Goodbye To Matt

Congratulations are in order whenever someone accepts a new position, of course, but I hope Matt won't mind if I add that I was very sorry to hear that he'd decided to leave the Atlantic to take a job at the Center for American Progress. Partially, this reflects pure selfishness on my part: I like Matt a lot, I've enjoyed having him as a colleague (and a sparring partner), and I'll miss his company in the office as well as the presence of his commentary on the Atlantic's site. But it also reflects slight disappointment at where he's decided to go. Maybe this is foolish: I respect his desire to be in the arena, TR-style, rather than on the sidelines, and there's no doubt a touch of concern-trolling involved whenever I fret about how the new progressive ecosystem seems hell-bent on imitating a lot of the things I find unpleasant about my own side of the partisan divide these days - the team-player mentality, the tendency toward cocooning, the obsession with policing orthodoxy, etc. Certainly, I have no doubt that Matt will remain Matt - independent-minded, acerbic, not suffering fools gladly - even under the umbrella of an explicitly partisan organization. But I also think that American politics benefits from having smart writers of both political persuasions who have one foot in movement politics and one foot outside it, and given that Matt is one of the smartest liberal writers in my generational cohort, I'm sad to see him giving up on this balancing act. He'll do well, and better than well, wherever he goes - but part of me suspects that over the long run he could do more, both for himself and for progressivism, if he were ever-so-slightly outside the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy rather working for it directly.

Obviously, I blame David Appell for this.

Comments

Ross why is the Atlantic blogroll so right-tilted? Even before Matt leaves, it's conservative dominant.

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2008 12:16 PM

I don't agree with Matt on much, but he's done a fine job and I'm sorry to see him go.

Posted by Ferrell | July 17, 2008 12:33 PM

Freddie - I guess all the Harper's bloggers, if there are such people, didn't want to come over and balance things out

Posted by Ferrell | July 17, 2008 12:36 PM

Freddie is angling for a gig.

Joke - though based on what you've posted on your own blog so far Freddie, it's better than some on here.

*cough*Goldberg, Crook*cough*

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 12:40 PM

Ross, why is the Atlantic blogroll so right-wing? I know I can go to ABC-CBS-PBS-NPR-NBC-CNN-MSNBC-WaPo-NYT-KOS-HUFFINGTON POST-Nation-NR-NewYorker-VanityFair-TAP-Slate-Salon to get the liberal point of view, but I get upset when any site is less than 90 percent left.

Thanks.

Posted by pablo H | July 17, 2008 12:58 PM

Yes Pablo,

It's not like the The Atlantic has a history of of being liberal and literary, it's always been very right wing - and we need 90 percent of the 8/7 bloggers on this site to reflect that.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 1:04 PM

I think the idea that smart people from both sides should work together in ostensibly nonpartisan venues to work collegially and in good faith in search of the Truth is pure wankery. I mean if magazines like the Atlantic want to maintain that atmosphere that's fine, but it's not incumbent on the liberal or conservative writers to stay there.

Posted by lowellfield | July 17, 2008 2:01 PM

I definitely agree with you, Ross-- the echo chamber is an awful lot more boring and dangerous than an environment featuring a range of opinion.

That said, I don't share your concern about the left, or Matt's move, for two reasons. First, the left doesn't have the orthodoxies that the right does. To be elected dog catcher as a Republican, or to be friendly to movement conservatism, you have to say that Iraqi Islam-o-fascists are lurking in every American city and that tax cuts always raise revenues. There's nothing comparable on the left. (It could happen, it's just not an issue now. The stereotype of Democrats is that they're colicky babies, not ideologically rigid).

Second, we're living in a world where there is a well-integrated movement on the right, and not on the left. So people are bombarded with ideas like "Obama's a flip flopper," "tax cuts are the one true policy, the alpha and the omega," and "the original intent of the Constitution in 1789, as understood by conservative jurists, is the only defensible method of constitutional interpretation."

