Welcome to TNR’s 2011 list issue. Yesterday we named the most powerful, least famous people in Washington. Today’s installment: DC’s most over-rated thinkers.
NEWT GINGRICH
Maybe it’s the Ph.D., his extensive bibliography, or his constant appearances on Fox News, but Newt Gingrich has held on to his reputation as the “ideas man” of the Republican Party for too long. Last May, when Gingrich was contemplating a run in 2012, Eric Cantor swooned over his intellect and The Washington Post published a story headlined: “Newt Gingrich has Ideas. Can He Turn Them into Presidential Appeal?” In Time magazine, Mark Halperin extolled his “blistering brainpower.” It’s certainly not evident to us. Gingrich has one of the loosest, least rigorous, most pretentious minds in politics. He loves ideas, he’s just no good at them; and the idea of ideas is not enough to make a man a serious intellectual. The bloopers in his works of history—fiction and nonfiction, and nonfiction that turns out to be fiction—are legendary.
PARAG KHANNA
Parag Khanna’s online bio is the Platonic ideal of puffed-up nonsense. Khanna is described as a “leading geo-strategist,” “an accomplished adventurer,” and “an active and advanced tennis player.” We further learn that he speaks five foreign languages, has traveled in more than 100 countries, and “has climbed numerous 20,000-foot plus peaks.” What’s more, he’s “a frequent speaker at international conferences” who briefs “corporations on global trends, systemic risks and emerging market strategies.” He has hosted an MTV show, was the first video blogger at ForeignPolicy.com, and directs something called the “Hybrid Reality Institute.” His recent book is actually called How to Run the World. It is a self-congratulatory anthology of clichés and platitudes—the life of the mind, Davos-style.
FLYNT LEVERETT AND HILLARY MANN LEVERETT
When this husband-and-wife foreign policy team left George W. Bush’s National Security Council in 2003, ostensibly over differences regarding the war on terrorism, it was predictable that liberals would leap at any expression of their discontent. When, in 2006, they sought to publish a New York Times op-ed on Bush’s supposed unwillingness to meet and negotiate with Iranian officials, and the White House insisted on censoring it, the Times published the heavily edited version anyway. An Esquire profile subsequently cast them as rebellious heroes. But, in the aftermath of the troubling Iranian elections in 2009, the Leveretts practically turned into champions for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, becoming prominent voices arguing for his legitimacy. “I think he’s actually a quite intelligent man,” Flynt told TNR in 2010. “I think he also has really extraordinary political skills.” Apologetics is not analysis. They should be ashamed.
RACHEL MADDOW
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow gets a lot of credit for her quirky intellect. A fawning New York magazine profile began with a lengthy vignette about her on-air musings on Dadaism, as well as her impressive resumé—she’s a Rhodes scholar and an Oxford Ph.D., in case you didn’t know. But Maddow is a textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective. She knows the answers even before she has the questions. The truth about everything is completely obvious to her. She seems utterly incapable of doubt or complication. Her show is a great tribute to Fox, because it copies the Fox style exactly.
AYN RAND
Ayn Rand has earned her presence on this list by the astonishing persistence of her theories, which seem to have attained particular volume as of late, receiving endorsement from everyone from American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks to Representative Paul Ryan (who supposedly requires his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged) to Wall Street Journal economics writer Stephen Moore (“‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years,” he wrote). Despite the fact that Rand’s worldview is a crackpot Manicheanism, in which the world is divided between virtuous, productive individuals and lazy parasites, Rand’s hold on American conservatism continues to grow, as if real thinking is ever compatible with a cult.
Better title: "A list of people who irritate the editors of TNR." I want to like this article, but parts of it strike me as being very petty.
Better title: "A list of people who irritate the editors of TNR." I want to like this article, but parts of it strike me as being very petty.
Where's Dowd? She's the worst. Lazy and really out-of-touch at this point. Her cultural references are really stale at this point.
Where's Dowd? She's the worst. Lazy and really out-of-touch at this point. Her cultural references are really stale at this point.
Hey Molly, no Dowd because no rates her as a thinker, let alone an overrated one.
Hey Molly, no Dowd because no rates her as a thinker, let alone an overrated one.
That's a gutsy choice for a liberal paper. The editors are to be congratulated for calling out the slimy anti-Semitic liar Stephen Walt.
