I’m following Nathan’s posts on Matt Bai, “Is Democratic Americanism dangerous and revolutionary?” and “Matt Bai: Misinformation and Broken Logic.” (Nice illustrations, by the way.) And yeah, I agree that we’re looking at lots of intellectual dishonesty. But it’s not like the world of News Opinions is a hotbed of carefully researched, insightful analysis. I freely admit my guilt in that. Sometimes, it just feels good to shout a little. But I hope that’s what I do every time.

Nathan sees potential value in Bai as an opinion writer. More power to you, I suppose, and it speaks well for you. You even let Bai’s crappy Republican “Cancel Culture” nonsense slide. I’m sure Liz Cheney laughs at the idea of Democratic cancel culture.

I think Bai’s just a hack; full stop. He starts with whatever conclusion he wants to be true, then cherry-picks some quotes and facts to justify himself. His logical order (shoot, point, aim) is apparent. I make the same mistake, sometimes, so I’m sympathetic. But when it’s a constant habit, you’re looking at addiction. And no, this isn’t because I think Bai is wrong. I might agree with him if Bai ever makes his case. I dislike him for the same reasons Nathan described so well: intellectual dishonesty. Or, in my words, he’s a hack.

The Chief Regent of Hackdom is goddamn David Brooks. Calling his work “intellectual dishonesty” is half-stepping. His columns are so fucking annoying they create a parlor game: “How many paragraphs before Brooks jumps the shark?” He can begin well, but about a third of the way in every Op-Ed, Brooks starts just assuming all the critical parts. So much easier than research. Read past that if you want, but you’re only watching Brooks squeeze out his own satisfaction. For a more acerbic (and fun) take, check out the Driftglass blog.

My complaints aren’t driven by who I agree with. Well, not entirely, anyway. Take Ross Douthat’s article: “So, You Think the Republican Party No Longer Represents the People.” Yes, I disagree with his conclusions. (I’m sure he’ll survive the strain.) But I also recommend the column. Douthat’s analyses are clear and detailed. He hits on a lot of solid points. Douthat forced me to change my assumptions. He showed me several places my shading was off and plain wrong in a few spots. I love that stuff!

Ages ago, I read George Will for my comeuppance. I’d rarely agree, but his arguments forced me to adapt. Unfortunately, Will fell victim to his own bile decades ago. When I realized it’d been years since he changed my mind, I stopped reading.

Some editorial choices seem bogglingly stupid. Why the notorious David Brooks still has a paid gig at the Times is hard to justify. And why the fuck does the Post continue to have Hugh Hewitt and Marc A. Thiessen on the masthead? Hewitt seems like a nice enough guy – I think I’d like him personally – but his writing is inexcusable. He’s just a mouthpiece, not a thinker. And Thiessen is so excruciatingly subservient to the Cause, his columns should come with a disclaimer: “WARNING: Contains batshit nonsense. Expect sharp U-turns. Included for diversity requirements.”

So, I don’t know if things are better or worse. Sure, Republican politics is awash in a level of intellectual dishonesty that leaves me breathless. This makes sense, given they’re launching Civil Race War 2.0 in support of the Trump Insurrection 2.0. I’ve already lived through Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and George Bush, so the decline is pretty stark.

But among the chat-show crowd – sorry, the Intelligentsia – good work and lazy generalities are about the same level. I’m not going to reward bad-faith arguments or lazy illogic, but I’m not pissing on today’s commentariat, either.

No more than normal, anyway.