These are the talking heads and the writing hands that look at the political scene from day to day and try to impose a coherent interpretation on it. Not considering their private lives, their looks, the books they’ve written, or anything other than what they say on TV and print on the op-ed page, who are your favorites?
My top two, in no particular order, are Jonathan Rauch and Nat Hentoff. Both very sincere men, who write and reason in calm, polite tones. Both are intellectually honest, and not in the least afraid to buck the orthodox party line of the camp they come from. Rauch, a conservative (he clearly is friendly to the libertarians, but has none of their utopianism) stands up for gay rights and took a well-reasoned stand against Clinton’s impeachment; Hentoff, a New Deal liberal, is not afraid to voice his moral disapproval of abortion or of assisted suicide. I do not agree with everything they write (in fact, I disagreed with each of the opinions I just mentioned), but I am never offended by their views because I can see that they come by them honestly.
William Raspberry used to be a favorite of mine also, but I don’t get the Washington Post and my local paper stopped carrying his columns years ago, so I can’t say what I think of his editorials today. But my respect for him was essentially similar; he plotted his own course, and always called the pitch as he saw it.
My two least favorite pundits are Molly Ivins, with her constant grating tone of caustic malice, and Cal Thomas for his wooden-headed dogmatism. The best example of the former is Ivins’ gloating pleasure at the thought of investors and businesses being harmed by a stock market downturn; the best example of the latter is Thomas calling that damn commie liberal Pope John Paul II on the carpet for recognizing the truth of evolution!
I go back and forth on Molly Ivins. Some things she writes are incredible but when she is bad, she is REALLY bad.
I like Maureen Dowd more often than not, but I think that Gail Collins completely eclipsed her during the election, and I am glad to see that Gail apprently has been allowed to keep the column (it was supposed to end with the election). Also at the New York Times, I respect Paul Krugman.
Nat Hentoff is certainly the liberal I most respect. I disagree with him on many, many issues, but I know that I can expect nothing less than complete honesty from him.
On the right I respect both George Will and Bill Buckley (Buckley more than Will). In a profession that is dominated more by emotional ideology than by intellectual ideology I know I can rely on these two men to have thought out their positions; whether I agree with it or not.
Juan Williams is someone I think is overlooked by most people. He’s much better in print than on TV (and don’t even mention how he has ruined Talk of the Nation on NPR).
Most of the talking heads you see on TV could disappear and I wouldn’t really care. It may surprise some, but I think Bill O’Reilly is one of the most honest gasbags on TV (and one of the most egotistical).
The great disappointment to me is the difficult of finding a good voice from the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. Most of the loud voices out there are extreme kooks but then so are most of the loud voices on the extreme right and they get into print. The most reliable sources for extreme left commentary are college radio and alternative presses. Unfortunately almost no talent goes into most of those media (the Village Voice just isn’t what it used to be). There are some bright lights but they are too much trouble to seek out regularly.
Just kidding! I occasionally read his columns, but only because it is, to use the oft-repeated analogy, like watching a car accident. It’s irritating and frustrating, but it makes me feel better about my own intelligence.
Mark Steyn Home | The National Post Home Page | National Post is also very excellent, but he’s from a place called Canada (sp?) and many of his columns involve local politics – apparently this “Canada” is an independent nation – and therefore reference issues that will not be understood by normal people. (For instance, who is this “Jean Chriten” woman?)
Molly Ivins is a hoot! And if you think its easy being a liberal in Texas, pardner, you should try it. And shes been slugging it out with the troglodyte right in Texas for years. Takes guts, takes stamina, takes a bulletproof hide. What other columnist can you think of that it would be cool to drink beer and eat bar-b-q with? Further, I highly recommend her book (co-written) Shrub, which is about as complete a history of “Landslide” George as will likely ever be written.
Geo. Will, on the other hand, is a sanctimonious apologist for the rich white elite that he wants to join. He’s the guy the right turns to when they want to dress up some ludicrous proposition in intellectual clothing. When he wants to pretend he has something akin to the common touch, he bores you about baseball. “Feh!”, as they say in Lubbock.
I have to admit I’m not much of a George Will fan. He writes well, but he is usually a party-line hack, capable of amazing hypocrisy. And he will sometimes dress up a ludicrous proposition in intellectual clothing. Molly Ivins, on the other hand, couldn’t make the Pythagorean Theorem look intellectually respectable if her life depended on it.
I’m curious, can you give an example of what you consider to be “amazing hypocrisy” on George Will’s part? Not necessarily getting into detail, just a brief description would suffice. Thanks.
I’m with elucidator here. She’s at her best when she’s skewering some jerk who desperately deserves it. She’s also just flat-out fun to read, period. I’m lucky I can get her column in Minnesota.