That's a gutsy choice for a liberal paper. The editors are to be congratulated for calling out the slimy anti-Semitic liar Stephen Walt.
What about appalling bigot Marty 'Muslim life is cheap' Peretz. If you're looking for an idealess barometer what about William 'VSP' Galston... oh, right.
What about appalling bigot Marty 'Muslim life is cheap' Peretz. If you're looking for an idealess barometer what about William 'VSP' Galston... oh, right.
@bulbman
Yes, thank goodness TNR has finally told us what they think about Stephen Walt. It's never come up before.
@Curran
Agreed. It's not a bad premise for an article, but needs much, much more depth. Without that, it's just bitching. I also feel, as usual, like TNR is trying just a bit too hard to prove what brave, heterodox counterpoints to an allegedly-stifling liberal consensus they are. It's of a piece with their premature and cowardly denunciation of Occupy Wall Street. Sadly, the TNR editorial page has become a redoubt of its own brand of conventional wisdom. Not sure why I come here, now Chait's gone.
@bulbman
Yes, thank goodness TNR has finally told us what they think about Stephen Walt. It's never come up before.
@Curran
Agreed. It's not a bad premise for an article, but needs much, much more depth. Without that, it's just bitching. I also feel, as usual, like TNR is trying just a bit too hard to prove what brave, heterodox counterpoints to an allegedly-stifling liberal consensus they are. It's of a piece with their premature and cowardly denunciation of Occupy Wall Street. Sadly, the TNR editorial page has become a redoubt of its own brand of conventional wisdom. Not sure why I come here, now Chait's gone.
Curran is right. This reads like an email that TNR editors send to themselves, not something they share with the rest of us. To take down DC's most "over-rated serious thinkers" in a breezy, drive-by shooting hit piece that is long on ad hominem insult but short on real thought seems unserious in itself, and rather self-flattering to boot.
Curran is right. This reads like an email that TNR editors send to themselves, not something they share with the rest of us. To take down DC's most "over-rated serious thinkers" in a breezy, drive-by shooting hit piece that is long on ad hominem insult but short on real thought seems unserious in itself, and rather self-flattering to boot.
A further point. It is hard to take a list like this seriously that does not include George F. Will among its entrants. As anyone who has followed his writing closely (as I have) since he first broke on the scene in Newsweek sometime around 1975 knows, the Oxford educated, one-time professor of political philosophy is a perfect representative of the devolution of conservative intellectual integrity into right wing hackery.
His missuse of data on global warming is notorious. But Will's most persistent antagonist turns out to be Will himself. He routinely violates his own well-known principles about the civilizing and shaping power of the law and the primacy of the community over individual ... view full comment
A further point. It is hard to take a list like this seriously that does not include George F. Will among its entrants. As anyone who has followed his writing closely (as I have) since he first broke on the scene in Newsweek sometime around 1975 knows, the Oxford educated, one-time professor of political philosophy is a perfect representative of the devolution of conservative intellectual integrity into right wing hackery.
His missuse of data on global warming is notorious. But Will's most persistent antagonist turns out to be Will himself. He routinely violates his own well-known principles about the civilizing and shaping power of the law and the primacy of the community over individual self-will to score political points against present targets, as he did in a recent hit piece against Elizabeth Warren and her marvelous restatement of the American social contract. Many of us noticed that Will's accusation that Warren stood against freedom and individualism and for "collectivism" were a clear repudiation of beliefs about individual self-interest and the community that he sketched out in 1983's Statecraft as Soulcraft: What Government Does. Similar ideas were contatined in his prologue to Clinton Rossiter's re-print of Conservatism in America.
But the most hilarious piece Will has ever written was the time a few years ago when the Tory bow-tie elitist tried to do the Establishment's bidding by taking down Sarah Palin and the dangerous brand of not-ready-for-primetime populism she represents ("a source of resentments but not good policy") without antagonizing his Tea Party readers. Being sure to stoke populist cultural resentments for which right wing propagandists are now famous, Will basically arrived at the position that Sarah Palin and Tea Party populism are bad for America -- and anyone who agrees with him is a condescending liberal elitist snob.
There was a time that George Will said America was not taxed enough, spoken like a true conservative who believes people should always pay their bills. There was also a time when, like most traditional conservatives, he wasn't too high on free market capitalism either because of the "creative destruction" that plays havoc with the stability of communities that is the job of proper conservatives to protect.
