« Goodbye To Matt | Main | The Shock Doctrine »

The Lies of Jonathan Chait

17 Jul 2008 10:37 pm

Somehow I missed this outrageous smear (probably because I was still icing my sprained ankle when it went up):

On Saturday, TNR beat a combined Atlantic Monthly/National Journal squad in softball 10-9 in a 10-inning thriller. The highlight of the game was Ross Douthat injuring himself while--this is true--attempting to wave home a runner while coaching third base. (Those worried about the future of theoconservatism and right-of-center populist reform will be happy to learn that Douthat limped off the field but later returned.)

Attempting to wave home a runner? Let's just be clear about this: I twisted my angle while leaping up and down to celebrate having successfully waved a runner - the tying runner, I might add, with two outs in the bottom of the last inning - home all the way from first (a gutsy call, in other words, worthy of the greatest third base coaches of all time) on an error by TNR's third baseman. I trust Frank Foer has already ordered an internal investigation at his publication to determine how this outrageous slander slipped by the fact-checkers.

:: Comments (33) ::

Share This

Comments (33)

Yeah, you successfully waved home the tying run, but you let TNR win?! No-one wins if this is the case, Ross.

Posted by Nathan P. Origer | July 17, 2008 11:40 PM

Did Steve Sailer give you permission to wave that runner home?

Also, aren't you under 40? Why weren't you playing? You look younger than a lot of guys big in DC punditry.

Posted by Reality Man | July 18, 2008 1:29 AM

Ross has one of the oddest comment threads on the web. It seems half the commentators here *hate* him, yet keep coming back for more. I understand posting regular responses to someone with whom you mostly disagree, but find profound or insightful or important in some way (for the sake of argument or dialogue), but why people bother responding when clearly they have no respect for the person, and hardly any sympathy with him, is beyond me.

And what responses! Just today, Ross posts about high prices in the online used-book market, and it’s “how can you possibly defend the capitalist system?” He links to a profile on unashamed sibling incest with a throw-away line that, in context, pretty clearly means “I find this behavior abhorrent,” and it’s “So now you’re advocating divorce? What kind of phony Catholic are you?” The guy can’t even joke around about a softball game without someone declaring that here, too, he’s done something wrong! (And by the way, why hasn’t he denounced Steve Sailor yet?)

I wonder if commentators have ever heard of the principle of charity in interpreting arguments. Try to think whether a given argument has any possible justification, try to think of the strongest case the other side can make, and argue against that, not against some straw man. At the end of the day, who can you possibly convince -- how can you possibly make any progress in learning -- how can you convince yourself -- unless you think of the best things to be said for the other side, and make the best arguments you can muster against them, and do it in an honest and fair manner?

For example, to the commentator who remarked that high prices for used paperbacks signifies the bankruptcy of free-market capitalism -- he might consider that high prices act as market signals, in this case making it more likely that a publishing house will reprint the book in question, bringing down the price and making interested parties (both buyers and sellers) richer. At least that’s the textbook, mainstream-economics response. I’m sure he might reconsider whether, after all, there’s something to be said for not scrapping the foundations of our economy and overturning the better part of the laws. (N.B.: yes, yes, I know this is unfair on my part. What I really mean to question is whether anyone thinks high prices in the used book market is formidable ground to argue against market economies as such.)

To the many commentators who thought Ross’s line, “Memo to Alison and Derek: Run as fast as you can” shows intellectual inconsistency (not that they would put it so politely – they’re more likely to call him a hypocrite), do they know: (a) Ross’s position on divorce by non-Catholics (maybe he finds nothing wrong with it, or thinks it’s an inferior choice but not wrong per se); or (b) what constitutes a valid reason for an annulment in Catholicism? Or maybe Ross would like to respond (c) the wife should “take up her cross” to live permanently separated but not divorced, like Lady Marchmain in “Brideshead Revisited.” The more interesting question is whether incest is good or bad, or more to the point, why exactly almost everyone agrees incest is very wrong. Using post as mere excuse for another installment in your ongoing series, “Why Ross is rethuglican scum, part two-hundred and four,” is mean spirited and basically pointless. In general, commentators here should be a little more charitable before assuming the worst.

Relentlessly hostile and unfair criticism makes for a boring discussion (or it makes the discussion interesting only in a perverse way). It makes it unlikely, if not impossible, that a worthwhile dialogue will take place. It also scares off readers of good will, who might want to agree or disagree with something said, but then think twice and decide against it -- who has time for a heated exchange with someone showing no sympathy or interest in learning? Who wants to be mocked by strangers?

Ross, hat’s off to you. I could never take this sort of nonsense abuse on a regular basis; it would get to me. (Your comment thread on the old American Scene blog used to be so good! How did it come to this??)

