david brooks vs. thomas friedman vs. ross douthat

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

vote for the 'best reason to never sign up for nyt paywall'

Poll Results

OptionVotes
friedman 12
brooks 9
douthat 8


iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:24 (four years ago) Permalink

hard choice but got 2 b friedman

flopson, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:27 (four years ago) Permalink

^^^

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:32 (four years ago) Permalink

I actually find him the least worst of these three

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:33 (four years ago) Permalink

this is like choosing b/w bullshit, pigshit and chickenshit.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:35 (four years ago) Permalink

hate to say it but friedman is the least bad of the three. at least he occasionally bothers to make an actual argument. reading brooks is like trying to get day-old caramel out of your teeth.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38 (four years ago) Permalink

seriously, it's really b/w Friedman and Brooks. Douthat is awful, but he's awful b/c he's pretty upfront about being a wingnut. Brooks has his fake centrist nonsense -- and he's a Mets fan -- but only a complete pinhead who's spent the last decade or so locked in a closet can't see through his schtick at this point.

so Friedman it is.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38 (four years ago) Permalink

i assume that brooks and douthat have a sinister purpose behind everything they write, so while i no doubt disagree, it at least makes sense.

friedman just seems clueless and is a terrible writer. 'my cab driver in cairo' etc good lord.

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:39 (four years ago) Permalink

well the clueless head in the clouds thing is what makes it marginally more defensible, like he's just this crazy guy talking to you on the bus

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:41 (four years ago) Permalink

Friedman the crazy guy on the bus talking nonsense whilst drooling on his overcoat also has the ear of the President and a shockingly large number of Democratic movers and shakers. that's why i voted for him.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:44 (four years ago) Permalink

I'll be the contrarian and say Douthat, the only one who creates the blip of an impression that he's read other things besides editorials and policy statements. Also, I saw him in the queer part of Dupont Circle in 2009 in the company of what looked like a Provincetown bartender.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:45 (four years ago) Permalink

^^^ sounds like infidelity

also, aren't we voting for the worst?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:46 (four years ago) Permalink

yes

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (four years ago) Permalink

Friedman's latest column is a masterpiece of cowardice and stupidity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/friedman-one-for-the-country.html?_r=1

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (four years ago) Permalink

I'll vote for Friedman as worst because he's taken most seriously. The right wing doesn't even take Brooks seriously.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (four years ago) Permalink

voted Douthat cause i hate the way he couches intolerant/ugly sentiments in the deceptive rhetoric of "reason" and "balance"

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:48 (four years ago) Permalink

alfred OTM on what makes Friedman the worst of this entire sorry lot.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (four years ago) Permalink

Brooks would win on photos alone

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (four years ago) Permalink

ross is "known" in conservative circles for his impeccable sense of style

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:56 (four years ago) Permalink

douthat's face def bothers me the most

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:00 (four years ago) Permalink

motherfucker just looks SOFT

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:02 (four years ago) Permalink

brooks is the worst. friedman is ok minus the globalization shtick.

bnw, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:04 (four years ago) Permalink

Douthat looks like a late 30-something version of Paul Dano's character from the extra man.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:06 (four years ago) Permalink

Douthat still thinks it's 1995.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:07 (four years ago) Permalink

Jonah Goldberg has the same delusion.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:07 (four years ago) Permalink

i was hoping this thread title was something that happened.

goole, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:10 (four years ago) Permalink

what is douthat's shtick, as compared to brooks' red/blue staters are like *this* and friedman's absurd metaphors that lead nowhere?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:10 (four years ago) Permalink

He's a Christian whose hands shake at the suspicion that libs might think he hates gays and women.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:13 (four years ago) Permalink

he's not one of those republican extremists - heavens - tho he takes pains to diplomatically point out how liberals/women/gays/muslims/etc bring problems on themselves

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:18 (four years ago) Permalink

that's right

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:23 (four years ago) Permalink

a concern troll then; how innovative

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:25 (four years ago) Permalink

if forced at gunpoint to read one of the three every day for the rest of my life i'd still choose douthat

friedman... just pull the trigger

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:26 (four years ago) Permalink

your doppelganger

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:26 (four years ago) Permalink

while we also talk about their merits as writers, how about we also turn this into a MFK thread?

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:27 (four years ago) Permalink

when i was working a (very good and non-depressing) temp job at a financial planning group, the well meaning 50 something jewish libs frequently discussed friedman columns in reverent hushed tones... first time i'd ever heard anyone irl bring dude up as a serious columnist

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:29 (four years ago) Permalink

voted Douthat cause i hate the way he couches intolerant/ugly sentiments in the deceptive rhetoric of "reason" and "balance"

― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:48 PM (43 minutes ago)

^^

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:34 (four years ago) Permalink

i still find that less distasteful (or at least more garden variety) than friedman's schtick

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:36 (four years ago) Permalink

all three are vile of course

NYT doesn't really have any 'very good' writers as columnists. i mean krugman's always worth a read but even following charles m blow on twitter has tempered my like of him

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:37 (four years ago) Permalink

krugman is a very good writer

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:38 (four years ago) Permalink

i'd heard that 'from beirut to jerusalem' was good, but find it a little hard to credit now -- perhaps the subject matter restrained him from making it an archetypical global fable, as with everything else?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:38 (four years ago) Permalink

yeah i changed my mind after i wrote his name and didn't bother to change my first statement haha xp

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:39 (four years ago) Permalink

charles m blow seems ripe for display name puns, now that i think of it

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:39 (four years ago) Permalink

The late William Safire was the only one who could occasionally write a sentence I'd read twice.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:45 (four years ago) Permalink

i agree that krugman is worth reading and i always do but i am often smh at the way he seems to be preaching to the choir, he takes such a hard line that even though he's right he sort of paints himself into an ideological corner that just inflames the right instead of engaging him

obv that's not entirely or even largely his fault but i feel like he's wielding a battle axe when should be using the rapier

the late great, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:46 (four years ago) Permalink

lol ross douchehat

i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:47 (four years ago) Permalink

brooks is like the bill gates looking dude in the back of newsweek who even though i am on the other side of the political spectrum i find myself agreeing with or at least appreciating the differing view cause his tone is measured

really love the loyal opposition guy though

the late great, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:49 (four years ago) Permalink

Krugman has given up on trying to talk w/ the shit-throwing baboons who call themselves conservatives these days. i don't blame him at all, it's really the most sensible approach.

i'll also stan for Nicholas Kristof.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:52 (four years ago) Permalink

Krugman is a classic example of a pundit with whom I agree often but whose prose is pedestrian at best (boy, does he love his rhetorical questions).

