Ross Douthat is clearly a guy who loves being the token right-winger, chumming around with liberals and smirking while everything they hold dear is being demolished.
He is also a guy good at being a good hang, with rich, elite, self-absorbed middle-age men in particular. A.G. Sulzberger and Joe Kahn, clearly, deeply like him personally, to the extent that they will go to the mat to keep him employed.
(They will not, by contrast, do the same for Paul Krugman, who for better or worse refuses to go out of his way to be liked to the same extent.)
That's it, really. Ross is good at charming liberal elites, and making them think of him as indispensable.
I guarantee, they read his interview with a white nationalist and nodded sagely, saying "That's the kind of diversifying stuff we need, here at the Times."
There is something of a circus sideshow feel to the podcast Interesting Times at the Times. Douthat has never been a Trump supporter, but he is an apologist for Trump supporters. Ultimately, you have to decide is there an excuse for voting for and continuing to support Trump? I don’t think there is. What is the opposite of a good person, a moral person, a patriot? To my mind, the answer is Trump and anyone who aligns with Trump. You can cosplay as a Catholic or Protestant, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Sikh, a Hindu, I don’t care, but if Trump is your guy, you are evil.
And boy, is he not wrong. There's a LOT hiding behind those 5 words.
But the framing of this article is literally "the tragedy" of John Fetterman. Poor, poor John Fetterman. How he has suffered. He needs (*wipes tear from eye*) help!
But the part that JVL leaves out of this "tragedy" is telling about Fetterman ... and JVL.
In talking about Gaza, this article reported Fetterman said: "Let's get back to the killing. Kill them all". That's not "tragic". That's genocidal. That's not a man who "needs help", that is a man who should be tried at The Hague.
I'd hate to say JVL is hiding these comments from a clearly genocidal maniac, but JVL has made quite a few genocidal statements about the Palestinian people himself.
I am unsure why JVL holds such views, either as political conservative or as a Catholic conservative. Since World War 2, the two greatest things the US has done was the Marshall Plan, where we literally saved the lives of millions of former NAZI soldiers, and the development of international humanitarian law, which was led by American Jews and Catholics.
The fact that JVL is now seemingly quite happy to watch the genocide of a people (a people far better than former NAZI soldiers) and the dismantling of international humanitarian law, is deeply confusing to me, as it runs contradictory to the best of the United States history.
First thanks to you and Sarah for the review of John Fetterman on the May 2nd Secret Podcast. The NY Magazine piece is paywalled, but I did read the brief NYT summary. A real eye-opener. Super sad and agree he should leave office and seek help. Governor Shapiro can appoint his replacement. I also liked John Fetterman in the days of his Senate campaign. But, his term has also been marked with a lot of collegial strife - especially on Israel/Gaza. He has also remarked that Democrats should just "calm down" or something to that effect. Huh?
On Douthat, I stopped trying to read his NYT columns a long time ago. It's probably me, but I thought they were boring and, worse for the NYT, he isn't even a compelling or good writer. I mean that's what an op-ed writer needs to be, right? Compelling. I put Brett Stephens in the same category. It has taken me a long time, I admit probably too long, to realize that the NYT plays both sides of the fence. Okay, that's on me. I was a gullible NYT reader. Fair and balanced? Or, as others have described, bothsiderism? If one thinks back to the pre-election coverage of Trump and Harris - there were so many columns where I would just stare at a crazy headline about Kamala Harris, something frivolous and unimportant, and wonder 'why are they writing this. now?' They would criticize Harris for not being specific about her policies. How did they manage Trump? Trump skated. It was almost as if the NYT were conveying that 'well, everyone knows that Trump will not be specific about policies, so we don't need to bother, as in 'so we'll just jump all over Harris because the Dems should be more responsible.' A myriad of reporting like this. The average voter cannot parse this kind of reporting in a nuanced way. "Oh look, the NYT is saying bad things about Harris. Therefore, she must be bad. I'll vote for Trump." Yeah, and how is that working out for us? With Trump's claims that the media has a liberal bias, I know this to be completely false. Following Kamala Harris's loss to Trump, the NYT piled on further with all the mistakes she made. And, some of it was crazy stuff. I wanted to jump out of the window. I wrote multiple critique comments about their coverage; but guess what, the NYT's AI filter kicks out critical comments. Other commenters must have figured this out sooner and filtered their own words. I discovered that I think differently. Kind of like JVL, I guess. I know my comments are way too long here. I guess I am just unloading stuff, trying to get it out of my head. I have much to be thankful to the Bulwark for.
