Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The NYT's Auxiliary, Backup Conservative



Would like to share his thoughts with you.
The address made plain what has been increasingly obvious for some time. After flirting with the role of the reasonable centrist after his party’s defeat in 2010, President Obama has decided to run for re-election as a full-throated liberal populist.
Like the many of his compatriots within the ivied cloister of our Establishment Punditocracy -- from David Brooks and his ludicrous asymmetriphobic obsession with Centrism to Tom Friedman and his embarrassing public extrusions of rambly, malformed English in defense of Third Party fairy tales (from the Columbia Journalism Review) --
Over the weekend, The New York Times op-ed page published one of Tom Friedman’s periodic columns about the need for a uprising of the “radical center.” It was, unsurprisingly, terrible. Though the details of these columns change with each iteration—this one relied heavily on a new initiative called Americans Elect, which brings together two of Friedman’s favorite things, wealthy people and the Internet—the basic wrongheadedness does not.

Friedman’s idea seems to be that if only we can find some reform that will allow us to “break the oligopoly of the two-party system,” it might, someday, be possible for someone who holds 90 percent of Barack Obama’s stated policy positions—plus support for a carbon tax—to assume a position of power. Then, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear—maybe because some fantasy vice president (Michael Bloomberg?) applies some of his “pragmatic independent” pixie dust?—political dysfunction disappears, and a magical new era of “superconsensus” to solve our “superhard” problems is ushered in. Startlingly, this consensus seems to closely reflect many of Friedman’s personal policy preferences.

Friedman has been engaged in third-party wishcasting for at least five years now; Brendan Nyhan’s excellent, running blog post on third-party media hype records that back in the 2006 election cycle, Friedman longed for a “Geo-Green Party.” His “radical center” phase, though, seems to be inspired by the Tea Party era. Friedman has devoted columns to this mythical middle at least three times since spring 2010. They’re as predictable as the tides, or a hackneyed lede about a conversation with a taxi driver or tech entrepreneur.
--  I long ago lost interest in the meat and taters of what Mr. Douthat had to say about pretty much everything.

Instead, like Brooks and Friedman, it is the mere fact of  Mr. Douthat's existence that I find fascinating. As if the Opportunity rover had suddenly spotted a Fiddler Crab wandering the surface of Mars while singing honky-tonk in Portuguese, or an archivist had unearthing a manuscript proving that Leonardo da Vinci was 77 meters tall and that he invented bar codes and Velcro, it would not be the physical size of such  discoveries -- their weight or height -- that would make them profound, but the implications of those discoveries which would reorder our thinking about the Universe.

Thus it is with Ross Douthat -- a silly little man scuttling across the surface of a world where every notion of common sense and meritocracy says he should not be.  And scuttling right along beside him?  Mr. Brooks and Mr Friedman, each also blithe defying the laws of logic and competence and prospering in an environment where they really, really have no business existing at all.  All protected within an expensive and well-maintained media bunker which prevents any of the consequences of their follies and idiocies from blowing back on them in the slightest degree.

It is a puzzle, and as someone who is both very interested in how all kinds of organizations perform -- in how and why they succeed or fail or bamboozle themselves into committing suicide -- and who also loves fiddling with minimum information puzzles, I find it almost irresistible to try and deduce what possible concatenation of dysfunctions, delusions and very poor management decisions must have taken place at the New York Times to result in them simultaneously ensconcing Messrs. Douthat, Friedman and Brooks together on the editorial page of America's Newspaper of Record.

Such is my curse.

11 comments:

Tengrain said...

Drifty -

I used to write some "Anatomy of a Column" posts on Douthat, but then realized he just isn't interesting enough. Scolds almost never are.

But to your point, can you imagine what a masturbatorium it must have been with Kristol, Friedman, Brooks, and Douthat lo just a few years ago? The mind boggles.

Regards,

Tengrain

Anonymous said...

You're just a whiny sad person.

Romney is not a sociopath because he was a "corporate raider." He worked in private equity. If you think every equity investor is a "corporate raider" and a "sociopath," you should go back to school.

Romney worked for a living. Unlike you.

Cirze said...

Yeah, and so do Friedbrain and Do-that and DFB and Billy the Killer Kristol.

They all work reeeeeeaaaalllly hard for a living.

Just like Rmoney.

Think we should pass the hat for them?

heh

S

Anonymous said...

Driftglass, what do you do for a job, given that you can't get a job in journalism?

knowdoubt said...

I'm more interested in what YOU do for a job Mr. Anonymous? Obviously, Driftglass does real journalism. Just who did
Romney work for, anyway? Being born into a boatload of money does not constitute work. Buying corporations, selling off the assets and outsourcing the work after getting rid of the employees does not constitute work unless you're talking about the Devil's work, in which case I'll agree he has been very busy.

Anonymous said...

Is it my imagination or is a douthat column becoming more and more like a brooks column?

driftglass said...

My job?

I am currently unemployed and looking for full time work.

Over the last 3 years -- since being laid off from a very demanding, multi-disciplinary position (everything from performance management to writing white papers to managing remote facilities) at which I worked for 10 years, and routinely put in > 80 hrs/week -- I have been underemployed, working several part-time or temporary contract gigs for organizations which desperately wanted to bring me on full time but have had their budgets slashed as a direct or indirect result of the Great Recession.

In the past I have been (since leaving puberty behind and in no particular order) a computer programmer and systems analyst, a college professor, corporate trainer, an IT manager, research manager,
editor, grant writer, regular writer, senior executive in charge of damn-near-everything from speechwriting to strategic planning, policy wonk, performance management guy, project manager, department reorganizer, consultant, direct social service provider and much more.

I have briefed congressional staff on more than one occasion, prepared bosses for public hearings, and addressed foreign delegations.

I have also written and Photoshopped this blog almost every day for going on 7 years, and podcast once a week with Blue Gal which, all combined, brings in considerably less than what a single, minimum wage/no benefit job would pay.

I am, of course, also an amateur historian, amateur paleontologist, definer of civilization and leader of the civilizing forces...but it turns out those gigs only pay a living wage when you can get casino moguls to write you multi-million-dollar checks :-)

Yours in Christ,

driftglass

casimir said...

Though it is not clear if Anonymous is sincere or just very dry, it strikes me as a time to pose the question: does remuneration in the marketplace correlate more strongly with positive contributions to society and humanity, or is the inverse relationship stronger? There are of course many who "do well by doing good," but overall I think it is undeniable that the inverse relationship is much stronger. And this does not seem odd to me, but quite logical at this historical stage of our political economy. Discuss (or not).

Mister Roboto said...

casimir: If all the fat were ruthlessly cut away and the only remaining well-paying jobs were those that were truly essential to fulfilling what society needed to function, a lot of pseudolibertarians who like to think they're "all that" would find themselves forced to get jobs that involved wearing paper hats.

HAHAHA, the captcha-word is "might", as in "That just might happen soon!"

mary said...

casimir: I long ago realized than pay and status had absolutely nothing to do with the value of a person's work. Otherwise, nursing assistants would be paid extremely well and NYT op-ed writers would be paid minimum wage. No, they serve some other purpose. And I'm beginning to believe the purpose is to fill pages without writing anything 'risky'. It's just filler between the ads.

jim said...

"It is a puzzle ..."

It's no more of a mystery than the swallows returning to Capistrano.

The explanation is simple:

Lickspittles gotta lickspittle.