This falls apart by graph 36. It would be like me saying the only authentic liberal voice is Scott Dworkin's. It's either an argument from a place of ignorance or bad faith. Pick your poison.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/15/17113176/new-york-times-opinion-page-conservatism …
-
-
Replying to @NoahCRothman
I struggle with this. Douthat, Stephens, Brooks, Weiss do represent conservatism (the political philosophy) But they don't represent the vast majority of Americans who call themselves "conservatives." Way more Americans use the term the way Hannity uses it than Buckley did.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
It's not meant to be a cross section of conservatives from across the landscape. It's a business cultivating a model.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NoahCRothman
Their readership is better educated and more interested in evidence-based arguments than, say, Breitbart's. Makes sense to serve their clients, while still challenging with multiple POVs But their claim is more expansive. And yet the ideology that won the last election is missing
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
I don't think it is. Caricatured Trumpism is missing, but not conservatism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoahCRothman
That's because you and I still use "conservatism" to mean conservatism. And that's who I'd rather read. But it doesn't make the Times claim to be exposing readers to the political/ideological forces that won the last election accurate.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
If you're curious, I wrote about this during the "is Jennifer Rubin conservative?" flare up.https://arcdigital.media/conservative-intellectuals-lost-control-of-conservatism-f64ad146bec2 …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.