I'm afraid that George Will, like too many conservative thinkers today, have found it's a whole lot more lucrative to modify those positions in order to cater to clienteles who rent speakers. And so to do justice to George Will's hypocrisy and intellectual corruption, TNR editors would need more than a list. They'd need a cover story.
Pretty Good List.
Short Concise and well developed.
I have a few more I would like to add, but this is a great start.
Pretty Good List.
Short Concise and well developed.
I have a few more I would like to add, but this is a great start.
Since the "editors" developed this list, it's only fair that the technique used be disclosed. Did each editor select one thinker to be on the list, or did the editors vote on a much longer list and those with the most votes "won"? I'd guess the former (how else to explain such variety and a few well-worn thinkers). As for Maddow, MSNBC deserves at least one on the list (this is the contrarian TNR), but she is known to have guests with opposite (to hers) views. I'd have picked the talking horse (but maybe he isn't considered a thinker). If I were to develop such a list, I would have taken a more scientific approach, and included every major public figure that Andrew Sullivan first identi ... view full comment
Since the "editors" developed this list, it's only fair that the technique used be disclosed. Did each editor select one thinker to be on the list, or did the editors vote on a much longer list and those with the most votes "won"? I'd guess the former (how else to explain such variety and a few well-worn thinkers). As for Maddow, MSNBC deserves at least one on the list (this is the contrarian TNR), but she is known to have guests with opposite (to hers) views. I'd have picked the talking horse (but maybe he isn't considered a thinker). If I were to develop such a list, I would have taken a more scientific approach, and included every major public figure that Andrew Sullivan first identified as a thinker and later identified as a dork. His judgment is this regard is perfect. This would be the thinking man's thinkers list.
It continues to feel like TNR has lost its mind ...
It continues to feel like TNR has lost its mind ...
No David Brooks?
So-called deep thinker impervious to making logical arguments instead of offering up one false dichotomy after another..
No David Brooks?
So-called deep thinker impervious to making logical arguments instead of offering up one false dichotomy after another..
It must be a sign of progress that Thomas Friedman and George Will no longer merit being on this list. At least, I hope that's what it is rather than merely an oversight.
Also, I realize that there is probably a TNR blood oath that you can't criticize former staffers in print (unless you're Marty or LW, in which case everyone is fair game) -- but not surely Charles Krauthammer belongs on this list.
It must be a sign of progress that Thomas Friedman and George Will no longer merit being on this list. At least, I hope that's what it is rather than merely an oversight.
Also, I realize that there is probably a TNR blood oath that you can't criticize former staffers in print (unless you're Marty or LW, in which case everyone is fair game) -- but not surely Charles Krauthammer belongs on this list.
Molly - you beat me to it. Every so often, I open one of Dowd's columns just to see if she continues to be as awful as always, get about halfway through, and close it in disgust.
Molly - you beat me to it. Every so often, I open one of Dowd's columns just to see if she continues to be as awful as always, get about halfway through, and close it in disgust.
I love these comments. You know, it really depends on who you happen to regard as a 'thinker'. I never thought of Maddow or Zakaria as 'thinkers'. Will, Friedman, Brooks, Dowd, and Krauthammer should qualify as charter members on this list.
I love these comments. You know, it really depends on who you happen to regard as a 'thinker'. I never thought of Maddow or Zakaria as 'thinkers'. Will, Friedman, Brooks, Dowd, and Krauthammer should qualify as charter members on this list.
Ted your two posts are in tension with each other.
You complain about the breezy, all too casual and ad hominem list and then you complain that George Will's not on it.
Ted your two posts are in tension with each other.
You complain about the breezy, all too casual and ad hominem list and then you complain that George Will's not on it.
If I may raise an objection to the entry for Rachel Maddow - no, I don't object to her being on the list per se, because it's your list, The Editors, not mine, and you are free to put whomever you want on such a list. But on Ms. Maddow's behalf, I must say that I find the claim that her show "copies the Fox style exactly" rather insulting. Yes, Rachel Maddow has a point of view, a liberal-left point of view from which she rarely, if ever, wavers. You'll get no argument from me on that. And you could certainly argue that she does not display "doubt or complication" very often in regards to her liberal worldview.