Posted by Paul | July 18, 2008 2:58 AM

Amen to that Paul. Why would anyone haunt a comments thread just to spit venom? It's weird.

Posted by Ben A | July 18, 2008 7:41 AM

Let's address the original post before the Tolstoyian plea for kindness below.

Ross, this is one of the funniest things I've ever read - the original TNR post is mildly amusing, but your description is hilarious - I'm not sure if it's the amazing lack of coordination that results in someone being unable to jump up and down successfully, or that you were relegated to being a coach in a publication which has Ambinder in it's roster.

back to Paul. The first two comments above you were jokes - you may not find them funny, but hey ho, Ross seems to be able to joke about it.

This 'charity in interpreting arguments' clearly doesn't apply to the commenters themselves - as the 'quotes' you put don't exist, nor do they represent the arguments. So that's a fine example of practicing what you preach there.

And where does it say we have to like someone to post - the point of comments is to discuss, not to be an echo chamber - Ross publishes his work, is trying to influence public opinion. If someone thinks he is full of it, they are (currently) free to say so.

Relentlessly hostile - So you've never noticed Peter Leavitt, Ferrell etc, nor the large amount of people who sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.

Ross recently said about Matt he will miss the intellectual sparring. That's what some of us like on the board - actual discussion. When the issue is something like the Iraq War, some of feel it's quite an important thing, and so it gets heated.

My personal position is that Ross advertises his morality far too much given that it never appears to actually influence his actions to the point of costing him anything. So yes, I think at best he uses it as a rhetorical tool, and at worst he is
often a hypocrite, and it's valid to point this out.

There were very specific points in the incest which you failed to notice, and the book price thing is more pointing out that someone who refers endlessly about the 'European model', and so on, seems to forget that when the free market means it might cost him. Some commenters notice things like that because they do read him frequently and closely.

It's interesting you wait until censorship and the most anodyne post to defend him. I would have liked to have seen your defence during the recent Vitter for President posts and similar.

Whatever his attackers make him out to be, it's not nearly as bad as his alleged friends like yourself - this is a harvard graduate who is on national tv with a new book with a hugely ambitious agenda. The way you depict him is someone who will crack if you don't lavish praise on him and only pick the things you agree on.

Have I misrepresented you? Probably. It's annoying isn't it?

And I'm not sure Ross reads them much anyway - the only reason the intern got brought it was because AMac sent a bleating email directly to Ross.

I hope this wasn't too upsetting for you. If so, I guess you and Ross will always have the American Scene.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 8:12 AM

I'm very sorry to hear about Ross' decision to leave the Atlantic to accept a new position as the third base coach of the Kansas City Royals. While I do find the team-player mentality of major league baseball unpleasant, I feel confident that Ross will maintain his anything-but-acerbic coaching style.

;)

Posted by Mike | July 18, 2008 9:47 AM

Paul wrote @ 2:58am --

I understand posting regular responses to someone with whom you mostly disagree, but find profound or insightful or important in some way (for the sake of argument or dialogue), but why people bother responding when clearly they have no respect for the person, and hardly any sympathy with him, is beyond me.
...try to think of the strongest case the other side can make, and argue against that, not against some straw man... and do it in an honest and fair manner.
...who has time for a heated exchange with someone showing no sympathy or interest in learning? Who wants to be mocked by strangers?

Thanks for making these points, Paul. The disconnect between the character of The Atlantic's print edition and Ross' blog's comments is interesting but not inspiring. It probably won't be straightforward to improve the tone of this section, given that "tone" is hard to define, and that "improve" is very much in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, the blogger sets his or her standards. Fortunately, there are a number of reasonable models to choose from.

Posted by AMac | July 18, 2008 10:17 AM

+1 Paul. The comments here have become bizarre and basically unreadable. The quality and seriousness of the discussion has declined as a result.

Posted by Curt | July 18, 2008 10:18 AM

Mike:

Given Ross' injury history, he seems a far better fit for our Atlanta Braves.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 18, 2008 10:47 AM

That's hilarious. Sorry about the knee, but I do hope this shining moment was caught on film. It would have made an excellent seque between the "Thrill of Victory" and "The Agony of Defeat" on Wide World of Sports... or the next Table intro for that matter.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 18, 2008 11:00 AM

Agreed, Paul and AMac. This blog is one of my regular stops, but I pretty much quit reading the comments a while back. I looked at these thinking an amusing baseball post might have some amusing basebeall responses, which it does, but sprinkled with enough of the same weird animosity to make it unpleasant.