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:53 (four years ago) Permalink

douthat = least stupid/ most hateful

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:57 (four years ago) Permalink

krugman = shrill
brooks/douthat = reasonable

does this perception hurt k-thug or not?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:57 (four years ago) Permalink

friedman at the very least seems interested in interesting things

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:59 (four years ago) Permalink

haha otm

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:59 (four years ago) Permalink

interested in reducing them to a catch phrase?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:59 (four years ago) Permalink

THE WORLD IS NOT FLAT; SHUT UP

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:00 (four years ago) Permalink

^^haha fair enough. still, the other two (esp Douthat) are kind of just dicks. if you're going to be a dick, you'd better be right and/ or interesting

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:02 (four years ago) Permalink

I feel like I could get thomas friedman to change his mind on a lot of things if you just framed it in the 'interesting thoughts about interesting things' way, and maybe if you dressed up a a taxi driver

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:03 (four years ago) Permalink

"what if universal health care...was an app?"

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:05 (four years ago) Permalink

I'm going to vote for... (breaks down crying)... I can't DO IT! ... I just can't. (snivels, wipes snot on sleeve, mutters)... stupid furschlugginer dolts the lot of 'em.

Aimless, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:11 (four years ago) Permalink

friedman at the very least seems least interested in interesting things

fxed

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:12 (four years ago) Permalink

lol

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:12 (four years ago) Permalink

that was supposed to be to iatee

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:13 (four years ago) Permalink

^ genuine lol, partly cuz i have heard that question raised in real life

xpost to iatee

anyhow this is so fucking easily brooks for me and probably still would be even if bill kristol was still there

balls, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:17 (four years ago) Permalink

daaaamn

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:17 (four years ago) Permalink

how awesome is it that Kristol made a major factual mistake in his first 2008 column

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:18 (four years ago) Permalink

brooks is the worst

horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:24 (four years ago) Permalink

person in history

horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:24 (four years ago) Permalink

u forgot krauthammer

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:24 (four years ago) Permalink

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:27 (four years ago) Permalink

a week ago i might've said marty peretz

balls, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:28 (four years ago) Permalink

what has changed

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:30 (four years ago) Permalink

I know C-Kraut had a horrible accident but it's as if the surgeons fixed his face on purpose so that it's deformed into a smug asshole leer.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:32 (four years ago) Permalink

10 years ago he used to come into my bookstore in a wheelchair and kind of hand me his wallet with his wrists. he was at least pleasant in person, unlike gwill

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:36 (four years ago) Permalink

well his writing at the new republic has been steadily diminished for a few years but apparently supposedly hopefully now w/ the sale going thru he's no longer going to be writing for them at all anymore. i'm not really expecting the new republic to become in any fashion less militantly pro-israel and i'm sure should circumstances warrant it or whatever he'll be able to chime in w/ some bigoted rant (he's still on the advisory board).

balls, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:39 (four years ago) Permalink

Krauthammer worked for Mondale!

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:41 (four years ago) Permalink

yeah he was kind of standard cold warrior neocon lib w/ likudnik tendencies that grew more entrenched and extreme in those positions, gradually adopting more conservative domestic positions (esp the ones you could wrap in 'morality') as he began to spend more time/accept more checks from that crowd.

balls, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:51 (four years ago) Permalink

This is really impossible since reading all these dudes is like dousing your eyes with acid, but I'm going to have to say Friedman because even though he's probably the least wrong of these fuckers, he's the one of the three who people actually listen to the most (followed by Brooks and then trailed by a huge huge huge margin by Douchehead who I think most people forget exists most of the time.)

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:57 (four years ago) Permalink

love this article so much http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/05/03/christopher-tayler/yo-douche-bag/

flopson, Friday, 20 April 2012 03:07 (four years ago) Permalink

quotes from the social animal

Imagine a man who buys a chicken from the grocery store, manages to bring himself to orgasm by penetrating it, then cooks and eats the chicken.

flopson, Friday, 20 April 2012 03:08 (four years ago) Permalink

guess i'll have to go w/ Ross for worst. but i'll freely admit that it has more to do with my distaste for social conservatives than anything.

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 03:19 (four years ago) Permalink

friedman easy

goole, Friday, 20 April 2012 03:21 (four years ago) Permalink

at least everyone knows brooks is a rightwinger, for some reason everybody is convinced friedman isn't, including friedman

douthat just seems kind of hapless

goole, Friday, 20 April 2012 03:23 (four years ago) Permalink

yeah but he's a wunderkind, the youngest nyt op ed columinst in history

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 03:29 (four years ago) Permalink

if someone can explain how exactly that happened that would be great

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 03:31 (four years ago) Permalink

All three of these assholes get reprinted in the local state-wide paper; Friedman is usually the least wrong and/or objectionable but remember we're comparing him to these two schmucks

Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Friday, 20 April 2012 03:41 (four years ago) Permalink

thanks to friedman at least, we have this: http://rolocroz.com/junk/friedman.html

s.clover, Friday, 20 April 2012 04:03 (four years ago) Permalink

and therefore:

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 04:11 (four years ago) Permalink

god these fuckin shitbags

same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:51 (four years ago) Permalink

I dream of throat punching Brooks.

aluminum rivets must not be proud of their plastic bosses (Jon Lewis), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:39 (four years ago) Permalink

what a bunch of cool bros

Lamp, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:41 (four years ago) Permalink

I actually know Krauthammer, and will not be more specific than that, but he's a pretty likable guy in person.

i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:50 (four years ago) Permalink

he woulda made a great character actor in another life

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:51 (four years ago) Permalink

ha well there's this take:

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2012/04/ive-never-been-more-certain-of-anything.html

I would not recommend torturing your brain by reading the full epistolary romance between William Saletan and Ross Douthat, but seriously, that dude is so gay.