But to say that she "copies the Fox style exactly"? Good heavens, The Editors ... view full comment
If I may raise an objection to the entry for Rachel Maddow - no, I don't object to her being on the list per se, because it's your list, The Editors, not mine, and you are free to put whomever you want on such a list. But on Ms. Maddow's behalf, I must say that I find the claim that her show "copies the Fox style exactly" rather insulting. Yes, Rachel Maddow has a point of view, a liberal-left point of view from which she rarely, if ever, wavers. You'll get no argument from me on that. And you could certainly argue that she does not display "doubt or complication" very often in regards to her liberal worldview.
But to say that she "copies the Fox style exactly"? Good heavens, The Editors, what are you thinking? Maddow does not insult guests to their face, does not mask partisan propaganda as news a la Sean Hannity, (she is a devoted liberal but not a die-hard Democrat by any means), does not shout people down and demand that their microphones be turned off a la Bill O'Reilly, does not flout insane conspiracy theories a la Glenn Beck... She does not even raise her voice or get overly passionate, as do her current and former colleagues Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Say what you will about Rachel Maddow, but she and her show are a far cry from Fox News.
Amen Obriendavi! I absolutely agree. Equating Maddow to Fox rabid "journalism" is... exactly something that Fox might do and indeed does. Shame on you for the sin of false equivalency! Give Maddow a break. She is not a "thinker" (what is that?) but an excellent, informed interviewer who is always pertinent and focused.
Amen Obriendavi! I absolutely agree. Equating Maddow to Fox rabid "journalism" is... exactly something that Fox might do and indeed does. Shame on you for the sin of false equivalency! Give Maddow a break. She is not a "thinker" (what is that?) but an excellent, informed interviewer who is always pertinent and focused.
That really needed to be said obriendavi - thank you.
That really needed to be said obriendavi - thank you.
She doesn't deliberately skew facts to suit her agenda or outright lie the way Fox does, but Maddow's lack of irony toward her own beliefs is definitely Fox-esque. That's why she has problems booking guests, especially guests who differ from her. She definitely supports her beliefs with facts, which makes her immediately better than Fox, but that's not a matter of style; it's a matter of method. I'd just like her to show that she has an evolving point of view rather than to just childishly protect the one she's already established. And this is where she generally fails for me. I say this as someone who listens to her show on a podcast most days.
She doesn't deliberately skew facts to suit her agenda or outright lie the way Fox does, but Maddow's lack of irony toward her own beliefs is definitely Fox-esque. That's why she has problems booking guests, especially guests who differ from her. She definitely supports her beliefs with facts, which makes her immediately better than Fox, but that's not a matter of style; it's a matter of method. I'd just like her to show that she has an evolving point of view rather than to just childishly protect the one she's already established. And this is where she generally fails for me. I say this as someone who listens to her show on a podcast most days.
Yes, Tristan, you are right about MoDo. I haven't read her column in years it became so tiresome. I even read Tom Friedman's, and I think he's gone round the bend.
Yes, Tristan, you are right about MoDo. I haven't read her column in years it became so tiresome. I even read Tom Friedman's, and I think he's gone round the bend.
Just a thought about thinkers: who are thinkers; and what category of person comes under that rubric such that they are fair game for this list?
Thinkers, I'd say, are necessarily, but not sufficiently, intellectuals, either private or public ones--the latter, those who reason publicly, who think deeply and illuminatingly on a first principles basis about important issues.
Who's fair game for this list: those who profess to be thinkers, are perceived to be important thinkers, centred in your nation's capital, and aren't very good at it despite reptuation and perhaps adulation.
So, for example, on these criteria, Rachel Maddow for one, albeit very smart, is not a thinker, I'd argue. Not does s ... view full comment
Just a thought about thinkers: who are thinkers; and what category of person comes under that rubric such that they are fair game for this list?
Thinkers, I'd say, are necessarily, but not sufficiently, intellectuals, either private or public ones--the latter, those who reason publicly, who think deeply and illuminatingly on a first principles basis about important issues.
Who's fair game for this list: those who profess to be thinkers, are perceived to be important thinkers, centred in your nation's capital, and aren't very good at it despite reptuation and perhaps adulation.