It's not a terrible thing, in that context, for the left to set up its own version-- though, as you point out, it'd be bad if it ended up duplicating "the team-player mentality, the tendency toward cocooning, the obsession with policing orthodoxy" of the right.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 17, 2008 2:35 PM

The left doesn't have orthodoxies? Not on abortion? Not on affirmative action? Not on gay marriage (not that I oppose that one)? Not on universal healthcare? Not on opposition to a continued presence in Iraq? There's a reason Sullivan coined the term the 'Yglesias award'; it's because he occasionally challenges the echo chamber orthodoxies of the left.

I suppose they may not look like orthodoxies to you; they are just what all rational people want; but that more shows the existence of an orthodoxy than disproves it.

Posted by i | July 17, 2008 3:43 PM

Not on abortion?

Well, the Senate majority leader isn't pro-choice... but I'll grant you that one, in that it's unimaginable that someone pro-life would win the Dem primary.

Not on affirmative action?

I don't think so, but it isn't one of the top 50 issues facing the country, so it hasn't really been discussed much.

Not on gay marriage?

You're right on this one, too-- every Democratic candidate for president, except Kucinich and maybe Gravel, opposed gay marriage. The national Democratic Party hasn't consumed with zeal as has the GOP, of course, but nor has there been a whole lot of pro-gay marriage sentiment in the Democratic Party.

But gay marriage isn't as important as the GOP dogma on debt expansion and beligerence in foreign affairs. Call both parties' positions orthodoxies if you like, but they're not as all-consuming as those positions.

Not on universal healthcare?

That was a major matter of contention between Clinton, who proposes universal health insurance, and Obama, who does not.

Not on opposition to a continued presence in Iraq?

You might be correct on that one, too. That's the result of facts on the ground in Iraq. I think that over half of Congressional Dems voted against the invasion in 2002, but it was relatively close.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 17, 2008 4:06 PM

how the new progressive ecosystem seems hell-bent on imitating a lot of the things I find unpleasant about my own side of the partisan divide these days - the team-player mentality, the tendency toward cocooning, the obsession with policing orthodoxy, etc.

Haven't read Yglesias more than here or there in the last six months or so because of his ever more apparent participation in "the team-player mentality, the tendency toward cocooning, the obsession with policing orthodoxy" which has all-but-abolished his former identity as, per Sullivan, a "writer, politician, columnist or pundit who actually criticizes their own side, makes enemies among political allies, and generally risks something for the sake of saying what they believe."

Yglesias has always been lazy and flippant, but, these days he's a naught but a full-fledged apparatchik, so it's appropriate he would abandon his present job to be an open propagandist.

Elvis,

First, the left doesn't have the orthodoxies that the right does.

It might seem that way to someone who considers himself on "the left," but that's not really the case as I far as I can tell. The Republican party had so much power between 2000-2006 (which is about the time the New Left coagulated) that "the left's" orthodoxies were simply not apparent, as it functioned only as an opposition (and, sadly, a weak one at that).

CNN's Roland Martin actually touched on one such issue of orthodoxies interfering with correct course of action in his column this morning.

More examples: Corn ethanol, farm subsidies, opposition to restrictions on partial-birth abortion (I'm pro-choice, myself, but simply can't understand what separates this specific procedure from murder) and, perhaps worst of all, the tendency to automatically assume those perceived to have power (in this case, the French government) are always in the wrong and those perceived to be powerless (in this case, a false accuser) are always right, irrespective of the facts of the issue or the reality of what either party is actually doing.

Even though I subscribe to a completely different brand of conservatism than Ross Douthat (strong federalist, pro-gay marriage in the state I reside, anti-drug war, pro-market, virulently against any form of social-engineering--whether it's affirmative action, bonuses for two-parent households or nativist worries about the cultural effect of an influx of Latinos), I am in wholehearted agreement that "the left" is making many of the same mistakes Douthat attributes to "the right" in the above quoted section. The difference will be that the American people have seen it once, are more cynical, and can recognize it more readily, so I think the backlash will be quicker.