Obviously Douthat isn't exactly writing in the most sophisticated tradition of apologetics, but you know, there is something about all this hemming and hawing over the proper, ahem, stance toward the gays that is deeply prurient, bordering on the pornographic. You know, like, let us now turn our unflinching, um, gaze upon these divinely incompatible sexual beings in order that we may, carefully and in great detail, determine the most charitable possible means to disapprove of them. If we look long enough, and hard enough, we may yet determine just how we are supposed to feel. We wish to turn away, and yet somehow we feel compelled to keep going. God, Ross, you are going to feel so guilty when you quiver to a deathlike little conclusion on the, uh, issue.

goole, Friday, 20 April 2012 16:17 (four years ago) Permalink

douthat also wrote a book with reihan salam arguing that republicans should maybe possibly hopefully come up with ways of not being completely balls to the wall rageful toward the bottom income quintile. i always meant to read that.

goole, Friday, 20 April 2012 16:19 (four years ago) Permalink

I actually know Krauthammer, and will not be more specific than that, but he's a pretty likable guy in person.

I can believe it – he projects more intelligence and sympathy than his prose.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 16:20 (four years ago) Permalink

he looks so ott evil that you can sorta see him as a darth vader character who regains compassion at the very end of his life and somehow saves everyone

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 16:29 (four years ago) Permalink

"ILE...you were right. You were right about me..."

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 16:32 (four years ago) Permalink

He had a lazy piece of junk in the Washington Post last Friday on the Buffet rule, and today whines that we need to find funding for NASA to keep shuttles going to the new frontier, but we also have to stop Obama's spending on everything else. Likeable in person or not, his writing projects little intelligence, sympathy or friendliness

curmudgeon, Friday, 20 April 2012 16:39 (four years ago) Permalink

pat buchanan is also a likable guy IRL -- that's why he's lasted so long on the Gasbag Circuit.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 16:42 (four years ago) Permalink

Being a likeable person obviously does not preclude intellectual dishonesty and deceitful rhetoric in order to 'win' a political argument.

Aimless, Friday, 20 April 2012 17:23 (four years ago) Permalink

goole, is this the book to which you refer?

read a couple reviews

obv this book did not penetrate the republican id

HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 20 April 2012 20:40 (four years ago) Permalink

Friedman's disconnect from reality reminding me increasingly of John Candy as Melonville Mayor Tommy Shanks

World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 20 April 2012 20:45 (four years ago) Permalink

douthat's exchange w/saletan: easy to imagine ross rationalizing the catholic church's persecution of heretics like galileo or copernicus back in the day

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Saturday, 21 April 2012 12:10 (four years ago) Permalink

"burning people at the stake is messy, certainly, but serves as a necessary correction to a widespread cultural drift away from xtian orthodoxy"

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Saturday, 21 April 2012 12:12 (four years ago) Permalink

One successful foray ended on the guest bed of a high school friend's parents, with a girl who resembled a chunkier Reese Witherspoon drunkenly masticating my neck and cheeks. It had taken some time to reach this point--"Do most Harvard guys take so long to get what they want?" she had asked, pushing her tongue into my mouth. I wasn't sure what to say, but then I wasn't sure this was what I wanted. My throat was dry from too much vodka, and her breasts, spilling out of pink pajamas, threatened my ability to. I was supposed to be excited, but I was bored and somewhat disgusted with myself, with her, with the whole business... and then whatever residual enthusiasm I felt for the venture dissipated, with shocking speed, as she nibbled at my ear and whispered--"You know, I'm on the pill..."

Mordy, Saturday, 21 April 2012 13:27 (four years ago) Permalink

"wait did I just say all that out loud?"

i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Saturday, 21 April 2012 15:17 (four years ago) Permalink

wowwww i had never read that

goole, Saturday, 21 April 2012 15:57 (four years ago) Permalink

hahahahahaha

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 21 April 2012 16:25 (four years ago) Permalink

Jesus Christ

Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Saturday, 21 April 2012 17:02 (four years ago) Permalink

"chunkier Reese Witherspoon drunkenly masticating"
About 1,970 results (0.22 seconds)

s.clover, Saturday, 21 April 2012 17:19 (four years ago) Permalink

Gay relationships may be unitive in some sense, but they are not unitive in the male-female, difference-reunited sense that the Biblical narrative strongly suggests that God intended sex to be. Gay people can bear and rear children, but they cannot bear and rear them in accordance with what the Biblical narrative suggests is God’s original intention for the reproduction of the human race. Homosexuality may be innate, but recall that one of the core doctrines of Christianity is that sin itself is innate—that our innermost being is in some sense broken and fallen and turned from God’s desires for us. What a traditional Christian morality asks of gay people seems impossibly difficult, but the Jesus of the New Testament asks the near impossible of people quite frequently.

guess who

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:43 (four years ago) Permalink

so "sux2bu" is harvard for "god hates fags", got it

goole, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:47 (four years ago) Permalink

they are not unitive in the male-female, difference-reunited sense that the Biblical narrative strongly suggests that God intended sex to be

It is wholly OT-based stuff like this that makes baby Jesus cry.