So, for example, on these criteria, Rachel Maddow for one, albeit very smart, is not a thinker, I'd argue. Not does she profess to be. So I think she shouldn't be on this list.
p.s. Good discussion of the Divine Ms M on this thread, for both strengths and weaknesses. She's qualitatively better than *anyone* on Fox, and I've got mixed feelings about her, so that saying she's Fox-like beggars comparison.
p.p.s.s. Ms shouldn't have a period after it, just as Miss doesn't have one. Neither are abbreviations.
p.p.p.s.s.s. You all should catch Chris Hayes on weekend mornings on MSNBC. He's the best of the lot, amazingly good, with terrifically smart guests and terrifically smart, even impassioned, talk from different points of view. His show is stratospherically good and I can't say enough good things about it.
p.s. Good discussion of the Divine Ms M on this thread, for both strengths and weaknesses. She's qualitatively better than *anyone* on Fox, and I've got mixed feelings about her, so that saying she's Fox-like beggars comparison.
p.p.s.s. Ms shouldn't have a period after it, just as Miss doesn't have one. Neither are abbreviations.
p.p.p.s.s.s. You all should catch Chris Hayes on weekend mornings on MSNBC. He's the best of the lot, amazingly good, with terrifically smart guests and terrifically smart, even impassioned, talk from different points of view. His show is stratospherically good and I can't say enough good things about it.
I initially read the article as telling me that Parag Khanna lives his live Davros-style. That would be...interesting, to say the least.
And the comparison of Maddow's style to Fox is beyond ludicrous. She strives to be the anti-Fox, and succeeds pretty damn often just by not lying.
I initially read the article as telling me that Parag Khanna lives his live Davros-style. That would be...interesting, to say the least.
And the comparison of Maddow's style to Fox is beyond ludicrous. She strives to be the anti-Fox, and succeeds pretty damn often just by not lying.
Lives his life, dang it.
Lives his life, dang it.
At least the editors didn't accuse Rick Perry of being an over-rated thinker. I would have lost all respect.
At least the editors didn't accuse Rick Perry of being an over-rated thinker. I would have lost all respect.
Just want to point out the article doesn't equate RM to Fox. It equates her style to Fox, which is much narrower in scope.
Just want to point out the article doesn't equate RM to Fox. It equates her style to Fox, which is much narrower in scope.
I think this list concept could go big for TNR, but it needs to be jazzed up a little, or rather, Gilbertized (apologies to those who don't know the tune):
SONG: “I’ve Got a Little List”--Peretz and Chorus of TNR Editors
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I’ve got a little list – I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who regrettably abound,
And who never would be missed – who never would be missed!
There’s the pestilential nuisances who don’t share my world view –
Those misbegotten activists who fail to take our cue –
All little minds who fail to grasp the evil that I see
Appeasers, hacks, and rightist pols eac ... view full comment
I think this list concept could go big for TNR, but it needs to be jazzed up a little, or rather, Gilbertized (apologies to those who don't know the tune):
SONG: “I’ve Got a Little List”--Peretz and Chorus of TNR Editors
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I’ve got a little list – I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who regrettably abound,
And who never would be missed – who never would be missed!
There’s the pestilential nuisances who don’t share my world view –
Those misbegotten activists who fail to take our cue –
All little minds who fail to grasp the evil that I see
Appeasers, hacks, and rightist pols each looking for a fee –
And those who harass viciously a harmless lobbyist –
They’d none of ’em be missed – they’d none of ’em be missed!
Chorus:
We’ve got ’em on the list – we’ve got ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed – they’ll none of ’em be missed.
There’s the vulgar pseudo-intellect who doesn’t make the grade,
And the Fox-y journalist – We’ve got her on the list!
And that cast-off from the New York Times--oh, why does he get paid?
They never would be missed – they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All leftist movements falling slightly leftward of our own;
And the Mom and Pop who like to pal around with Mahmoud A.,
Against their sordid heresies I endlessly inveigh;
And that Objectivistic horror show, the lady novelist –
I don’t think she’d be missed – I’m sure she’d not be missed!
Chorus:
We’ve got her on the list – we’ve got her on the list;
And We don’t think she’ll be missed – We're sure she'll not be missed.
And that mountaineering nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
The geo-strategist – We’ve got him on the list!
All pompous SECSTATE wannabees and clowns of public life –
They’d none of ’em be missed – they’d none of ’em be missed.
And apologetic thinkers of a compromising kind,
Who are tucked away in lairs the FBI will have to find,
And beastly academic hacks whom I dislike beaucoup –
We proscribe ‘em just like Sulla did--it’s really nothing new.