Ahem: A few years ago I broke the History News Network's record for comments originated on its site when it posted this one by me: "Where Ross Douthat Goes Wrong":
I made a vow a couple of months agi to never read or listen to Ross Douthat again. His self righteous criticism of the Catholic Church was enough to irritate me but his smug propaganda bolstering the Trump administration pushed me over the edge.
I used to read him occasionally. Actually it was probably more like skimming. I don't bother anymore. In our current climate, he's got nothing to say that I want to hear. Same for Bret Stephens. I can't make it through a David Brooks article. What really bugs me is how they still snipe at Democrats. Really? It's the GOP that has gone off the rails. Leave us alone unless you're here to help. Avoid criticizing what Ds have done in the past. Offer potential solutions.
I don't want Fetterman to resign, because I don't want Shapiro appointing his successor, and holding a special election in 2026. We need rid of Trump, but what we don't need is more Democrats in the Senate. That said, if this story is true, then he never should have continued to run in 2022. Shame on him, his weirdo wife, and the Democrats for pushing him to continue when he was so obviously unwell. Biden had the worst debate in debate history, but John Fetterman had the most cringeworthy.
There is no doubt Bill Clinton had magic charisma. There is also no doubt in my mind that had Hillary run for Bill's third term, instead of running for Obama's third term, she'd have been elected in 2016. Bill Clinton offered voters a third way, and since they fear one of the ways, and think the other way is icky, a third way is where they'd really like to go.
It pains me to watch Marco Rubio. He was my choice in the 2016 primary. He so obviously thinks Trump is a buffoon and that MAGA is a disgusting asshat movement. But, he made the judgement that being in Trump's cabinet might earn him enough MAGA cred (or at least belay the MAGA suspicion) to run for president in 2028. What a spectacular miscalculation! First of all, nobody survives flying too long or too close in Trump's orbit. Nobody. Secondly, MAGA doesn't forget, and they NEVER forgive. Once Trump puts the death spell on you, you are dead to MAGA forever, even if he seemingly "welcomes" you back into the fold at a later time. Ron DeSantis is about to find that out the hard way in 2028.
One thing I'm proud of - the Bushes never bent the knee. Never. Not one of them. At Carter's funeral, George and Laura Bush flat-out ignored Donald Trump, while chatting warmly with the Clintons and Obamas - making it painfully obvious to Trump and his flying monkeys that he is beneath the blueblood Bushes, and always will be. They and the Cheneys are the only GOP aristocracy that refused to bow to the revolution. Someday, history will reward them for it.
My theory about Douthat is that the NYT keeps publishing him so they can claim "balance" and his arguments are weak enough that it's reassuring to liberals to think that if RD is the best the right has to offer, they must be pretty weak beyond MAGA Trumpism.
There is something very weird about your preoccupation with Ross Douthat. Just in the few years I've been a subscriber, it would be hard to count the number of times you have felt the need to go after him, and often in the most peculiar way. It would be much more effective (and healthier) if you put forth a serious discussion/rebuttal of his views (or better yet, debate him on a serious topic, not just the political headline of the day) instead of claiming, as you do above, that he continues to be a NYT columnist (hired at the age of 29, for what it's worth....the youngest columnist in the paper's history) because "the NYT is choosing to make its audience dumber" and/or because "the Times' audience has a masochism kink." Either engage him in a grown-up manner, or get off it.
Ross Douthat is clearly a guy who loves being the token right-winger, chumming around with liberals and smirking while everything they hold dear is being demolished.
He is also a guy good at being a good hang, with rich, elite, self-absorbed middle-age men in particular. A.G. Sulzberger and Joe Kahn, clearly, deeply like him personally, to the extent that they will go to the mat to keep him employed.