Aimless, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:49 (four years ago) Permalink

Wow this Douthat guy, I was not really even that aware of his views until recently. I mean at least Brooks and Friedman are faux-intellectuals of this century.

i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 21:45 (four years ago) Permalink

haha 'the biblical narrative strongly suggests'

what kind of punk-ass bullshitty appeal to scripture is THAT.

j., Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:23 (four years ago) Permalink

What a traditional Christian morality asks of gay people seems impossibly difficult, but the Jesus of the New Testament asks the near impossible of people quite frequently.

will you be getting around to any of it at any point or are you concentrating for now on not being gay

their private gesture for bison (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:30 (four years ago) Permalink

yep. this poll was easy.

it's smdh time in America (will), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:32 (four years ago) Permalink

I was supposed to be excited, but I was bored and somewhat disgusted with myself, with her, with the whole business

maybe you should try having sex with another dude

call all destroyer, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:33 (four years ago) Permalink

I could see the whole xtian thing as this gag column he tried out for the harvard newspaper and then when it worked he just stuck w/ it and years later he is trapped doing this and feeling really guilty cause irl he's just a boring atheist w/ nothing to say

iatee, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 23:15 (four years ago) Permalink

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

System, Saturday, 28 April 2012 00:01 (four years ago) Permalink

(Aimless innocently opens ILE New Answers, sees the names David Brooks, Thomas Friedman and Ross Douthat, starts sobbing like a frightened child)

Make it stop!

Aimless, Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:01 (four years ago) Permalink

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

System, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:01 (four years ago) Permalink

backwards!

dharunravir (k3vin k.), Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:23 (four years ago) Permalink

strong campaign by douthat down the stretch but he couldn't close the gap.

balls, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:37 (four years ago) Permalink

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/bad-religion-ross-douthat

balls, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:38 (four years ago) Permalink

we could've been less sexist and thrown Maureen Dowd in the mix.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:39 (four years ago) Permalink

yeah she's awful too

dharunravir (k3vin k.), Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:44 (four years ago) Permalink

hah that book review authoritatively calls bullshit on douthat

"ROSS DOUTHAT’S ANALYSIS of religion in America is more sophisticated than the analysis of, say, Rick Santorum—but not by much. "

^^excellent lead sentence

(REAL NAME) (m coleman), Sunday, 29 April 2012 13:51 (four years ago) Permalink

"My problem with Douthat’s book is not that his opinions differ from my own. My problem is that he does not seem to have any idea what he is talking about."

(REAL NAME) (m coleman), Sunday, 29 April 2012 13:52 (four years ago) Permalink

he also got sonned in the nyt

(REAL NAME) (m coleman), Sunday, 29 April 2012 13:54 (four years ago) Permalink

six months pass...

Charles Pierce:

I refuse to accept the term "curmudgeonly annoyance" from a teenage sex-panic victim with D'Artagnan starter-kit facial hair."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ross-douthat-post-election-14752276

the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:05 (four years ago) Permalink

i'm not a big charles pierce fan

goole, Monday, 19 November 2012 17:21 (four years ago) Permalink

it's okay to be a mild Charles Pierce fan

the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:22 (four years ago) Permalink

i'm from minnesota...

goole, Monday, 19 November 2012 17:23 (four years ago) Permalink

oh so that's a football reference right

the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:25 (four years ago) Permalink

It's a nice response to an NYT idiot

the max in the high castle (kingfish), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:25 (four years ago) Permalink

ha no i mean "not a big fan" = "i want to play around in your blood"

goole, Monday, 19 November 2012 17:27 (four years ago) Permalink

I'm a huge Charles Pierce fan because he writes pieces like that.

Deafening silence (DL), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:34 (four years ago) Permalink

I'm a huge Charles Pierce fan because he writes pieces like that.

++

cf. Krugman’s response.

Allen (etaeoe), Monday, 19 November 2012 18:32 (four years ago) Permalink

what's supposed to be wrong with charles pierce

j., Monday, 19 November 2012 18:49 (four years ago) Permalink

I like Krugman's response a lot.

the max in the high castle (kingfish), Monday, 19 November 2012 18:58 (four years ago) Permalink

yep

iatee, Monday, 19 November 2012 19:02 (four years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/#ixzz2sSv69gIu

One current Times staffer told The Observer, “Tom Friedman is an embarrassment. I mean there are multiple blogs and Tumblrs and Twitter feeds that exist solely to make fun of his sort of blowhardy bullshit.” (Gawker has been particularly hard on Mr. Friedman, with Hamilton Nolan memorably skewering him in a column entitled “Tom Friedman Travels the World to Find Incredibly Uninteresting Platitudes,” as a “mustachioed soothsaying simpleton”; another column was titled “Tom Friedman Does Not Know What’s Happening Here,” and the @firetomfriedman Twitter account has more than 1,800 followers.)

Another Times reporter brought up Mr. Friedman, unsolicited, toward the end of a conversation that was generally positive about the editorial page: “I never got a note from Andy or anything like that. But I will say, regarding Friedman, there’s the sense that he’s on cruise control now that he’s his own brand. And no one is saying, ‘Hey, did you see the latest Friedman column?’ in the way they’ll talk about ‘Hey, Gail [Collins] was really funny today.’”

Mordy , Friday, 7 February 2014 01:36 (two years ago) Permalink

times reporting staff otm. editorial is so so bad.

Mordy , Friday, 7 February 2014 01:50 (two years ago) Permalink

whatever you may think of the NYT editorial page -- I read this article a few days ago -- the WaPo page deserves reporting to the fucking Hague.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 01:54 (two years ago) Permalink

Editorial page has been a piece of shit for my entire lifetime.

Pale Smiley Face (dandydonweiner), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:16 (two years ago) Permalink

Ever since the internet I've kind of scratched my head at why these particular individuals, of all people, get paid so much money to opine about stuff every week

Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:17 (two years ago) Permalink

you don't get why someone might prefer to read paul krugman vs some random dude w/ a tumblr?

