I don't read the NYT as much as I used to, but I'll be a NYT subscriber for the rest of my life because they're the only media source creating content of quality and depth across such a wide range of American society (and of the rest of the world).

Some of their editorials are nutz but many, on both the left and the right, are exemplars of journalism.

Those guys (and Brooks, Stephens) represent a moribund strain of conservatism with zero organic support. They speak for spooks and think tanks, nobody else. They provide diversity in the same way that the Washington Generals play basketball.

I think publications like Unherd, Compact, and of course Taki's Mag have their fingers closer to the pulse. I don't endorse the contents and can't even vouch for the quality of the writing, but it's not an ideological dead-end in the way the NYT, Atlantic, and National Review are.

No, those people represent a common strain of conservative view, they just don't represent a faction which holds much power in either political party at this moment. But don't confuse the power balance of factions within parties as a representation of what views people actually hold. A two party system with first past the post primaries makes it likely that the parties will be controlled by their extreme factions, while most people are disaffected and dissatisfied with their general election choices.

Those other publications do indeed have their fingers on the pulse of the dominant populist faction on the right, just like their progressive counterparts have their finger on the pulse of the populist left. But those aren't the only (or in my view, at all) interesting things to read about.

You're framing unrepentant neoconservatism as some underrepresented moderate alternative that a disaffected middle America is secretly clamoring for. I have not met any normal people who think the way French and Stephens do.

I don't think the words "middle America" or "secretly clamoring" show up in my comment.

It's fine (good, even, IMO) that you disagree with conservatives (I do as well), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The "normal people" that you've met, or that I've met, are not a good sample of the range of political viewpoints that exist.

The people who voted for Reagan and HW Bush and John McCain - who was way more popular than any current Republican leader, and put up a strong showing against Barack Obama, the most popular politician of our era - and Mitt Romney haven't all died or joined Trump's weird and actually pretty tiny cult of personality. They're still out there stewing about what has happened to the Republican party.

> But they do have some serious, thoughtful conservatives in their opinion pages. Like David French and Ross Douthat.

You do a serious disservice to David French by including him in the same boat as Ross Douthat. Mr. French does often post thoughtful pieces from a conservative viewpoint, but most of what I’ve read from Mr. Douthat is quite the opposite.

Indeed, most of what I’ve read from Mr. Douthat is just a thinly-veiled sermon that paints “liberals” as one-dimensional characters that (along with our whole society) just need to find god. A conservative catholic god, specifically.

Really, he’s a religion columnist masquerading as political commentator. And not a particularly good one, at that.

David French, though, is a decent writer.

Why do you think religion isn’t important enough to be discussed in a major newspaper?

Check out the Matter of Opinion podcast. Douthat is very comfortable engaging in give and take with liberals who have very different views. He presents orthodox Catholic opinions yes, but he’s intelligent enough to understand what’s a good or a bad argument.

I don’t appreciate the conflation of conservative views and religious views, which is my main problem. I never said it wasn’t important to discuss; don’t put words in my mouth.

My other problem is that I just find his writing and rhetoric to be very weak.

Where do you draw the line around what voices need to be included? Conservative politics have moved so far to the right that centric liberal politics is what old conservative politics used to be (because democrats are big tent, and the republicans have been shedding voters due to extremism).

Balance isn't positive or useful when it shifts things further one direction, especially when there's such a massive shift.

That’s why they have voices like French and Douthat.

It’s hard to find a thoughtful full on Trump supporter, because his “arguments” don’t lend themselves to thoughtful reflection or analysis.

Indeed. While you might dislike Neo-liberalism, Reagan-ism, or Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism," as Walter Sobchak said: at least it's an ethos.

Trumpism believes in nothing but suborning yourself to Trump's will and needs. Sure there's some vague isolationism and xenophobia, and some pandering to Christian nationalism, but the only consistent policy position is fielty to Trump. That's why there aren't any interesting Trumpist pundits. The House is twisting itself in knots right now because they can't decide what he wants or will tolerate regarding Ukraine funding. A real party with a policy would have an articulatable agenda, probably with some dissenters on this or that, but all the current Republican party can agree on is how great dear leader is, and Democrats are bad.

Yes and: what ever their pre Trump "conservative" bonafidas, neither French or Douthat land any where near today's mainstream movement conservatives (MAGA).

They have conservative bonafides, no scare quotes necessary. The Republican party mainstream (MAGA) is not attempting conservatism, it is right wing populism. The word "conservative" does not have a new definition, the change has been that it no longer applies to the political party it once did (at least more so).