Posted by Shinyk | July 17, 2008 4:13 PM

I fret about how the new progressive ecosystem seems hell-bent on imitating a lot of the things I find unpleasant about my own side of the partisan divide these days - the team-player mentality, the tendency toward cocooning, the obsession with policing orthodoxy, etc.

Curiously, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has said that one of the more agreeable aspects of abandoning the left-of-center for the right-of-center is that the right polices its borders much less meticulously. Those were near his precise words.

Given that the journalism of the right is sorted into taxa generated by folk with different interests and some measure of mutual antagonism - social conservatives v. libertarians v. 'national-security' conservatives v. 'business' conservatives v. 'palaeo-conservatives' - it seems strange to criticize those in this nexus for being overly uniform in their outlook. Are you perhaps referring to legislative caucuses and their dependants and hangers-on?

Perhaps in lieu of dubious complaints about team-players and the like, one might take the various think tanks to task for leavening the scholars on their staffs with far to many publicists. The Hoover Institution may be the only one where people who would qualify for academic positions thoroughly dominate. (And that does bring to mind the question of what sort of expertise Mr. Yglesias will bring to the table at the Center for American Progress. General intelligence and general education is not a substitute).

Posted by Art Deco | July 17, 2008 5:22 PM

It is a sad thing. In a way, it seems like he's regressing, but in fact where he's going (and we must assume it is where his heart is, i think) the notion of an uncommitted, unbiased media that calls em as they sees em is in fact one of the major shibboleths to be throttled. All coverage is biased for them, except their own version of the truth. I can't hide my disappointment about this move, even as a progressive myself. Partly that's just because I think the infrastructure here is great and i won't like having to deal with a new URL for Mat rhater than just scrolling up top. But also I rally think the mix of views that is available here is (I hope not was) something quite special (even, if yes, a bit on Right since the addition of Goldberg; Matt's departure won't help matters). I look forward to the announcement of his replacement.

Posted by Mike | July 17, 2008 5:26 PM

Addemndum: reviewing the bloggers here, I have to agree: it is Right-dominant, no doubt. 5 to 2 with 1 real indy (yes, that's Ambinder, and yes, he should feel free to send me a thank you email.) You guys had better find a real Pinko to get this straightened out! Seriously.

Posted by Mike | July 17, 2008 5:32 PM

I found CAP to be much less (using a loaded word) "Stalinist" in enforcing the party line compared to Heritage, AEI and the like.

Posted by Dave | July 17, 2008 5:57 PM

Given that the journalism of the right is sorted into taxa generated by folk with different interests and some measure of mutual antagonism - social conservatives v. libertarians v. 'national-security' conservatives v. 'business' conservatives v. 'palaeo-conservatives' - it seems strange to criticize those in this nexus for being overly uniform in their outlook.

I found CAP to be much less (using a loaded word) "Stalinist" in enforcing the party line compared to Heritage, AEI and the like.

Don't know about CAP, and I'm sure the Heritage foundation's pretty strict in it's anti-tax stuff (though considering the popularity of raising taxes among voters, that's not exactly a position that will come up against strong opposition, anyway).

AEI, on the other hand, has employed numerous figures that openly question orthodoxy, most notably Aayan Hirsi-Ali, who sometimes mocked both religiosity among American conservatives and the neoconservative notion that the only thing stopping Islam from embracing modernity is that Muslims usually aren't allowed to vote.

But to give a better indication of internal ideological policing, there's no better indication that it's now more extreme on the left than right than taking a quick look at one John Derbyshire, who seems to post at least one or two items per month positively mocking Ponnuru's religiosity or, even more frequently, eviscerating anyone who disagrees with evolution.

Can you imagine a columnist at the Nation penning a piece that accuses a colleague of being exaggerating the threat caused by global warming?

Hitchens was ganged-up on and run out of that magazine for supporting the Iraq war, wasn't he? And yet, Derbyshire is let to continue his "blasphemies," week after week, year after year. That's telling, I think.

