I haven't been following day to day US politics much recently. Is the assumption that the debt ceiling bill will have significant support from both sides of the aisle so defections won't matter?
I haven't been following day to day US politics much recently. Is the assumption that the debt ceiling bill will have significant support from both sides of the aisle so defections won't matter?
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) on Tuesday became the first Republican to publicly support ousting Speaker Kevin McCarthy….
Her third point is pretty weak. I'm not sure I'd call Obama's verbal style "lower-middlebrow", for instance, but when he was an active politician he was far more popular than either Biden or Trump have ever been.
Every time I read a back and forth “conversation” such as the last few posts, I marvel how liberals husband their time so carefully, fearing, it seems, that their minds might be invaded by opposing information.
“Five minutes”of exposure to someone’s opinions, outside the liberal pod, is scary and a tremendous waste of time.
FDR once said “ The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself.” If five minutes of exposure is enough time to change one’s POV, what have you got?
I've read her crap enough times over the years (since she was a blogger) to know that reading her is a waste of time.
I've been reading her since she was blogging at The Atlantic as well, and I just don't find her to be an especially engaging writer in general. For instance, in this column she doesn't actually seem all that interested in the topic she's tackling. Her third point is basically just generational culture-warring, which I find trite and uninteresting. Her other points she doesn't tackle with any great curiosity or rigor.
For instance, she notes that "only 16.8 percent of the population is 65 or older, so most of the voters who brought us the dueling old dudes were young or middle-aged," but surely the more pertinent question is what percent of the voters are 65 or older? And indeed, if you ask that question you see something interesting -- they made up 25.7% of the voters in 2020. Why are they so over represented among the electorate? Seems like that might be a question worth pursuing. Does that pattern hold in the primaries too? What about among all the various positions and officeholders within the parties, that both the minutia and the more consequential party activities that in aggregate end up significantly influencing who runs as a candidate and who succeeds? Are young people under-represented, especially compared to the past, and if so how does that intersect with the challenges of establishing oneself as an adult in a time when housing and job security take increasingly more effort to secure, and which might not leave time for extracurriculars such as being an active member of a political party? For that matter, is it even true that our candidates are in general older (Biden almost didn't enter the primary for instance -- was the Democratic field absent Biden historically old)?
There's a lot more interesting directions she could have gone with this. But it's easier to write a column blaming celebrity and the youths.
Small amendation to the above -- while those 65 and older are over represented, it's not by as much as perhaps implied by the numbers I cited as the percent of citizens of voting age is 23% (as opposed to the total population at 16.8%, which McCardle for some reason cited). At 25.7% of the vote that still an over representation, but less dramatic than if compared with percent of the population.
Small amendation to the above -- while those 65 and older are over represented, it's not by as much as perhaps implied by the numbers I cited as the percent of citizens of voting age is 23% (as opposed to the total population at 16.8%, which McCardle for some reason cited). At 25.7% of the vote that still an over representation, but less dramatic than if compared with percent of the population.
You're giving an example of why any time spent reading her column would be better spent elsewhere. The reader shouldn't have to "do the math" like that because she's too careless to use the relevant number.
Small amendation to the above -- while those 65 and older are over represented, it's not by as much as perhaps implied by the numbers I cited as the percent of citizens of voting age is 23% (as opposed to the total population at 16.8%, which McCardle for some reason cited). At 25.7% of the vote that still an over representation, but less dramatic than if compared with percent of the population.
You're giving an example of why any time spent reading her column would be better spent elsewhere. The reader shouldn't have to "do the math" like that because she's too careless to use the relevant number.
I half agree -- I think even when reading someone you enjoy or agree with, it's good to treat fact claims with a bit of scrutiny (perhaps even especially then). Actually getting the numbers I'd agree is up to how invested the reader is, but noting that she used percent of the population in the context of talking about voting is something I'd hope would be a flag for a general reader.
