Desperately Seeking Conservatives

| Mon Jan. 26, 2009 8:53 AM PST

DESPERATELY SEEKING CONSERVATIVES....I see that today's Bill Kristol column in the New York Times will be his last. Good. He was boring.

But who should the Times replace him with? It shouldn't be a "liberal's conservative," it should be a genuine, dedicated, smart, reality-grounded, conservative's conservative — someone who will drive liberals crazy. Who best fits that bill?

UPDATE: I was going to add something to this post and then decided not to bother. But I guess I should have. So, in response to Matt's criticism, what I meant is: a conservative who drives liberals crazy because he makes such compelling and hard-to-refute arguments for conservative ideas.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

John Hinderaker! He'd be unintentionally entertaining.

I can't think or one I'd read

I mean I can't think of one I'd read

. . . it should be a genuine, dedicated, smart, reality-grounded, conservative's conservative . . .

Okay, I was going to snark that there are no such things, but then I remembered Bruce Bartlett.

The thing is, though, that any conservative you can name who fits that description has no doubt been excommunicated by the freaks currently in control of the GOP, and so thus becomes a de facto 'liberal's conservative'.

And why not a real progressive voice; to me the NYT is conservative enough . . . Friedman and Brooks already make me more than annoyed; I don't need another.

I was strongly suspicious of Kathleen Parker, who I thought was a shill for forever paid her salary, but I am re-thinking that.

She seems to have understood that some so-called 'liberal' policies are actually conservative in the old sense and are to be embraced.

Give her the gig.

Oh, I do agree with David that Kathleen has already been demonized by the so-called conservatives who are really the authoritarian follower, so I'm sure she'd be called a RINO, or a liberal's conservative, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

Still, she is really a mostly conservative in the old sense who seems to have some smarts.

Give her the gig.

Steve Benen

How about Christopher Buckley?

I don't know. Raising the blood pressure of liberals is a bit over done as a literary art form. At some point the national review gets so predictable I think I could write it myself.

How about a thinking conservative? Someone who isn't working for the Republican's in DC and isn't considering higher office for themselves. Someone who isn't writing a romantic novel about Reagan or Nixon. Someone who isn't fixated on a single issue like immigration or taxes. . . Maybe a 70 year old from the Ford administration.

Ross Douthat. A genuine social conservative, who (nonetheless) thinks very carefully about issues.

Larison. Has to be Larison. He drives me crazy, but dude can write.

Ronald Reagan

It may be disqualifying, but it would be great to find a conservative who both tells the truth and is reality based.

Which conservative writer has recently published a book that made a lick of sense? That would be your man/woman! Isnt that why David Brooks got the job?

Don't bother, conservatism is dead as a serious movement. It's now exclusively the domain of angry whackos who aren't worth reading.

George Will has pretty much acknowledged that the movement is dead. Andrew Sullivan calls himself a conservative, but there just a few issues where I disagree with him.

Only three options: Daniel Larison, Ross Douthat or Reihan Salam.

Digby!

Then, by comparison, the rest of the NYT stable will look more conservative. Plus, she has great insights, and consistently. A lot of folks are under the mistaken belief that Friedman is liberal. Digby will put in strong contrast Friedman's "Ooh golly, I just spoke to a dozen tech CEOs and this is what they told me" schtick.

What about the sociologist Peter Berger. He's pushing 80, and I don't know if he even writes short-form stuff, but man, that guy is smart. Or maybe Stanley Hauerwas, the theologian. Or Mark Bauerlein, who writes at The Valve.

Tony Blankley

It may be disqualifying, but it would be great to find a conservative who both tells the truth and is reality based.

Those are known as "liberals."

it should be a genuine, dedicated, smart, reality-grounded, conservative's conservative — someone who will drive liberals crazy.

A conservative who is dedicated, smart, and reality-based IS a liberal's conservative, at least for this liberal. Thus, I read Larison. A conservative's conservative would be Kristol, who drove liberals crazy because he was GIVEN a platform from which he peddled lies.