Posted by Shinyk | July 17, 2008 7:04 PM

Given that the journalism of the right is sorted into taxa generated by folk with different interests and some measure of mutual antagonism - social conservatives v. libertarians v. 'national-security' conservatives v. 'business' conservatives v. 'palaeo-conservatives' - it seems strange to criticize those in this nexus for being overly uniform in their outlook.

I found CAP to be much less (using a loaded word) "Stalinist" in enforcing the party line compared to Heritage, AEI and the like.

Don't know about CAP, and I'm sure the Heritage foundation's pretty strict in it's anti-tax stuff (though considering the popularity of raising taxes among voters, that's not exactly a position that will come up against strong opposition, anyway).

AEI, on the other hand, has employed numerous figures that openly question orthodoxy, most notably Aayan Hirsi-Ali, who sometimes mocked both the level of faith that pervades American conservatism, and the neoconservative notion that the only thing stopping Islam from embracing modernity is that Muslims usually aren't allowed to vote.

But to give a better indication of internal ideological policing, there's no better indication that it's now more extreme on the left than right than taking a quick look at one John Derbyshire, who seems to post at least one or two items per month positively mocking Ponnuru's (and many other conservatives') religiosity or, even more frequently, eviscerating anyone who disagrees with evolution.

Can you imagine a columnist at the Nation penning a piece that accuses a colleague of exaggerating the threat caused by global warming, or one who said that the patriarchy is a figment of feminists' imaginations?

Hitchens was ganged-up on and run out of that magazine for supporting the Iraq war, wasn't he? And yet, Derbyshire is let to continue his "blasphemies," week after week, year after year. That's telling, I think.

Posted by Shinyk | July 17, 2008 7:07 PM

Very interested to see who will be replacing him.

The Atlantic's blog roll is very much center-right, and, when Matt speaks of "collegiality", one wonders what established pundit would want to replace him as the "token liberal" here. My guess is that we'll see him replaced by someone young enough and ambitious enough to tolerate being on an island so long as it advances his/her career; blogging here is still a pretty prominent gig.

With that said, I really, really, hope it's not Ezra Klein.

If ideology isn't an issue, I think Daniel Larison would be a fine choice, even though I (a self-identified paleocon/paleolib) find him tedious at times.

Posted by Staash | July 17, 2008 7:21 PM

Shinyk writes:

"Hitchens was ganged-up on and run out of that magazine for supporting the Iraq war, wasn't he? And yet, Derbyshire is let to continue his "blasphemies," week after week, year after year. That's telling, I think."

I think Derb is in a similar situation at NRO as Yglesias was here, the difference being that he's the "token paleo" while Matt is/was the "token liberal". The post-purge National Review needs to maintain some cred with the Old Right. If the cost of that is some public spats with the kiddie-cons, then so be it.

Posted by Staash | July 17, 2008 7:35 PM

I fail to see how Mr. Yglesias constitutes a 'token liberal' when and Mr. Fallows are two out of seven and Miss McArdle, Dr. Sullivan, and Mr. Ambinder are people of ambiguous or ambivalent orientation if you view American political thought as binary. Mr. Douthat is hardly a trenchant exponent of any point of view. (I've yet to read the other two).

Mr. Derbyshire's employment at National Review is indicative of little other than the private and implicit arrangement between him and the magazine's editor. He certainly was not hired to be the 'token palaeocon' as his disputes with the other editors erupted about three or four years after the magazine came to be his principal place of employment. It also assumes too much to regard him as the exponent of a coherent political or social or cultural viewpoint. The salient thing about his writing is the lack of an internal editor and the apparent lack of redaction by his superiors. National Review has employed a number of people over the years to write humor pieces (e.g. Florence King and Meghan Cox Gurdon); some people find random dyspeptic outbursts amusing.

Who is a 'kiddie-con', and why?

Posted by Art Deco | July 17, 2008 8:01 PM

With that said, I really, really, hope it's not Ezra Klein.

I'll second this and drink to that. I've always been partial to Chait and Greenwald, as far as progressives go, but they might both be too cushy where they are.

Posted by Shinyk | July 17, 2008 8:03 PM

Ignatius, do you write in a pompous tone intentionally, or does it just come out that way?

