OP-ED COLUMNISTS
The blogosphere is full of recommendations for the nonexistent slots open for NYT op-ed columnists, with Mark Steyn firmly in the lead. I'd be as happy as the next person to read Steyn's lively voice on the Times op-ed page, and I'd bet he could successfully handle the length (650 words is damned short) and a reasonable frequency. (As regular readers know, I don't think anyone can be consistently good at more than once a week.) To throw another name into the pot, I'd like to see Jonathan Rauch, one of the best columnists working, on the page as well (though Jonathan is best at a longer length--as are most writers).
But ideological diversity aside, there is a huge, gaping hole in the Times opinion lineup--and, for that matter, on the news pages. The Times lacks a genuinely sophisticated, Washington-based political writer, someone who understands both the mechanics of practical politics and the nuances of the many components of both the liberal/Democratic and conservative/Republican coalitions. The Times alternates between casting politics as an utterly cynical contest between phony image consultants and as a battle between the monolithic Forces of Light and the Forces of Darkness. Neither view is accurate, and both portraits make the nation's leading newspaper look like its political reporters just rolled off the cabbage truck. The Washington Post is, not surprisingly, far more sophisticated. But so, though not at the Post's level, are the WSJ, the LAT, and the politics-loving Boston Globe. So is USA Today.
If I were the boss of the Times, I'd try to remedy this egregious failing by hiring not one but two smart, sophisticated political columnists: Michael Barone of U.S. News and Ron Brownstein of the LAT. Michael is what passes for a conservative in Times Square--I'd say he's more accurately called a dynamist centrist--while Ron's a liberal. But what they have in common is more important to remedying the Times's current weaknesses than their differences in politcal views: They're both independent thinkers who don't simply repeat Upper West Side prejudices. They both understand that the political landscape is complex and interesting. They both write well. They both live in the political world of the present day, not some fabled past. And they both say what they think, not what they think someone thinks they should think.