The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Grand New York Times Party

Text Size

Grand New York Times Party

By W. James Antle, III on 3.13.09 @ 9:40AM

As Joe mentioned yesterday, a lot of conservatives are down on the New York Times' choice of Ross Douthat as the latest edition to their opinion page. Liberal praise for Douthat's "healthy skepticism for many of the trappings of modern capitalist society" probably won't help matters. I certainly have my differences with Douthat, though I suppose if I were to run down my own idiosyncratic ideological checklist I'd rate him an improvement over Bill Kristol (better on foreign policy, better on immigration, at least as good on social conservatism, equally unreliable on economics and size-of-government issues).

The "at least as good on social conservatism" probably doesn't do Douthat justice, however. Bill Kristol has been one of the most outspokenly pro-life voices in the neocon orbit, for which he deserves credit, but Douthat is easily the most passionate and articulate social conservative ever to get a regular slot on the New York Times op-ed page. As nice as it would be to have someone going hammer and tong after big government in the Age of Obama, that's not a small thing.

Many soi-distant reformist conservatives are the right-wing equivalent of Robert Frost's liberal who is too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel. Others are engaged in fruitless crusade to drive the vast majority of self-described conservatives out of the movement (though lately there has been some pushback against this odd strategy from even sympathetic commentators). If Douthat avoids those temptations and fights some un-Times-like battles, his conservative critics may well be pleasantly surprised. Either way, he is a bright and fair-minded observer of the political scene.

View all comments (3) | Leave a comment

Reid Souter| 3.13.09 @ 10:15AM

Well said. Douthat is a very good choice. Mr. Antle also makes a very good point about chasing conservatives away. Shrinking the base seems like a very bad idea. Quit criticizing Rush, and quit criticizing David Brooks. We really need them both. Mr. Antle does fine work. Kudos.

John Lofton| 3.14.09 @ 12:18AM

Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

Steven Duque| 3.24.09 @ 6:09PM

An interesting take on Douthat's earlier career by Greg Atwan, Author of "Privilege" and "The Facebook Book:

http://bigthink.com/blog_entries/498-A-Portrait-of-Ross-Douthat-as-a-Young-Republican

EXCERPT:
"Douthat's earlier writings for The Harvard Crimson and Salient paint him as someone whose "writer"s zeal as a culture warrior, as well as his often bizarre moral logic, should be disconcerting to readers of the Times who share a few fundamental premises more cosmopolitan than this."