For it really doesn’t matter whom we put upon the list,
They’d none of ’em be missed – they’d none of ’em be missed!
Chorus:
We shall put ’em on the list – We shall put ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed – they’ll none of ’em be missed!
(Exeunt.)
(See Youtube: Mikado, I've Got a Little List for the original.)
or Basmanized:
Roses are red;
violets are magentia;
if you're on the list;
you're in intellectual absentia.
or Basmanized:
Roses are red;
violets are magentia;
if you're on the list;
you're in intellectual absentia.
I liked reading the opinions but I thought it was smug and it reminded of when, after the Republicans came to power, a list was published of the "ten most harmful books of the 20th Centery, which included "The Communist Manifesto" and "Silent Spring." The list said less about the books than it did about the authors of the list.
I liked reading the opinions but I thought it was smug and it reminded of when, after the Republicans came to power, a list was published of the "ten most harmful books of the 20th Centery, which included "The Communist Manifesto" and "Silent Spring." The list said less about the books than it did about the authors of the list.
I have to agree with those who object to Rachel Maddow's inclusion in this list, and specifically of her characterization as the anti-FOX.
In the daily cable wars, Rachel Maddow is regularly demonized by the right as proof that political "extremism" wears no party label.
Yet Maddow is almost entirely reactive and derivitive, concocted as antidotes to the stream of misinformation that flows without pause from FOX News every day like the gusher from BP's ruined deep-sea oil rig.
Maddow has practically premised her entire show on uncovering the fallacies of a rigid right wing worldview that almost by nature produces double standards, hypocrisies and obvious fabrications. The right wing has tried ... view full comment
I have to agree with those who object to Rachel Maddow's inclusion in this list, and specifically of her characterization as the anti-FOX.
In the daily cable wars, Rachel Maddow is regularly demonized by the right as proof that political "extremism" wears no party label.
Yet Maddow is almost entirely reactive and derivitive, concocted as antidotes to the stream of misinformation that flows without pause from FOX News every day like the gusher from BP's ruined deep-sea oil rig.
Maddow has practically premised her entire show on uncovering the fallacies of a rigid right wing worldview that almost by nature produces double standards, hypocrisies and obvious fabrications. The right wing has tried to dismiss Maddow as the mirror image of the propagandists employed on FOX.
But unlike Sean Hannity's buffoonish school-yard taunts, Maddow's thickly referenced take-downs of conservative dishonesty are devastating.
And what an understandably exasperated Maddow says we have been witness to in the two year conservative backlash since Obama took office, has been the "unmooring of politics from fact?"
But what if conservatives just don't care? What if they are unconcerned about what is true or a matter of public record? We're talking about a conservative movement, remember, that regularly invokes the memory of Founding Fathers who used words like "common" "tranquility" "general welfare" and "a more perfect Union" in order to justify angry right wing protests that demonize their fellow citizens and are an endangerment to national peace and unity.
Your summary of Ms. Maddow is both savage and inaccurate. What, did she say something mean about Israel?
Your summary of Ms. Maddow is both savage and inaccurate. What, did she say something mean about Israel?
"It continues to feel like TNR has lost its mind ..."
They did. He went to work for New York Magazine.
"It continues to feel like TNR has lost its mind ..."
They did. He went to work for New York Magazine.
santoast, not sure of the specifics, but Maddow has clearly done something to offend Peretz or Wieseltier.
if the editors want to claim that *she* represents the mirror image of Fox, it's obvious that none of them have ever watched MSNBC, or at least not a minute longer than her show. The criticism they level at Maddow fits Ed Schultz a great deal better.
santoast, not sure of the specifics, but Maddow has clearly done something to offend Peretz or Wieseltier.
if the editors want to claim that *she* represents the mirror image of Fox, it's obvious that none of them have ever watched MSNBC, or at least not a minute longer than her show. The criticism they level at Maddow fits Ed Schultz a great deal better.
I agree. Schultz is a partisan hack, if an amiable and sometimes entertaining one. Maddow has not a whiff of hackishness about her.
I agree. Schultz is a partisan hack, if an amiable and sometimes entertaining one. Maddow has not a whiff of hackishness about her.
Naturally everyone is all up-in-arms about Maddow. But, please. Stop it. She is so self-content it makes me sick. What could anyone presume to tell her?