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 03:19 (two years ago) Permalink

that's not fair. ppl do like krugman. obv much more embarrassing is friedman + brooks + dowd etc

Mordy , Friday, 7 February 2014 03:21 (two years ago) Permalink

Paul Krugman is the one exception. I don't get what's special about most of the rest of their regular columnists though, like special enough to warrant once a week for years on end.

Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:21 (two years ago) Permalink

I love being able to avoid Krugman, too.

Pale Smiley Face (dandydonweiner), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:22 (two years ago) Permalink

Friedman is embarrassing, but Brooks and that insufferable prig Douthat still worse

condo associations are people my friend (will), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:24 (two years ago) Permalink

friedman and brooks regularly churn out bestsellers, ppl do like them. dowd won a pulitzer and is still (and once was very) taken seriously by a demographic that's very attractive to advertisers. it's not a mystery how these ppl have jobs. it might be a disgrace but it's no mystery.

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 03:25 (two years ago) Permalink

and yet so easy to avoid them entirely. Makes me happy.

Pale Smiley Face (dandydonweiner), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:28 (two years ago) Permalink

George H.W. Bush used to love reading Mo!

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:33 (two years ago) Permalink

xp but i wonder if they'd be bestseller writers without the vestigial name recognition of being times columnists

Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:34 (two years ago) Permalink

douthat (esp at the time they hired him) is a 'reasonable conservative', the type the times has always thought good for their brand the way fox news used to have alan colmes. brooks is the quintessential 'reasonable conservative', to get any more reasonable you'd need aaron sorkin. he's useless as a window into current conservative thought or current conservative politics but he allows the times liberal readers to tell themselves they're exposing themselves to opposing viewpoints, to a range of opinions, that they're not like some fox news watcher. plus he indulges in the kind of dumb social pseudoscience and ted talk worthy ideas that malcolm gladwell and a good half dozen ilxors truck in. kristol was a bigger hack than either (truly a feat), but more useful. you could read him and get some idea of 'here's what these morons think', there's an element of this w/ douthat and evangelicals but he's not nearly as unmitigated a hack and hence not as useful, w/ brooks the only thing to be gleaned is 'here's what this moron thinks'.

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 03:35 (two years ago) Permalink

brooks and friedman were both bestselling authors before they landed on the times editorial page

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 03:37 (two years ago) Permalink

gail collins on why she hired brooks in 03 - “I was looking for the kind of conservative writer that wouldn’t make our readers shriek and throw the paper out the window,” says Collins. “He was perfect.”

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 03:41 (two years ago) Permalink

now only NPR's Robert Siegel can be in a room without gates covering the window.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:42 (two years ago) Permalink

kristol was a bigger hack than either (truly a feat), but more useful. you could read him and get some idea of 'here's what these morons think',

^ yup

condo associations are people my friend (will), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:44 (two years ago) Permalink

a role played on cable news by "Morning Joe"

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:57 (two years ago) Permalink

rare to find two generations of finks but Irving and Bill were, god bless'em.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:57 (two years ago) Permalink

morning joe is 'reasonable conservative' plus beltway politico type crap right? i watch live with kelly and michael myself. sean hannity is the one to listen to if you want to know what these fuckers think today, rush limbaugh is the one to listen to if you want to know what these fuckers will think tomorrow, george noory is the one to listen to if you want to know what these fuckers will think twenty years from now.

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 04:04 (two years ago) Permalink

Barack Obama is who you listen to when these morons get it.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 04:12 (two years ago) Permalink

plus he indulges in the kind of dumb social pseudoscience and ted talk worthy ideas that malcolm gladwell and a good half dozen ilxors truck in.

― balls, Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:35 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

name names

lag∞n, Friday, 7 February 2014 04:27 (two years ago) Permalink

\o

, Friday, 7 February 2014 04:34 (two years ago) Permalink

Surely it's more than 6. At least 8, maybe 9

, Friday, 7 February 2014 04:36 (two years ago) Permalink

a bakers half dozen

lag∞n, Friday, 7 February 2014 04:38 (two years ago) Permalink

hey side note what is the deal with bakers not being able to count

rhyme heals all goons (m bison), Friday, 7 February 2014 04:45 (two years ago) Permalink

Bakers are only good at counting dough

, Friday, 7 February 2014 04:46 (two years ago) Permalink

youre thinking of bankers

lag∞n, Friday, 7 February 2014 04:51 (two years ago) Permalink

balls OTM re: Brooks

What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Friday, 7 February 2014 14:35 (two years ago) Permalink

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/02/bill-kristol-joins-abc-news-182527.html

Facepalm. leaving Fox to join George Stephanopolis.

Bill Kristol: Palin Would Be 'Formidable' Presidential Candidate said yesterday on Morning Joe...
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Sarah-Palin-Bill-Kristol-politics-Joe-Scarborough/2014/02/06/id/551314

curmudgeon, Friday, 7 February 2014 16:34 (two years ago) Permalink

It should say 'rejoin" -- he was a nineties staple.

I heard that fool praise Palin yesterday morning when flipping through cable news and nearly yarfed into my oatmeal.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 16:39 (two years ago) Permalink

when you guys are saying "editorial page" you are referring to the op-eds, right? because the times editorial page ain't bad

k3vin k., Friday, 7 February 2014 16:44 (two years ago) Permalink

yeah, poor phrasing on my part

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 18:24 (two years ago) Permalink

acc to the article linked the reporters don't like the op-eds or the editorial page

Mordy , Friday, 7 February 2014 18:25 (two years ago) Permalink

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 19:40 (two years ago) Permalink

Murgatroid, that link is priceless.