That said...

"I fail to see how Mr. Yglesias constitutes a 'token liberal' when and Mr. Fallows are two out of seven and Miss McArdle, Dr. Sullivan, and Mr. Ambinder are people of ambiguous or ambivalent orientation if you view American political thought as binary. Mr. Douthat is hardly a trenchant exponent of any point of view. (I've yet to read the other two)."

You say "ambiguous or ambivalent orientation", I say "center right". I guess it's all a matter of political-compass calibration.

"He certainly was not hired to be the 'token palaeocon' as his disputes with the other editors erupted about three or four years after the magazine came to be his principal place of employment. It also assumes too much to regard him as the exponent of a coherent political or social or cultural viewpoint."

And these disputes were the direct result of him espousing an increasingly paleo voice at NRO. Please allow me to posit a hypothesis here: the probability that one will publicly disagree with one's co-workers and/or bosses increases roughly linearly with the time one is employed in a company". I don't think that sounds too outrageous. Keep in mind that I never delved into the reasons for his hire, but rather the reasons that he's been kept around.

"Who is a 'kiddie-con', and why?"

Are you asking for an example, or a definition?

Posted by Staash | July 17, 2008 8:13 PM

"I'll second this and drink to that. I've always been partial to Chait and Greenwald, as far as progressives go, but they might both be too cushy where they are."

Either would be excellent choices, but I share your pessimism.

Posted by Staash | July 17, 2008 8:15 PM

And these disputes were the direct result of him espousing an increasingly paleo voice at NRO.

I cannot say what irritates his confederates at National Review. I merely note that the dispute that he has engaged in with the most eclat was derived not from some erudite exposition of 'paleoconservative' principle (whatever that may be) but from an ad hominem attack on Mr. Ponnuru and anyone who might be sympathetic with the thesis of his most recent book, which he placed in a British periodical. Mr. Ponnuru's book was on the politics and culture and social practice of abortion; the signature palaeo issues concern foreign policy, immigration, &c. Attributing his review to something more elevated that his personal feelings for Mr. Ponnuru or a bad hangover or to the after effects of his own indigestible British cooking would be rash.

Keep in mind that I never delved into the reasons for his hire, but rather the reasons that he's been kept around.

You might ask Richard Lowry.

I asked for an example and an explanation. Your term, not mine.

Posted by Art Deco | July 17, 2008 9:26 PM

"Can you imagine a columnist at the Nation penning a piece that accuses a colleague of being exaggerating the threat caused by global warming? "

Alexander Cockburn, columnist at the Nation, and proprietor of Counterpunch, vociferously denies the existance of man-made global warming.

Posted by mad6798 | July 17, 2008 9:46 PM

"Attributing his review to something more elevated that his personal feelings for Mr. Ponnuru or a bad hangover or to the after effects of his own indigestible British cooking would be rash."

Good one, but I don't agree that "personal feelings for Mr. Ponnuru" were the impetus for the negative review of Ramesh's book. Generally speaking, Ponnuru's pet issues (i.e. "right-to-life" stuff) tend to be unimportant (if not embarrassing) to paleos. In your post, I think you acknowledge as much. Why then must Derb's review fall under the umbrella of "personal feelings"? Maybe he just disagrees with Ramesh because he thinks Ramesh is wrong?

As far as "kiddie-cons" go, I believe the term originated with Sam Francis (whose term was actually "kiddycon"). I use the term very loosely to young conservatives who don't have much life experience aside from political punditry. Of the staff at NRO, Ramesh, K-Lo, and Jonah come immediately to mind.

Posted by Staash | July 17, 2008 9:50 PM

Generally speaking, Ponnuru's pet issues (i.e. "right-to-life" stuff) tend to be unimportant (if not embarrassing) to paleos.

You said that, not me.

I use the term very loosely to young conservatives who don't have much life experience aside from political punditry.

Well, I might suggest they do something with their life other than opinion journalism, which seems more appropriate as an avocation than a vocation. I think Dr. Francis ended his days editing a newsletter issued by a remnant of the old white Citizens' Councils, not an employment I would recommend either.