(They will not, by contrast, do the same for Paul Krugman, who for better or worse refuses to go out of his way to be liked to the same extent.)
That's it, really. Ross is good at charming liberal elites, and making them think of him as indispensable.
I guarantee, they read his interview with a white nationalist and nodded sagely, saying "That's the kind of diversifying stuff we need, here at the Times."
Not. Even. Kidding.
There is something of a circus sideshow feel to the podcast Interesting Times at the Times. Douthat has never been a Trump supporter, but he is an apologist for Trump supporters. Ultimately, you have to decide is there an excuse for voting for and continuing to support Trump? I don’t think there is. What is the opposite of a good person, a moral person, a patriot? To my mind, the answer is Trump and anyone who aligns with Trump. You can cosplay as a Catholic or Protestant, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Sikh, a Hindu, I don’t care, but if Trump is your guy, you are evil.
Basically a do over for Conor Lamb from where I sit
Half way through this article, JVL says:
"There’s more and there’s worse".
And boy, is he not wrong. There's a LOT hiding behind those 5 words.
But the framing of this article is literally "the tragedy" of John Fetterman. Poor, poor John Fetterman. How he has suffered. He needs (*wipes tear from eye*) help!
But the part that JVL leaves out of this "tragedy" is telling about Fetterman ... and JVL.
In talking about Gaza, this article reported Fetterman said: "Let's get back to the killing. Kill them all". That's not "tragic". That's genocidal. That's not a man who "needs help", that is a man who should be tried at The Hague.
I'd hate to say JVL is hiding these comments from a clearly genocidal maniac, but JVL has made quite a few genocidal statements about the Palestinian people himself.
I am unsure why JVL holds such views, either as political conservative or as a Catholic conservative. Since World War 2, the two greatest things the US has done was the Marshall Plan, where we literally saved the lives of millions of former NAZI soldiers, and the development of international humanitarian law, which was led by American Jews and Catholics.
The fact that JVL is now seemingly quite happy to watch the genocide of a people (a people far better than former NAZI soldiers) and the dismantling of international humanitarian law, is deeply confusing to me, as it runs contradictory to the best of the United States history.
Something seriously off about Fetterman. I followed and donated a lot, but I lost trust when he voted for Bondi.
Douthat writes and talks like he is an intellectual that one should pay attention to. But he is a fraud.
First thanks to you and Sarah for the review of John Fetterman on the May 2nd Secret Podcast. The NY Magazine piece is paywalled, but I did read the brief NYT summary. A real eye-opener. Super sad and agree he should leave office and seek help. Governor Shapiro can appoint his replacement. I also liked John Fetterman in the days of his Senate campaign. But, his term has also been marked with a lot of collegial strife - especially on Israel/Gaza. He has also remarked that Democrats should just "calm down" or something to that effect. Huh?
On Douthat, I stopped trying to read his NYT columns a long time ago. It's probably me, but I thought they were boring and, worse for the NYT, he isn't even a compelling or good writer. I mean that's what an op-ed writer needs to be, right? Compelling. I put Brett Stephens in the same category. It has taken me a long time, I admit probably too long, to realize that the NYT plays both sides of the fence. Okay, that's on me. I was a gullible NYT reader. Fair and balanced? Or, as others have described, bothsiderism? If one thinks back to the pre-election coverage of Trump and Harris - there were so many columns where I would just stare at a crazy headline about Kamala Harris, something frivolous and unimportant, and wonder 'why are they writing this. now?' They would criticize Harris for not being specific about her policies. How did they manage Trump? Trump skated. It was almost as if the NYT were conveying that 'well, everyone knows that Trump will not be specific about policies, so we don't need to bother, as in 'so we'll just jump all over Harris because the Dems should be more responsible.' A myriad of reporting like this. The average voter cannot parse this kind of reporting in a nuanced way. "Oh look, the NYT is saying bad things about Harris. Therefore, she must be bad. I'll vote for Trump." Yeah, and how is that working out for us? With Trump's claims that the media has a liberal bias, I know this to be completely false. Following Kamala Harris's loss to Trump, the NYT piled on further with all the mistakes she made. And, some of it was crazy stuff. I wanted to jump out of the window. I wrote multiple critique comments about their coverage; but guess what, the NYT's AI filter kicks out critical comments. Other commenters must have figured this out sooner and filtered their own words. I discovered that I think differently. Kind of like JVL, I guess. I know my comments are way too long here. I guess I am just unloading stuff, trying to get it out of my head. I have much to be thankful to the Bulwark for.
