[cherdanno]

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

[cherdanno]

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

[hrothgar]

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

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

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

[Winstonm]

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

[Al_U_Card]

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

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

[y66]

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

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

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

[hrothgar]

Speaking about Sullivan, his blog had an interesting pointer today

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

[helene_t]

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

[kenberg]

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


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

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

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


Incidentally, I think this challenge is a fine idea.

[Winstonm]

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

[y66]

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

[y66]

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

Quote

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

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

This guy has blog cred.

[PassedOut]

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

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

[y66]

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

Quote

My Mum And Starbucks

So I ordered the fancy-ass Tazo London Fog Tea Latte at Starbucks - because a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down. It cost over $3. And when I started to drink it, I got this Proustian feeling. Starbucks have discovered the old cup of cha that my mother reared me and my siblings on. The same strange blend of hot water and milk and sugar; the same black tea steeped a little too long; the same impact on the nose and lungs on a cold damp evening. All that's missing is that ritual: the English zen of making the tea.
My mum (yes, I have to use the English spelling) made around 10 of these a day. We were either drinking tea or the kettle was boiling. If my parents were having a fight, the kids upstairs listening to the uproar would wait until we heard the voices fade and then the all-clear siren: the sound of the water being drawn and the kettle being readied. When I told my poor mother I was a homosexual, it was her first impulse: "Oh my God, I'd better make a cup of tea."
My poor mum. Funny how a cup of tea reminds me how much I love her.

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

[y66]

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

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Apr 16 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

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

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

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

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Apr 20 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Apr 16 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[awm]

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

[hrothgar]

awm, on Apr 21 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

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

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

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

[hrothgar]

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

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