Posted by Mac | July 18, 2008 11:55 AM

James has a point. I generally agree that the comments thread has some real nonsense from time to time, but if I have a choice between "civilized" racialists and the middle or low brow tone of those who object to them, I'll take the latter. Minus the vulgarity.

Regarding the actual post, I know you like the East Coast, Ross, but the SF Giants might be a safer bet if you make the switch to coaching. There aren't nearly as many opportunities to wave people around third and risk injuring yourself.

Posted by Ferrell | July 18, 2008 12:21 PM

Any of you ever played in a company softball game where there were non-playing "coaches?" Isn't the more likely explanation that Ross made the last out in the previous inning and thus was given the taks of base coach?

Posted by JohnMcG | July 18, 2008 1:18 PM

I think Ross get's ridiculed because he tries to be an intellectual Social Conservative which is an oxymoron. It makes him and his writing easy targets.

Posted by Colonel Danite | July 18, 2008 1:46 PM

That and his hair.

Posted by Douthat the Hack | July 18, 2008 1:50 PM

I've tried to teach Ross about en passant captures but have found him unyielding in his resistance.

I am
Ross Douthat's Hair

Posted by Ross Douthat's Hair | January 18, 2008 5:31 PM


Over the years, Ross has tried to police me. I resist these efforts unyieldingly.

Give up, Ross.

I am
Ross Douthat's Hair

Posted by Ross Douthat's Hair | February 13, 2008 6:36 PM


I've slept with many people that Ross hasn't.

This is because

I am
Ross Douthat's Hair

and I am semi-autonomous.

Posted by Ross Douthat's Hair | April 16, 2008 3:11 PM


I prefer "beautifully-coiffed rap scold Douthat."

I remain
Ross Douthat's Hair

Posted by Ross Douthat's Hair | April 22, 2008 3:03 PM

I am a cresting wave at Ka'anapali
I am the cliffs of Nanga Parbat
I am Cumulonimbus
I am Thunder.
I am Ross Douthat's Hair

Posted by Sangfroid826 | May 5, 2008 6:35 PM

Those who have witnessed my fineness in person have been known to later remark that it seemed like I appeared to have been CGI-enhanced, an understandable mistake.

In actuality, my aesthetic is far more pre-CGI; I associate myself with this as a reference.

I remain
Ross Douthat's Hair

Posted by Ross Douthat's Hair | May 12, 2008 2:01 PM


I glower.
I shine.
I am the crown of splendor.
The sweep of my convexity is fearsome.
I am Ross Douthat's hair.

Posted by Anna | July 4, 2008 4:02 PM

Posted by The Hair that dare not speak it's name | July 18, 2008 1:57 PM

James --

FYI, I submitted a reply to your 10:25 am comment this morning, but it did not pass moderation. It wasn't written to offend, but who knows how interns think?

Posted by AMac | July 18, 2008 3:40 PM

Amac,

There isn't any moderation unless it trips certain words. I've only had it happen once, but then the browser crashed, so I'm unsure what word was the problem.

As for your comment, I guess you reap what you sow.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 3:46 PM

Since I seem to be back in Mr. Douthat's good graces (temporarily?), here's part of what I wrote --

...[James @ 10:25 am], you have now twice directed Douthat's readers to Majority Rights to view a two-year-old attack on Razib, the lead blogger at GNXP, a molecular-biology-oriented blog that often includes illuminating comment threads touching on Human Biodiversity.

"Majority Rights" is so named because its founders espouse race-based White Rights. Best I can tell, Razib earned their ire by scorning such beliefs.

In the spirit of Paul's comment, I don't think that you are sympathetic to "Majority Rights'" ugly position. Rather, I'm guessing that you Googled for 'dirt' on Razib to use as a stick against me in the linked thread. Alas, you didn't pause to grasp the context of that particular dispute...

Posted by AMac | July 18, 2008 3:49 PM

That doesn't answer the accusation, which is your blog of civility and moderation redirected people who visited that link to an interracial porn site.

I never questioned peoples rights to be racist, so long as I was then able to call them vermin in response.

Are you saying that Razib did not redirect people to that porn site? That what that site said was a complete lie?

A simple yes/no clarifies things very quickly.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 3:58 PM

And it's nice that you are being so civil as to guess that i am digging for 'dirt'.

If you had ventured in the spirit of research to type "gene expression blog" as I did to save trying to find the link in the original post, you (presumably) will see the article I linked to at #5 in google.

and thank you for the patronising comments re grasping the debate.

I actually was waiting for you to jump in on that, as it essentially shows that what the blog and its participants hate is people dissenting from their views on all sides - and so any defence will be use, be it freedom of speech by ben, 'civility' by yourself (which I fail to see in your post above), and, in the case of Razib, apparently redirecting people to porn sites.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 4:03 PM

James @ 3:46 pm --

Thanks for the clarification, though (as you might guess) I generally prefer to avoid George Carlin's seven words in my writing.