Ahem: A few years ago I broke the History News Network's record for comments originated on its site when it posted this one by me: "Where Ross Douthat Goes Wrong":
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/177924
I'll read the article, but I have a pretty good idea when Ross Douth Goes Wrong.
When he writes or speaks something.
How'd I do?
I made a vow a couple of months agi to never read or listen to Ross Douthat again. His self righteous criticism of the Catholic Church was enough to irritate me but his smug propaganda bolstering the Trump administration pushed me over the edge.
I used to read him occasionally. Actually it was probably more like skimming. I don't bother anymore. In our current climate, he's got nothing to say that I want to hear. Same for Bret Stephens. I can't make it through a David Brooks article. What really bugs me is how they still snipe at Democrats. Really? It's the GOP that has gone off the rails. Leave us alone unless you're here to help. Avoid criticizing what Ds have done in the past. Offer potential solutions.
I don't want Fetterman to resign, because I don't want Shapiro appointing his successor, and holding a special election in 2026. We need rid of Trump, but what we don't need is more Democrats in the Senate. That said, if this story is true, then he never should have continued to run in 2022. Shame on him, his weirdo wife, and the Democrats for pushing him to continue when he was so obviously unwell. Biden had the worst debate in debate history, but John Fetterman had the most cringeworthy.
There is no doubt Bill Clinton had magic charisma. There is also no doubt in my mind that had Hillary run for Bill's third term, instead of running for Obama's third term, she'd have been elected in 2016. Bill Clinton offered voters a third way, and since they fear one of the ways, and think the other way is icky, a third way is where they'd really like to go.
It pains me to watch Marco Rubio. He was my choice in the 2016 primary. He so obviously thinks Trump is a buffoon and that MAGA is a disgusting asshat movement. But, he made the judgement that being in Trump's cabinet might earn him enough MAGA cred (or at least belay the MAGA suspicion) to run for president in 2028. What a spectacular miscalculation! First of all, nobody survives flying too long or too close in Trump's orbit. Nobody. Secondly, MAGA doesn't forget, and they NEVER forgive. Once Trump puts the death spell on you, you are dead to MAGA forever, even if he seemingly "welcomes" you back into the fold at a later time. Ron DeSantis is about to find that out the hard way in 2028.
One thing I'm proud of - the Bushes never bent the knee. Never. Not one of them. At Carter's funeral, George and Laura Bush flat-out ignored Donald Trump, while chatting warmly with the Clintons and Obamas - making it painfully obvious to Trump and his flying monkeys that he is beneath the blueblood Bushes, and always will be. They and the Cheneys are the only GOP aristocracy that refused to bow to the revolution. Someday, history will reward them for it.
My theory about Douthat is that the NYT keeps publishing him so they can claim "balance" and his arguments are weak enough that it's reassuring to liberals to think that if RD is the best the right has to offer, they must be pretty weak beyond MAGA Trumpism.
I like Ross' writings.
There is something very weird about your preoccupation with Ross Douthat. Just in the few years I've been a subscriber, it would be hard to count the number of times you have felt the need to go after him, and often in the most peculiar way. It would be much more effective (and healthier) if you put forth a serious discussion/rebuttal of his views (or better yet, debate him on a serious topic, not just the political headline of the day) instead of claiming, as you do above, that he continues to be a NYT columnist (hired at the age of 29, for what it's worth....the youngest columnist in the paper's history) because "the NYT is choosing to make its audience dumber" and/or because "the Times' audience has a masochism kink." Either engage him in a grown-up manner, or get off it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/business/media/12douthat.html
Regarding Biden's economy, you should read this. It is the truth. https://charles72f.substack.com/p/why-kamela-lost-in-nine-simple-charts
I get that it costs money but don't ask us to pay money to read a link... this is in reference to NY magazine about Fetternamn