The columnist who misses the point most often is Katherine Kersten, who has a column in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. She is the head of some think tank or other, and is so consistently “pro-family” (whatever THAT means) that she views every issue in that light. For example, after American Beauty won at the Oscars last year, she painted the movie as anti-family and something that kids shouldn’t see. Well, duh! First of all, the movie was about a family in crisis. Second, it was rated R for a number of reasons, including language, violence, illegal drug use, and sex, none of which is appropriate for children. I have no problems with family issues, but I do have problems with people who work to make the world so kid-friendly that there’s nothing left for adults.
My favorite has recently died–Lars-Erik Nelson, who was even-handed, intelligent and tough. When he died I was shocked to discover that he was a Republican, because I agreed with nearly everything he wrote.
I’m a fan of Gail Collins and Bob Herbert of the Times, Margaret Carlson of Time Magazine, Molly Ivins, and sometimes, Clarence Page.
I’d have to go with Molly Ivins. Her love of the Reublic comes through so much in every word, casuing her to occasiionally unleash vitroil on the stupidities of American political life: the failings of Clinton, the mean-spiritedness of so many Republican leaders, the insane Texan government, etc.
For those who think her too caustic, look at the last few columns of her last collection, “You Got 'Ta Dance With Them What Brung Ya,” where she eulogizes her parents, her former editor and Barbara Jordan. Molly Ivins is a tough talker, but damn if she doesn’t know to love. She can praise the good just as well as flaying the bad.
Take one of her columns on President Clinton and the impeachment, for instance. She notes in talking about Clinton as a President, besides his failings in a private matter, that he works harder than any human could be expected to work, even as President. She then goes on to wish that she wished she could compliment Virginia Kelly on raising such an unfailingly polite son. Did Clinton lash out at his persecutors, as any of us would? Nope - he lashed out when his wife was attacked. I was raised by a mother who knew from polite, and I’m not sure I could have restrained myself like that.
Anyway, back to Molly. Yes, she’s very critical of the conservative forces that want to roll back the advances of feminism, liberalism and other cultural forces. But hey, who wants to go back there besides some nutcases.
I also like George Will. Yes, I know it’s just a bit of a shift, but the man can write, even if he’s a little too anglo-saxon for my taste.
I also love David Chapman (is he our of the Washington Post or Times? I read him in the Chicago Tribune). Wonderful caring writer.
I enjoy most of the conservative columnists already mentioned. I’ll add Novak to what’s been submitted.
I also like reading Broder, Raspberry, Hentoff, and Steyn. If P.J. O’Roarke could be called a “columnist” he automatically goes to the top of the list.
Ben Stein, as well. He writes a monthly column for The American Spectator called “Ben Stein’s Diary.” True, he dotes on his son too much, but other than that he provides a very interesting perspective on Hollywood, lawyering, and politics. He writes very, very well.
On the other hand, I don’t see how Ivins got a job in the business. She’s excrutiating to read. She seems so bitter.
George Will absolutely rocks. There are only two columns I watch on the Internet regularly, Straight Dope and George Will. I’m not a sports fan though, so I don’t really get into his baseball thing.
elucidator wrote
Hmmmm. Even if you don’t agree with him politically, I don’t see how you can say with a straight face that he takes the ludicrous and makes it appear intellectual. Even a single example would be appreciated.
The example that springs to mind right off was when Ted Kaczynski (sp?), the Unabomber, was arrested with the help of a tip from his brother. The police and federal prosecutors promised the brother leniency for Kaczynski in exchange for the tip, then promptly reneged on their words. Will defended this action in print, saying that the prosecutors were “entitled to use guile,” not against the murderer Kaczynski, mind you, but against his innocent brother. Leaving aside the moral aspects of “guile,” which the less charitable might call lying, did it not occur to Will the effects this might have on apprehending future terrorists, when potential informants know the government’s word cannot be trusted? The hypocritical aspect of the matter is that Will is normally at the forefront of those who criticize mendacity by government officials, most particularly that of Bill Clinton.
Another instance is that for Will, the First Amendment only applies when it is useful to Republicans; thus campaign finance reforms impinge on free speech, but censoring porn or violent rock lyrics does not.
I say again that Will is a good, no, an excellent writer. And as a baseball fan, I thoroughly enjoyed Men At Work. But he just does not strike me as a man of principle.
I searched around for the article (not because I doubt you, but rather because I wanted to read the whole thing firsthand) and couldn’t find it. If you have a link, I’d like to read the article. No matter; I don’t see why his defending the police makes him hypocritical. Lying to an informant in the pursuit of an extremist criminal is quite different from lying to the public or lying under oath. I can’t agree that this is an example of hypocrisy.
I don’t see this as an example of hypocrisy either. I don’t want this to turn this thread into a first amendment debate, but Will’s argument goes: First Amendment Rights are specifically about the freedom to express political speech. Spending money on political causes is exactly this. Pornography is not.
I like George Will ,Walter Williams, Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell for their amazing intellects. The columnist I most enjoy are Jonah Goldberg and Mugger for their gossipy styles.