Posted by Art Deco | July 17, 2008 10:15 PM

Glad you brought that up, Staash, all hail the Old Right, who are everything the left thinks they are. We should want our right wingers racist, isolationist, and detached from the reality of the bottom 99.7% of wage earners.

Posted by Yama Be There | July 18, 2008 12:11 AM

Alexander Cockburn, columnist at the Nation, and proprietor of Counterpunch, vociferously denies the existance of man-made global warming.

He does so in the pages of the Nation? Color me flabbergasted if that's true.

Attributing his review to something more elevated that his personal feelings for Mr. Ponnuru or a bad hangover or to the after effects of his own indigestible British cooking would be rash.

It's not just the one review. Derbyshire has attacked almost every uniquely social conservative cause I can think of at one time or another. For instance, Ponnuru has never, to my knowledge, written a book advocating intelligent design, which, along with open-border immigration, is Derbyshire's favorite target for ridicule.

Stuttaford's another columnist who leans somewhat anti-so-con, though he's far more polite and far less Bircheresque than Derbyshire.

Even Freddoso, who mostly keeps his objections with aspects of conservatism to himself, occasionally blurts out something that greatly undermines conventional conservative orthodoxy such as when he one day belched out his rejection of the NR's Romney endorsement and announced his support for Ron Paul, of all people.

You simply don't see the inter-ideological battles on the left that you do on the right (or, at least, I don't). It's all "what's a more popular course of action," "how far do we want to go," etc. etc. and is this idea fundamentally correct.

Take the primaries. The Clinton/Obama debate had more to do with personality, who was playing fairly, who would be a more appealing standard-bearer for progressive ideas, never on what those ideas should be (it's not as if Clinton went out there and said moral/cultural relativism is bs).

By contrast, the Republican primary was, in a sense, a discussion of what conservatism was. Every candidate on the right, except perhaps Romney (whose positions were not credible), represented an explicit rejection of a Republican "orthodoxy" of some sort: Huckabee (immigration, welfare programs, role of government), Giuliani (abortion, immigration), McCain (every social conservative idea other than abortion, about half of conservative economic issues, immigration), Hunter (trade policy), Paul (foreign policy), Tancredo (loud, habitual violator of the '11th comandment').

Posted by Shinyk | July 18, 2008 12:27 AM

and is this idea fundamentally correct.

Should read "not 'is this idea fundamentally correct.' "

Posted by Shinyk | July 18, 2008 1:34 AM

Goodbye Matt, and good riddance.

A win-win for everyone involved.

Posted by mitch | July 18, 2008 11:08 AM

I wonder if Mitch's comment will be deleted? does it break the terms of this grand new order?

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 11:11 AM

I imagine Matt is a decent guy to be around, but good riddance to him. He's a pure team player for the left, going so far as to advise Democratic candidates to "lie convincingly" when stating opposition to gay marriage. After a person writes something like that, it's hard to trust anything else he has to say. He squandered all his intellectual dignity and credibility for a little partisan point-scoring.

The Atlantic is a great, great magazine with great blogs, for the most part. Matt's hackish writings sullied The Atlantic a bit. His leaving is a prime example of addition by subtraction.

Posted by T-web | July 18, 2008 11:42 AM

For instance, Ponnuru has never, to my knowledge, written a book advocating intelligent design, which, along with open-border immigration, is Derbyshire's favorite target for ridicule.

It is curious that these questions are emphasized in his writings. If I read his biographical accounts correctly, his academic and vocational background in the natural sciences is nil, he has spent 3/4ths of his adult life abroad from his country of origin, and his wife is in the country because she was married to the holder of a circumscribed work visa.

Posted by Art Deco | July 18, 2008 12:49 PM

I was a big fan of Matt's back when he was at Harvard, and just starting out in the political blogging biz. He was pretty independent minded for a Harvard liberal in those days. In recent years, though, he's become pretty reflexively partisan. (I love the suggestion above that there's no such thing as liberal orthodoxy. Whodda thunk it?) I guess that's the path to political power and influence in D.C. So I wish him well and a nice job in some future Democratic administration.