So the concluding portion of this morning's comment is after the line. Intern can cut this, if I'm overstepping.

I'll check back to read your riposte, but this is probably my final contribution to this thread. I don't think that there is much that either of us would learn from a protracted exchange.

Regarding your 3:58 pm question on Razib's two-years-past spat with the white supremacists: in my opinion, rerouting URL calls to an NSFW site under those circumstances is a venial and not a mortal sin.

A related question for you: can you point to a time when you've expressed a similar level of outrage when a partisan from your side has stooped to naughty tactics in a heated dispute?

If not, I'll suppose that either (1) hard-leftists heed their angelic nature when blogging, or (2) your display has more to do with your indignation on his (or my) politics than with his conduct.

- - - - - - -

...James, your online persona is that of a brawler (though certainly not the crudest among the commentariat here). You and like-minded people have made yourselves at home chez Douthat, turning it into the blog equivalent of a biker bar.

These establishments are great for waxing indignant on the cause du jour, and for cutting one's opponents down to size. A perceptive commenter on the prior thread noted the status-seeking that can drive this behavior, a motivation that Christian Lander has lampooned at "Stuff White People Like."

If Mr. Douthat wants to add his blog to the long list of sites that folks visit in order to belittle and needle their real and imagined enemies--well, by all means, he should have at it! For that matter, he's welcome to invite you to compose a blistering and indignant rebuttal to my bleat (as you phrase it).

On the other hand, it's not certain that most of Douthat's readers agree with your stance.

Time will tell, I guess.

Posted by AMac | July 18, 2008 4:22 PM

Amac,

Since you won't respond, it was to do neither with politics or conduct, but hypocrisy.

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Should I email you about it?

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 4:28 PM

> If I was looking to get 'dirt' or cause hassle, AMac, I might have done something like this

"if" and "might." Nice.

You and I are done.

Posted by AMac | July 18, 2008 4:31 PM

AMac,

I was not remotely looking to get anything except to the blog. But since you thought the worst, I might as well act the part.

But it's such a shame we're done. We were getting so close.

You were very masculine the way you ended it though.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 4:39 PM

I think Ross get's ridiculed because he tries to be an intellectual Social Conservative which is an oxymoron. It makes him and his writing easy targets.

I think the truth in that statement is that Ross is a counterexample to what people desperately want to believe about social conservatives -- that we're all mouth-breathing fanatics motivated by bigotry and misogyny.

So, he must be taken down. And if he can be goaded into engaging personal insults and other incivilities, then we have our proof, and it would be true that there is not such thing as a thoughtful social conservative.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 18, 2008 5:19 PM

AMac,

I would imagine by now you've sent another email to Ross.

Do we get to read that one too?

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 5:21 PM

To James:

Sorry I don't have time to address most of what you said, but I do owe you an apology for misreading something you had written (your joke in the post about the used-book market). Looking at it again, clearly I read it more seriously than you intended. In fact I was just using a few recent examples to give point to something I've been annoyed at for a while, and probably did not look at those examples as closely as I should have.

About "not practicing what I preach," fair enough, I guess.... But I was exaggerating for comic / rhetorical effect, which can also have a place in fair-minded argument (if it's partly tongue-in-cheek, etc.)

Anyhow, sorry to have misrepresented what you wrote.

Posted by Paul | July 18, 2008 6:16 PM

Hi Paul, thanks for the reply. No problem and hope my response wasn't too combative. Its common for people to misread things here, but very rare for them to say so. Hope you have a good weekend

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 6:48 PM

Excellent post.

Question for the audience: Why is it that most of the political bloggers I read are at their best when not discussing politics?

Before anyone indulges in some sort of partisan distinction, this observation applies equally to both liberals and conservatives.

Could it be that lucid writing and political wonkery are, in some sense, mutually exclusive?

Posted by Staash | July 18, 2008 10:09 PM

Staash ventures away from unadulterated Sailer-worship long enough to post: "Why is it that most of the political bloggers I read are at their best when not discussing politics?

Before anyone indulges in some sort of partisan distinction, this observation applies equally to both liberals and conservatives.

Could it be that lucid writing and political wonkery are, in some sense, mutually exclusive?"

Since you're the common denominator maybe you don't actually care about politics yourself. But I think it's true that Ross (for instance) doesn't do much worthwhile political blogging. He's too careerist in his approach, and too beholden to the GOP.

Posted by he MoeLarryAndJesus | July 20, 2008 1:09 AM

Death to East Shore Pool!

Posted by Avon Candy | July 20, 2008 5:30 AM