Aimless, Friday, 7 February 2014 19:48 (two years ago) Permalink

god the suffering that you have to be willing to endure to put something like that together

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 19:48 (two years ago) Permalink

"All my life I’ve been a successful pseudo-intellectual."

marcos, Friday, 7 February 2014 20:03 (two years ago) Permalink

his lack of self awareness is breathtaking.

nothing a reincarnated ronnie james dio couldn't fix (brimstead), Friday, 7 February 2014 21:11 (two years ago) Permalink

Said forty seconds ago on NPR: "This is the problem with democracies. If we lived in a country run by elites, which I believe we should, we would" etc

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 21:17 (two years ago) Permalink

woooowwwww

lag∞n, Friday, 7 February 2014 21:59 (two years ago) Permalink

he shd be murdered not because he deserves it or anything just as a prank

lag∞n, Friday, 7 February 2014 22:02 (two years ago) Permalink

"I was speaking out in Minnesota — my hometown, in fact — and a guy stood up in the audience, said, 'Mr. Friedman, is there any free trade agreement you’d oppose?' I said, 'No, absolutely not.' I said, 'You know what, sir? I wrote a column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/friedman-start-up-america-our-best-hope.html

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 16 February 2014 08:17 (two years ago) Permalink

"speaking out"

i want to say one word to you, just one word:buzzfeed (difficult listening hour), Sunday, 16 February 2014 18:31 (two years ago) Permalink

Minnesota isnt a town iirc

lag∞n, Sunday, 16 February 2014 18:41 (two years ago) Permalink

it's a village

mookieproof, Sunday, 16 February 2014 18:51 (two years ago) Permalink

it takes a village to create friedmans

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 16 February 2014 18:52 (two years ago) Permalink

seven months pass...

unfuckingbelievable

zombie formalist (m coleman), Tuesday, 30 September 2014 12:12 (two years ago) Permalink

spiritual experiments led by the charismatic and the zealous are essential to religious creativity and fruitful change. From the Franciscans to the Jesuits, groups that looked cultlike to their critics have repeatedly revitalized the Catholic Church, and a similar story can be told about the role of charismatic visionaries in the American experience. (The enduring influence of one of the 19th century’s most despised and feared religious movements, for instance, is the reason the state of Utah now leads the United States on many social indicators.)

challenge for ross douthat: name fruitful change or innovation resulting from outliers jim jones, reverend moon, l-ron hubbard, chas manson

zombie formalist (m coleman), Tuesday, 30 September 2014 12:17 (two years ago) Permalink

this column is formulaic recycling, cherry-picked from others work (a time honored and lazy journalistic ploy when the till is empty come deadline). no surprise that douthat quotes philip jenkins who dismissed the 70s cult phenomena as hysteria fueled by secular media. i think jenkins argument is disingenuous and politically motivated. what's forgotten in this revisionist argument is the extreme psychological manipulation that was a defining characteristic of 70s-style charismatic cults. the human toll, lives ruined and personalities exploded, not to mention the suicide victims in jonestown who douthat somehow never mentions.

zombie formalist (m coleman), Tuesday, 30 September 2014 12:24 (two years ago) Permalink

what has happened, from the post-moon unification church to the second-string cult a relative of mine is involved with, seems to be a backing off from the sick controlling nature of the groups (due to decades of bad publicity) and a subsequent mainstreaming of former fringe elements.

zombie formalist (m coleman), Tuesday, 30 September 2014 12:27 (two years ago) Permalink

Thiel’s argument is broader: Not only religious vitality but the entirety of human innovation, he argues, depends on the belief that there are major secrets left to be uncovered, insights that existing institutions have failed to unlock (or perhaps forgotten), better ways of living that a small group might successfully embrace.

This means that every transformative business enterprise, every radical political movement, every truly innovative project contains some cultish elements and impulses — and the decline of those impulses may be a sign that the innovative spirit itself is on the wane. When “people were more open to the idea that not all knowledge was widely known,” Thiel writes, there was more interest in groups that claimed access to some secret knowledge, or offered some revolutionary vision. But today, many fewer Americans “take unorthodox ideas seriously,” and while this has clear upsides — “fewer crazy cults” — it may also be a sign that “we have given up our sense of wonder at secrets left to be discovered.”

correct implication to draw, that the tech-startup boom has evidently been trying to exploit our latent willingness to follow cults, and that 'managerial capitalism' is becoming (again) a cult that increasingly permeates all interactions at all levels of society

j., Tuesday, 30 September 2014 12:38 (two years ago) Permalink

we have given up our sense of wonder at secrets left to be discovered, families left to be abandoned, life savings left to be handed over.

lag∞n, Tuesday, 30 September 2014 13:42 (two years ago) Permalink

new flavors of kool-aid to have people wonder whether we have drunk

j., Tuesday, 30 September 2014 23:38 (two years ago) Permalink

Ross DO THAT

calstars, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 02:01 (two years ago) Permalink

ross DOUBT IT

lag∞n, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 02:50 (two years ago) Permalink

fuck douting a hat

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 02:54 (two years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

tricky dick we hardly knew ye

where to begin

an emotionally withholding exterminator (m coleman), Sunday, 22 November 2015 14:16 (one year ago) Permalink

reading the headline, i thought maybe ross would call for watergatesque sabotage of trump and/or carson

an emotionally withholding exterminator (m coleman), Sunday, 22 November 2015 14:18 (one year ago) Permalink

as if the politics of racial division as practiced by republicans in 2015 isn't 100% pulled from the nixon playbook

an emotionally withholding exterminator (m coleman), Sunday, 22 November 2015 14:20 (one year ago) Permalink

lmao douthat is so far out in left field, a devout catholic millennial who hates college but loves philosphy and nixon, this really is what the times shdve been looking for in its token conservative all along total irrelevance

lag∞n, Sunday, 22 November 2015 14:26 (one year ago) Permalink

ikr!eagerly awaiting catholic convert ross "defender of the faith" douthat's review of spotlight

an emotionally withholding exterminator (m coleman), Sunday, 22 November 2015 14:44 (one year ago) Permalink

Got really depressed when I saw the popup tell me that was my 10th free NYT article of 10 for this month

welltris (crüt), Sunday, 22 November 2015 15:00 (one year ago) Permalink

pray to God, he'll give you an 11th free NYT article. Bishop Doutaht will intercede.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 22 November 2015 15:21 (one year ago) Permalink

what's with the not-quite-austen first line

aaaaablnnn (abanana), Sunday, 22 November 2015 15:40 (one year ago) Permalink

I thought it was a truth universally accepted that Democrats who want to be president want to be Ronald Reagan.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 22 November 2015 15:44 (one year ago) Permalink

three months pass...

nope sorry this human-sized ambulatory scrotum is still The Worst

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/from-obama-to-trump.html?mwrsm=Email

rmde bob (will), Sunday, 6 March 2016 22:16 (eight months ago) Permalink

Reminds me of Addison DeWitt: "You have a point. An idiotic one, but a point."