Posted by DBL | July 18, 2008 1:00 PM

It is curious that these questions are emphasized in his writings. If I read his biographical accounts correctly, his academic and vocational background in the natural sciences is nil, he has spent 3/4ths of his adult life abroad from his country of origin, and his wife is in the country because she was married to the holder of a circumscribed work visa.

I'm not defending Ponnuru's writing (as I said, I generally don't have any sympathy for the views expressed in either Party of Death or Douthat's Grand New Party), merely pointing out that Derbyshire's hostility to social conservative positions is probably independent of personal feelings toward Ponnuru. If anything, Derbyshire's mockery of those positions causes more animus from Ponnuru than Derbyshire shows Ponnuru specifically.

Posted by Shinyk | July 18, 2008 2:17 PM

I think it is sad to see Matt Y. go, and really hope along with everyone else that the replacement is not Ezra (talk about trading down). That said, Matt has seemed more and more hackish over the last six months to a year; I was hoping it would subside after the election, but I guess that is unlikely.

Posted by rab | July 18, 2008 2:43 PM

Derbyshire's hostility to social conservative positions is probably independent of personal feelings toward Ponnuru. If anything, Derbyshire's mockery of those positions causes more animus from Ponnuru than Derbyshire shows Ponnuru specifically.

Richard Hofstaeder referred to the conservative discourse ca. 1956 as a set of 'irritable mental gestures', an unfair description of the utterances of Peter Viereck or Claire Boothe Luce or William F. Buckley but a passable description of Mr. Derbyshire's. Whether it be Mr. Ponnuru or Dr. Behe or Robert Bartley (or one of his children) who is today's object of these gestures is incidental.

Posted by Art Deco | July 18, 2008 4:15 PM

"He does so in the pages of the Nation? Color me flabbergasted if that's true."

Then prepare to be flabbergasted:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070514/cockburn

Posted by mad6798 | July 18, 2008 5:54 PM

Then prepare to be flabbergasted:

From the teaser, you can consider me both surprised and (irrelevent of whether of not I agree with it or would agree with any of this article) impressed that Cockburn would pen such a thing for that particular audience. Hope his bravery doesn't eventually get him cold-shouldered off the staff like it did with Hitchens.

Posted by Shinyk | July 18, 2008 8:04 PM

Well, that particular article is from a year and a half ago, so I don't think that's likely. Perhaps your preconceptions about the Left aren't as accurate as you'd thought.

Also, Hitchens was not fired from the Nation, just to be clear. He left because he didn't support the magazine's editorial stance.

Posted by mad6798 | July 18, 2008 8:55 PM

Shinyk,

Um, I'm not sure why you would be impressed that Cockburn would deny the reality of global warming. All it proves is that Cockburn is (on this particular issue, not in general) trying to be contrarian for the hell of it, which is a puerile habit to say the least.

Hitchens is a malevolent, attention-grabbing, alcoholic fool who thinks that shocking his audience is a substitute for a good argument. His notorious penchant for showing up drunk to interviews should have gotten him fired, his politics need have nothing to do with it.

Posted by Hector | July 18, 2008 9:25 PM

Um, I'm not sure why you would be impressed that Cockburn would deny the reality of global warming.

I'm impressed that Cockburn would challenge a sacred cow position in the pages of the Nation. Whether that which he challenged is "reality" or not is thoroughly beside the point.

Elvis Elsberg made the statement "First, the left doesn't have the orthodoxies that the right does," earlier in the thread. Several others laughed at this statement (with good reason), but I'd rather engage it.

Also, Hitchens was not fired from the Nation, just to be clear. He left because he didn't support the magazine's editorial stance.

Hitchens' colleagues made it a past-time to vilify him so, like a child, he threw a tantrum, took his ball and went home. Make no mistake, that's the outcome his colleagues were trying to affect, but yes, the decision was ultimately his.