I second Pamela's point that a real progressive voice would be the best addition. Bobo Brooks and the Friedman Unit can continue to represent the right.

Instead of a Republican pundit like Kristol, they should have a libertarian pundit and a traditionalist pundit, both of whom should argue passionately and persuasively for their values, but with no special allegiance to the GOP.

Larison is not serious. He's a fucking theologian. Screw 'im. Only that'd be a sin.

It may be disqualifying, but it would be great to find a conservative who both tells the truth and is reality based.

Those are known as "liberals."

That was excellent. Thread over.

It's obvious: Sarah Palin.

I could get behind Douthat, Larison, Buckley, or Parker.

Maybe even a thinking libertarian like Radley Balko.

There's nobody left in the wake of Bush's historic bottomless pit of approval rating.

I'm guessing it'll be someone affiliated with Buchanan's American Conservative magazine. The National Review and Weekly Standard are parodies of themselves, and Pajamas Media never had any credibility to begin with.

Heck, maybe it'll be Buchanan himself, if he can fit it in with the 20 hours a day he spends on MSNBC.

bruce fein

Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of CBO and economic advisor to John McCain. He's smart as hell, a very good speaker and writer, and intellectually honest.

Let me throw in a word for Steve Chapman, of the Chicago Tribune editorial board, who writes his own column as well. A true conservative who calls his own side on its nonsense, but doesn't let up on the liberals, either... smart, clear writer with intellectual honesty.

Brad DeLong's suggestions.

Memo to Self: People Whom the New York Times Should Have Given Kristol's Op-Ed Slot in the First Place

Clive Crook, Reihan Salaam, Bruce Bartlett, Tyler Cowen...

They are unlikely to do it, of course..,

Larison

Douthat and Salaam are even more ridiculous than Kristol. What passes for intellectualism on the Right is only slightly a cut above adolescent yammering.

I'm confused.

You can pick from option A: "a genuine, dedicated, smart, reality-grounded, conservative's conservative."

You can pick from option B: "someone who will drive liberals crazy."

Seriously, there is no option C: All of the Above.

Douthat and Salaam aren't accepted by the conservative mainstream - however out of the mainstream their mainstream might be.

Ramesh Ponnuru would be my choice. He's not as honest as Douthat, but he's way smarter than Kristol, and that makes him interesting.

Does "reality-grounded" mean "at least semi-honest"?

I don't know, wasn't Brooks supposed to be a "liberal's conservative"?

Be nice if the NYT could find a real old time conservative who would NEVER dream of torture or wiretapping, an old style lynchpin of the law kind of guy. Of course that kind of conservative died before Ronald Reagan came into office. Republicans are nothing now but mobsters who only do the will of the biggest corporate bribery money and nothing else.

You want a conservative, or a Republican? They've diverged.

I'd like to second Anonymous, seconding Brad Delong, nominating Tyler Cowen. Now there is a thinking conservative, if Tyler counts as conservative. Plus he not only balances the liberal/conservative spectrum, but adds a sort of supply side economist to balance out Krugman on that front. They already clash with each other (respectfully) enough on their blogs, it would be great to have them published in the same paper.

Another vote for Larison here, and I quite like the Radley Balko suggestion as well.

P.J. O'Rourke. He's funny and not crazy.

Larison or Balko works for me.

George W. Bush.

I would pay money to read his column, provided he really wrote it. Really. Just think of the possibilities.

I agree with Alan W: Ramesh Ponnuru. He writes well on behalf of opinions antithetical to the Left. He generally echews petty posturing.

John Dean

Richard Williamson might be entertaining for a few columns.

Steven Colbert. Failing that Steve Chapman, who is basically a libertarian and not a tool of any political faction.

Ponnuru "eschews petty posturing?" Would that be Ramesh "Party of Death" Ponnuru?

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.