So the New York Times thinks it should have another right-winger on its op-ed pages. Naturally said writer is interested in revitalizing the country's right-wing party. But exactly what does he want it to be? Well, not Rush. But also not pragmatists. Centrists are, in his words, "intellectually vacuous". Apparently only small-government people need belong to this party (which will, then, make it a permanent minority party for the foreseeable future unless it runs savvy flim-flam artists because if it's been abundantly clear for decades that the American public is disinterested in a small government). He likes Democrats from the 80's who made their party more Republican - but the Republicans are already Republican, so I'm not sure of the value of that example. He wants a small government that innovates. Am I missing something? That he wants intellectually rigorous change is nice and all - but I'm left with not even the vaguest idea of what that would look like.
Posted by armand at May 5, 2009 04:49 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Media | PoliticsWhat, you'd rather have Bill Kristol back?
Douthat wrote a book about all this. I haven't read it, but I understand it's reasonably coherent (maybe even remarkably so by current rightwing standards -- *cough* Amity Shlaes *cough*).
I read him occasionally during his tenure at The Atlantic. I don't find a lot to agree with him on, but he's coherent and reasonable and amenable to debate and input.
Posted by: jacflash at May 5, 2009 05:31 PM | PERMALINKWell, no I don't want Kristol back. Noooo. But I guess I was figuring that a column calling for the Republican party to change into something else would provide a clearer view of what it should change into.
Posted by: Armand at May 5, 2009 06:51 PM | PERMALINK