Posted by Shinyk | July 19, 2008 3:20 PM

Hitchens has made a career out of villifying people he doens't like. What was said about him wasn't nearly as bad as what he says about Mother Theresa, or princess Diana, or even the Dixie Chicks. He's no wilting flower.

Posted by mad6798 | July 19, 2008 7:23 PM

Yglesias blogs a lot, more than Ambinder, Douthat, and McArdle put together. And a second set of Marc, Ross, and Megan added to that. That is a good thing, and he is tremendously varied in his subject matter and sources of his material.

Unfortunately, he seems compelled these days to write as if he was a paid Netroots hack or Soros minion to "maintain his ideological purity".

As Matt departs, some people may wish to remind him of why Dennis Kucinich had so few supporters.

It is possible to be so loopily, fruity far-Left that even liberal Democrats laugh at what you say or write. Hopefully his think tank editors will straighten him out. "Mr Yglesias, your submission reads like it was done by a rich preppie college freshman who spent the summer in Cuba clearing sugar cane for Fidel and singing revolutionary songs. You need to move more towards an open minded liberal position, and hopefully you will be assaulted in DC by several black thugs on your way home today to better inform your present mindset.."

Posted by chris ford | July 19, 2008 7:24 PM

... ridiculous rollercoaster hair.

Slings and arrows, my dear man. Slings and arrows.

Posted by Ross Douthat's Hair | July 20, 2008 12:50 AM

Hitchens has made a career out of villifying people he doens't like. What was said about him wasn't nearly as bad as what he says about Mother Theresa, or princess Diana, or even the Dixie Chicks. He's no wilting flower.

Wilting flower? I'd say he's more like a less-funny Cartman, but you're missing the point. Hitchens' colleagues were perfectly happy with any and all vilifying done by Hitchens up until the day he violated the orthodoxies that the left supposedly "doesn't have." His divorce from the Nation was a form of orthodoxy-policing.

As I've said before, that Derbyshire doesn't receive the same treatment (for similar behavior) from the equivalent propaganda outlet on the right, suggests (to me, at least) that the right is less strict in policing ideological purity.

Posted by Shinyk | July 20, 2008 5:58 PM

the intern's sense of decency apparently assumes that chris ford's bile is considered ok, but my suggestion that he have considered dressing as Batman and taking his revenge on criminals, meaning black people, is beyond the pale.

I guess this intern went to Harvard as well.

Posted by James | July 21, 2008 10:18 AM

Actually, the Center for American Progress is an explicitly non-partisan institution. It's a 501(c)(3). Of course, they do have an "Action Fund."

Posted by JS | July 21, 2008 8:36 PM

Actually, the Center for American Progress is an explicitly non-partisan institution.

Mission statement of CAP (from CAP)

-to develop a long term vision of a progressive America,

-to provide a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals,

-to respond effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives, and

-to communicate progressive messages to the American public.

CAP's mission statement is every bit as openly partisan (perhaps ideologically closed would be a better way of putting it) as that of Heritage and moreso than AEI, which values (or claims to value) "open debate" above all other factors and has at least one joint venture with Brookings.

Posted by Shinyk | July 21, 2008 8:57 PM

Shinyk says: "As I've said before, that Derbyshire doesn't receive the same treatment (for similar behavior) from the equivalent propaganda outlet on the right, suggests (to me, at least) that the right is less strict in policing ideological purity."

Tell that to Andrew Sullivan - or even to Dumbya Bush, who is no longer a conservative, according to so many on the right who were juggling his cojones not so long ago.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 24, 2008 1:46 AM

I think it's Sullivan's temperment and chosen style of argument that keeps getting him serially blackballed less than his ideological positions. I seem to remember the left hated him just as much (or more) circa 2002 when he was calling out traitors, name by name. Calling enough specific people of one particular ideolological persuasion "traitors" or, in the case of the right "Christianists" and "Nazis," and it doesn't matter How close to or far from orthodoxy you are on the idological spectrum.

Posted by Shinyk | July 24, 2008 12:54 PM