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 6 March 2016 22:21 (eight months ago) Permalink

no question the Obama people, understanding how social media works, have sold an image of the man that does correspond to every loathsome thing about the imperial presidency since 1945, but boomcrashpow 'that's how we got to Trump' is terrible fiction. I can imagine the delight on Brooks' editors face as they thought of the sharing/click possibilities.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 6 March 2016 22:23 (eight months ago) Permalink

boomcrashpow 'that's how we got to Trump'

IN THAT PRESIDENT...

denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Sunday, 6 March 2016 22:24 (eight months ago) Permalink

If Obama proved that you can run a presidential campaign as an aspirational cult of personality, in which a Sarah Silverman endorsement counts for as much as a governor or congressman’s support, Trump is proving that you don’t need Silverman to shout “the Aristocrats!” and have people eat it up.

iatee, Sunday, 6 March 2016 23:46 (eight months ago) Permalink

crazy that political kingmaker Sarah Silverman didn't even get an ambassadorship after all she did for Obama

iatee, Sunday, 6 March 2016 23:49 (eight months ago) Permalink

such a fucking prig

rmde bob (will), Sunday, 6 March 2016 23:50 (eight months ago) Permalink

James K. Polk wasn't on snapchat i'll tell you what

Option ARMs and de Man (s.clover), Monday, 7 March 2016 01:20 (eight months ago) Permalink

five months pass...

Chapo Trap House picking apart Douthat's book is just wonderful.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 September 2016 10:50 (three months ago) Permalink

That sounds fun, there a link?

6 god none the richer (m bison), Thursday, 1 September 2016 11:12 (three months ago) Permalink

Not updated nearly often enough, but hilarious: https://twitter.com/ralphdouthat

a 47-year-old chainsaw artist from South Carolina (Phil D.), Thursday, 1 September 2016 13:13 (three months ago) Permalink

They don't get to the book dissection for a little while, but the opening bit is good too.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 September 2016 15:28 (three months ago) Permalink

This Chapo Trap House ep is excellent. Douthat is far more of a hyper-Catholic version of a David Mitchell character than I ever expected.

Sentient animated cat gif (kingfish), Monday, 12 September 2016 16:25 (two months ago) Permalink

Their earlier ep covering this is here:

https://m.soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-3-freeway-ross-douthat-sailboat-dope

Sentient animated cat gif (kingfish), Monday, 12 September 2016 16:31 (two months ago) Permalink

Yeah listened to that one too, amazing.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Monday, 12 September 2016 17:06 (two months ago) Permalink

Honestly I've been listening to Chapo episodes like every day lately, so going through the old ones when there isn't a new one (I even signed on for the premium eps).

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Monday, 12 September 2016 18:38 (two months ago) Permalink

Ever since the internet I've kind of scratched my head at why these particular individuals, of all people, get paid so much money to opine about stuff every week

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:17 PM (two years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol I feel like this kind of gets at what's good about Chapo, actually, it's like there's finally someone giving articulate voice to my bafflement at the punditocracy

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Monday, 12 September 2016 18:42 (two months ago) Permalink

was considering just starting a chapo thread. I feel like in the current ilx climate it wouldn't be very active though.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Tuesday, 13 September 2016 17:15 (two months ago) Permalink

Just incorporate it into the comedy podcasts thread? That's what I'm going to do

Sentient animated cat gif (kingfish), Tuesday, 13 September 2016 17:16 (two months ago) Permalink

yeah that makes sense

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Tuesday, 13 September 2016 17:17 (two months ago) Permalink

Oh boy:

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Clinton’s Samantha Bee Problem
963
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
Ross Douthat
Ross Douthat
When the histories of the Trump era are written from exile in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, they will record that it was none other than Jimmy Fallon who brought down the republic.

Or so you might have thought, at least, listening the furious liberal reaction to Fallon’s willingness to treat Trump like any other late-night guest last week: kidding around with him, mussing up his combover and steering clear of anything that would convey to late-night television viewers that Trump is actually beyond the pale.

But the Democratic Party’s problem in the age of Trump isn’t really Jimmy Fallon. Its problem is Samantha Bee.

Not Bee alone, of course, but the entire phenomenon that she embodies: the rapid colonization of new cultural territory by an ascendant social liberalism.

The culture industry has always tilted leftward, but the swing toward social liberalism among younger Americans and the simultaneous surge of activist energy on the left have created a new dynamic, in which areas once considered relatively apolitical now have (or are being pushed to have) an overtly left-wing party line.

On late-night television, it was once understood that David Letterman was beloved by coastal liberals and Jay Leno more of a Middle American taste. But neither man was prone to delivering hectoring monologues in the style of the “Daily Show” alums who now dominate late night. Fallon’s apolitical shtick increasingly makes him an outlier among his peers, many of whom are less comics than propagandists — liberal “explanatory journalists” with laugh lines.

Some of them have better lines than others, and some joke more or hector less. But to flip from Stephen Colbert’s winsome liberalism to Seth Meyers’s class-clown liberalism to Bee’s bluestocking feminism to John Oliver’s and Trevor Noah’s lectures on American benightedness is to enter an echo chamber from which the imagination struggles to escape.

