless competition, high expectations, rough play) to a community from which people expected little. Tim Shriver, chairman and chief executive of the Special Olympics, describes his mother as "very tough, very demanding." "I never saw her baby an athlete," he told me the day before her death on Tuesday. "She never applauded a last-place finish. She wanted to see achievement -- for athletes to run strong, to swim strong. She never had a low-expectation problem -- what the mind couldn't do, she thought the body could. It wasn't 'everybody is a winner' -- that wasn't her."

 

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9081102754.html

 

 

and

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9081101878.html

 

 

A remarkable life.

[Al_U_Card]

It is, at once, testament and condemnation of the level to which the attention of the information consuming public has sunk. With no lurid or titillating details, no scandal, no intrigue....where is the fun or interest?

 

Now surely as the "soninlawtors" MIL, there must have been fun aplenty as dope-smoking (did he inhale?) steroid-ravaged Arnie wooed her daughter. Oh the humanity! And the profanity! And the insanity!