What Could Have Been
The New Republic has an article looking at the process by which William Kristol became a Times Columnist. Of course, he wasn’t the only named bandied about by Arthur Sulzberger and Andrew Rosenthal. The article reveals a few others who were considered, and it’s almost sad to see what would have been:
So, last fall, Sulzberger and Times editorial-page editor Andrew Rosenthal prepared a list of some 25 conservative writers. According to a person with knowledge of the search, the names included Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Max Boot and three Weekly Standard staffers: senior editor Christopher Caldwell, associate editor Matthew Continetti, and the magazine’s editor and founder, Bill Kristol.
Krauthammer is just as singularly hawkish, if not more so than Kristol, but at least can write well and has the capacity to occasionally write an interesting, out of the box column like those he’s written on intelligent design or religion in the GOP primary. Max Boot is too a neocon’s neocon, but he’s also a UC Berkeley alumnus who has a pretty good knowledge of military history and would have more to say on foreign affairs than “omg, teh surge iz worken!” Matthew Continetti has an amazing first name, is a good straight-political writer and, because of his youth, would have been a interesting pick. Caldwell and Douthat, in my mind, are the class of conservative commentary. Not only are they both not orthodox conservatives, they both have the capacity to, like David Brooks, write columns that aren’t just reflecting the short term political situation or whatever controversy happens to flare up.
I’ve gone back and forth on Kristol. I think that a good op-ed page needs to have some conservative voices, and despite David Brooks’ Bush and Iraq cheerleading, one gets the feeling that he was designed to soothe liberals into thinking he’s an OK dude. Both Caldwell and Douthat have these qualities as well, but they are both such good and interesting writers, that their choice would have probably been lauded across the political spectrum. Kristol, on the other hand, has called for the Times to be investigated for treason and, more importantly, just isn’t that good of a writer, both of which should have been enough for him not to get the job.
Another interesting thing this article gets at is how the Kristol pick was largely a panic move by the Times. Because the right wing media, led by the Weekly Standard, had been relentlessly hammering the Times‘ pre-Iraq war coverage, they lurched right and “Judith Miller’s credulous front-page pieces on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction began appearing with increasing frequency.” The right wing media had so effectively “worked the refs,” constantly lambasting the Times, that Sulzburger and Rosenthal felt compelled to throw out a piece of red meat and hire one of their most vociferous opponents. Say what you will about liberal bias in the media, but left wing pressure has never forced the Times to hire an unabashed, Times-criticizing leftie like Eric Alterman, and likely never will.
This one line, from a former Times staffer, captures the mood best:
”My personal opinion is it’s an appalling choice,” a former veteran Times staffer said of Kristol’s appointment. “Not because he’s been wrong about so much, but because he called for prosecuting the Times for treason. You’re entitled to your opinion, but, in all due respect, go fuck yourself.”