Naturally everyone is all up-in-arms about Maddow. But, please. Stop it. She is so self-content it makes me sick. What could anyone presume to tell her?
Shocking, a good contingent of the individuals who disagree strongly with TNR on matters regarding Israel.
Shocking, a good contingent of the individuals who disagree strongly with TNR on matters regarding Israel.
"The editors" my behind. Leon wrote this whole list in his pajamas, didn't he?
"The editors" my behind. Leon wrote this whole list in his pajamas, didn't he?
How can anyone take this list seriously? Martin Peretz is not on it.
How can anyone take this list seriously? Martin Peretz is not on it.
Jonathan Cohen: "Look, Maddow isn't perfect. Who among us is? But her show is smarter and deeper than most. I can think of a lot of people who belong on a list of Washington's most over-rated. She's not one of them."
The Editors: "But Maddow is a textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective. She knows the answers even before she has the questions. "
Jonathan Cohen: "Look, Maddow isn't perfect. Who among us is? But her show is smarter and deeper than most. I can think of a lot of people who belong on a list of Washington's most over-rated. She's not one of them."
The Editors: "But Maddow is a textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective. She knows the answers even before she has the questions. "
This is a great post. Like dogs that found a pile of fresh bones, we can gnaw on it for quite a while.
TNR is missing some obvious narcissistic lists. The most overrated and the most underrated comment posters. Basman has dissected my flawed comments, and I've admired his, which are mostly fine (except when he's going after me, but then as Cohen said about Maddow, "Look Maddow isn't perfect. Who among us is?").
So we've got some calibration as a start. Get out your yardstick (or meterstick, as your measurement religion dictates) and start telling who among us has the real stuff and who is overrated and a legend in his or her mind.
[As a non-believer, I've always wondered -- if there is a Heave ... view full comment
This is a great post. Like dogs that found a pile of fresh bones, we can gnaw on it for quite a while.
TNR is missing some obvious narcissistic lists. The most overrated and the most underrated comment posters. Basman has dissected my flawed comments, and I've admired his, which are mostly fine (except when he's going after me, but then as Cohen said about Maddow, "Look Maddow isn't perfect. Who among us is?").
So we've got some calibration as a start. Get out your yardstick (or meterstick, as your measurement religion dictates) and start telling who among us has the real stuff and who is overrated and a legend in his or her mind.
[As a non-believer, I've always wondered -- if there is a Heaven -- how anything could keep us occupied and interested and amused for eternity -- but perhaps God has the saved souls spend their time evaluating each new arrival whether he or she belongs in Heaven or belongs in Hell.)
The inclusion of Fareed Zakaria in this list is probably the best insight from the editors:
"There’s something suspicious about a thinker always so perfectly in tune with the moment." Indeed.
Just saw a snippet from Zakaria's interview with Ahmadinejad to be aired tomorrow. He looks petrified.
The inclusion of Fareed Zakaria in this list is probably the best insight from the editors:
"There’s something suspicious about a thinker always so perfectly in tune with the moment." Indeed.
Just saw a snippet from Zakaria's interview with Ahmadinejad to be aired tomorrow. He looks petrified.
This a sad, creepy, and truly sophomoric piece of writing that is unbefitting any news organization, especially one with as much credibility as TNR.
Occasionally blatant racism or pure disregard for facts will make me question my subscription to this publication. But this "list" just makes me sad.
Flimsy arguments could be (and are) made for the inclusion of some of these names. But it is the writeup on Zakaria's that is the most transparently desperate. He's too right too much of the time? He changes his opinions as new facts and information becomes relevant? He tends to support a centrist American Presidential administration and warns of America's decline? He sounds like the editorial boar ... view full comment
This a sad, creepy, and truly sophomoric piece of writing that is unbefitting any news organization, especially one with as much credibility as TNR.
Occasionally blatant racism or pure disregard for facts will make me question my subscription to this publication. But this "list" just makes me sad.
Flimsy arguments could be (and are) made for the inclusion of some of these names. But it is the writeup on Zakaria's that is the most transparently desperate. He's too right too much of the time? He changes his opinions as new facts and information becomes relevant? He tends to support a centrist American Presidential administration and warns of America's decline? He sounds like the editorial board of The New York Times or this magazine itself!
Inter-professional bitterness is only human. But expressing it in this manner just makes the editors look like crying little girls.
Every TNR employee should be utterly humiliated by this article.