Every time I read a back and forth “conversation” such as the last few posts, I marvel how liberals husband their time so carefully, fearing, it seems, that their minds might be invaded by opposing information.
“Five minutes”of exposure to someone’s opinions, outside the liberal pod, is scary and a tremendous waste of time.
FDR once said “ The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself.” If five minutes of exposure is enough time to change one’s POV, what have you got?
I've been reading her since she was blogging at The Atlantic as well, and I just don't find her to be an especially engaging writer in general. For instance, in this column she doesn't actually seem all that interested in the topic she's tackling. Her third point is basically just generational culture-warring, which I find trite and uninteresting. Her other points she doesn't tackle with any great curiosity or rigor.
For instance, she notes that "only 16.8 percent of the population is 65 or older, so most of the voters who brought us the dueling old dudes were young or middle-aged," but surely the more pertinent question is what percent of the voters are 65 or older? And indeed, if you ask that question you see something interesting -- they made up 25.7% of the voters in 2020. Why are they so over represented among the electorate? Seems like that might be a question worth pursuing. Does that pattern hold in the primaries too? What about among all the various positions and officeholders within the parties, that both the minutia and the more consequential party activities that in aggregate end up significantly influencing who runs as a candidate and who succeeds? Are young people under-represented, especially compared to the past, and if so how does that intersect with the challenges of establishing oneself as an adult in a time when housing and job security take increasingly more effort to secure, and which might not leave time for extracurriculars such as being an active member of a political party? For that matter, is it even true that our candidates are in general older (Biden almost didn't enter the primary for instance -- was the Democratic field absent Biden historically old)?
There's a lot more interesting directions she could have gone with this. But it's easier to write a column blaming celebrity and the youths.
it reads like a column that was started 15 minutes before deadline.
I've written it before but there are a half dozen people who post on MOL who would be better than half the columnists at the WaPo and NYT. Probably more than half of them.
Mtierney, perhaps it’s not fear of new/opposing views that puts people off reading such writers as that linked above, nor even the sloppiness cited by PVW. It might competing matters demanding thinking time, surrounding ambience distracting one’s concentration, sloppy graphic design making it really hard to focus on the article itself and work through all the layers of meaning, etc.
[As a former journo yourself you know most of this, and I’m lately very surprised when you let your formerly high journalistic standards slip. I’m taking it as writing quickly with passion; still, sometimes, I’m worried about your ‘practice’. ]
Every time I read a back and forth “conversation” such as the last few posts, I marvel how liberals husband their time so carefully, fearing, it seems, that their minds might be invaded by opposing information.
“Five minutes”of exposure to someone’s opinions, outside the liberal pod, is scary and a tremendous waste of time.
FDR once said “ The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself.” If five minutes of exposure is enough time to change one’s POV, what have you got?
How are we to grow together as a people?
Five minutes?
Really?
Just because one view is opposing another, it doesn't make it worth reading. Some writers are just bad. Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher, Rich Lowry, Andrew McCarthy - they're just bad writers. They don't even have opinions or arguments to be read most of the time, they're just feeding their base (bass?). And there's a billion of them! If we gave 5 minutes to every single one of them and their pettifoggeries, we'd never have time to eat and we'd starve to death.
Every time I read a back and forth “conversation” such as the last few posts, I marvel how liberals husband their time so carefully, fearing, it seems, that their minds might be invaded by opposing information.
“Five minutes”of exposure to someone’s opinions, outside the liberal pod, is scary and a tremendous waste of time.
FDR once said “ The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself.” If five minutes of exposure is enough time to change one’s POV, what have you got?
How are we to grow together as a people?
Five minutes?
Really?
Just because one view is opposing another, it doesn't make it worth reading. Some writers are just bad. Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher, Rich Lowry, Andrew McCarthy - they're just bad writers. They don't even have opinions or arguments to be read most of the time, they're just feeding their base (bass?). And there's a billion of them! If we gave 5 minutes to every single one of them and their pettifoggeries, we'd never have time to eat and we'd starve to death.