It isn’t just late-night TV. Cultural arenas and institutions that were always liberal are being prodded or dragged further to the left. Awards shows are being pushed to shed their genteel limousine liberalism and embrace the race-gender-sexual identity agenda in full. Colleges and universities are increasingly acting as indoctrinators for that same agenda, shifting their already-lefty consensus under activist pressure.

Meanwhile, institutions that were seen as outside or sideways to political debate have been enlisted in the culture war. The tabloid industry gave us the apotheosis of Caitlyn Jenner, and ESPN gave her its Arthur Ashe Award. The N.B.A., N.C.A.A. and the A.C.C. — nobody’s idea of progressive forces, usually — are acting as enforcers on behalf of gay and transgender rights. Jock culture remains relatively reactionary, but even the N.F.L. is having its Black Lives Matters moment, thanks to Colin Kaepernick.

For the left, these are clear signs of cultural gains, cultural victory. But the scale and swiftness of those victories have created two distinctive political problems for the Democratic Party.

First, within the liberal tent, they have dramatically raised expectations for just how far left our politics can move, while insulating many liberals from the harsh realities of political disagreement in a sprawling, 300-plus million person republic. Among millennials, especially, there’s a growing constituency for whom right-wing ideas are so alien or triggering, left-wing orthodoxy so pervasive and unquestioned, that supporting a candidate like Hillary Clinton looks like a needless form of compromise.

Thus Clinton’s peculiar predicament. She has moved further left than any modern Democratic nominee, and absorbed the newer left’s Manichaean view of the culture war sufficiently that she finds herself dismissing almost a quarter of the electorate as “irredeemable” before her donors. Yet she still finds herself battling an insurgency on her left flank, and somewhat desperately pitching millennials on her ideological bona fides.

At the same time, outside the liberal tent, the feeling of being suffocated by the left’s cultural dominance is turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion — which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the country’s government.

This spirit of political-cultural rebellion is obviously crucial to Trump’s act. As James Parker wrote in The Atlantic, he’s occupying “a space in American politics that is uniquely transgressive, volatile, carnivalesque, and (from a certain angle) punk rock.” (The alt-right-ish columnist Steve Sailer made the punk rock analogy as well.) Like the Sex Pistols, Parker suggests, Trump is out to “upend the culture” — but in this case it’s the culture of institutionalized political correctness and John Oliver explaining the news to you, forever.

Trump’s extremism also limits his appeal, of course. But if liberals are fortunate to be facing a Johnny Rotten figure in this presidential campaign, they are still having real trouble putting him away … and if he were somewhat less volatile and bigoted and gross, liberalism would be poised to close its era of cultural ascendance by watching all three branches of government pass back into conservative hands.

Something like this happened once before: In the 1960s and 1970s, the culture shifted decisively leftward, but American voters shifted to the right and answered a cultural revolution with a political Thermidor.

That Nixon-Reagan rightward shift did not repeal the 1960s or push the counterculture back to a beatnik-hippie fringe. But it did leave liberalism in a curious place throughout the 1980s: atop the commanding heights of culture yet often impotent in Washington, D.C.

By nominating a Trump rather than a Nixon or a Reagan, the Republicans may have saved liberalism from repeating that trajectory. But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent.

(Pasted in full b/c fuck their paywall)

One of the better responses to this is from mr Andy Richter

(rocketcat) 🚀🐱 👑🐟 (kingfish), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:41 (two months ago) Permalink

When the histories of the Trump era are written from exile in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, they will record that it was none other than Jimmy Fallon who brought down the republic
When the histories of the Trump era are written from exile in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, they will record that it was none other than Jimmy Fallon who brought down the republic

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:47 (two months ago) Permalink

Richter tweeted a link to Douthat’s article on Wednesday morning, calling it “a tub of horses—”

andy is very good at succinct summary

dr. mercurio arboria (mh 😏), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:59 (two months ago) Permalink

Douhat seems concerned about something, but I'm damned if I can figure out what kind of a problem he is trying to define that needs to be solved, other than that Hillary Clinton and the democratic party are not as reactionary as much of the electorate and he kind of wishes they'd pander more to voters who feel asphyxiated by granting equal rights to blacks or gay people.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 19:02 (two months ago) Permalink

imo the problem is people who uncritically follow one news source and sit there sharing that as the only perspective, even if it's a comedy show that is based on commenting on news and politics, not being a primary reporter

it's an issue among many groups but pointing at a single comedy central show is even more reductive than pointing at fox news

not even going to attempt to imagine someone who only bases their opinion on douthat articles

dr. mercurio arboria (mh 😏), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 19:07 (two months ago) Permalink

Hey Ross

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Anacostia Aerodrome (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 19:09 (two months ago) Permalink

sadly just a stupid fallon "satire"

Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 21:11 (two months ago) Permalink

david thomas vs. brooks friedman

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Friday, 23 September 2016 21:21 (two months ago) Permalink

I follow Ross on twitter now, and it's fun. He's eminently clownable but less hateable than the other two.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, 23 September 2016 21:26 (two months ago) Permalink

two months pass...

FRIEDMAN: Mr. President-elect, I came …

TRUMP: So right now I’m in very good shape, but

FRIEDMAN: I came here thinking you’d be awed and overwhelmed by this job, but I feel like you are getting very comfortable with it.

TRUMP: I feel comfortable. I feel comfortable. I am awed by the job, as anybody would be, but I honestly, Tom, I feel so comfortable and you know it would be, to me, a great achievement if I could come back here in a year or two years and say — and have a lot of the folks here say, ‘You’ve done a great job.’ And I don’t mean just a conservative job, ’cause I’m not talking conservative. I mean just, we’ve done a good job.

iatee, Wednesday, 23 November 2016 14:12 (one week ago) Permalink

ball 1

Thus Sang Freud, Wednesday, 23 November 2016 14:38 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.