Just because one view is opposing another, it doesn't make it worth reading. Some writers are just bad. Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher, Rich Lowry, Andrew McCarthy - they're just bad writers. They don't even have opinions or arguments to be read most of the time, they're just feeding their base (bass?). And there's a billion of them! If we gave 5 minutes to every single one of them and their pettifoggeries, we'd never have time to eat and we'd starve to death.
and the notion that some of us avoid these writers out of "fear" is ludicrous. Supposedly Maureen Dowd is on "the left" but I won't spend 2 seconds reading her column. Her writing is so overwhelmingly fatuous that it's not worth anyone's time.
I find the opinion columnist role a strange position in the internet age. If I just want to hear an opinion, there's no shortage of supply now. If I want an informed opinion, maybe a generalist with a regular column might coincidentally have some expertise in the area, but more likely there's either a guest column at the exact same publication written by someone with actual background or experience in the topic, or there's people who can write well who are experts in the topic out in the wide world beyond the op-ed pages.
The columnists who I find the most interesting to read either have picked a topic or set of topics they care about and dive deeply into, or they turn their space into an opportunity to highlight voices of expertise in other topics (eg I like a number of Ezra Klein's interviews).
I find the opinion columnist role a strange position in the internet age. If I just want to hear an opinion, there's no shortage of supply now. If I want an informed opinion, maybe a generalist with a regular column might coincidentally have some expertise in the area, but more likely there's either a guest column at the exact same publication written by someone with actual background or experience in the topic, or there's people who can write well who are experts in the topic out in the wide world beyond the op-ed pages.
The columnists who I find the most interesting to read either have picked a topic or set of topics they care about and dive deeply into, or they turn their space into an opportunity to highlight voices of expertise in other topics (eg I like a number of Ezra Klein's interviews).
agreed. When any of us can research a topic at the press of the button and form a well-reasoned argument on it, why do we need Brooks or Friedman to lazily pull a column out of their respective ****?
Every time I read a back and forth “conversation” such as the last few posts, I marvel how liberals husband their time so carefully, fearing, it seems, that their minds might be invaded by opposing information.
“Five minutes”of exposure to someone’s opinions, outside the liberal pod, is scary and a tremendous waste of time.
FDR once said “ The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself.” If five minutes of exposure is enough time to change one’s POV, what have you got?
How are we to grow together as a people?
Five minutes?
Really?
Just because one view is opposing another, it doesn't make it worth reading. Some writers are just bad. Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher, Rich Lowry, Andrew McCarthy - they're just bad writers. They don't even have opinions or arguments to be read most of the time, they're just feeding their base (bass?). And there's a billion of them! If we gave 5 minutes to every single one of them and their pettifoggeries, we'd never have time to eat and we'd starve to death.
you left out David Brooks.
Like I said, there's so many, and yes, there are plenty on the "left" that are just as bad. Poorly-researched, poorly-thought out, poorly-written. I think just in general I'm against opinion journalism, especially those written by people who have no subject matter experience. It's all such a waste of good internet.
My best guess is because that was a 2016 story and this column is about 2024.
Is the columnist also remiss for not discussing the Obama years, which propelled Biden to presidency in 2020?
you think the MAGA movement that put Trump in the White House in '16 is no longer what's driving his perch at the top of the GOP presidential field?
it's because he's a simple-speaking, elderly celebrity?
sure, that sounds right.
I thought I was being diplomatic for not calling the column painfully stupid. But it is.
i think this bit is sufficient to cover a "phenomenon" that's now 7 years old.
"On the Republican side, just as in 2016, a massive primary field is splitting the votes of the moderates, giving Trump plenty of room to consolidate his ultra-MAGA minority.
Apparently you think a "Trump is leading because he has MAGA support" column would be interesting or revelatory in some way. I don't.
could’ve been smedley himself/herself who wrote that note…and not “Johnny on the spot “