The Case against Douthat

Some blowback against all the liberal enthusiasm for William Kristol's replacement was inevitable, but I don't find the case against Ross Douthat to be particularly convincing. Brad DeLong writes:

From Ross Douthat, Privilege, bottom of p. 184:

One successful foray ended on the guest bed of a high school friend's parents, with a girl who resembled a chunkier Reese Witherspoon drunkenly masticating my neck and cheeks. It had taken some time to reach this point--"Do most Harvard guys take so long to get what they want?" she had asked, pushing her tongue into my mouth. I wasn't sure what to say, but then I wasn't sure this was what I wanted. My throat was dry from too much vodka, and her breasts, spilling out of pink pajamas, threatened my ability to. I was supposed to be excited, but I was bored and somewhat disgusted with myself, with her, with the whole business... and then whatever residual enthusiasm I felt for the venture dissipated, with shocking speed, as she nibbled at my ear and whispered--"You know, I'm on the pill..."

What squicks me out is (a) that the real turnoff for Ross Douthat is that she has taken responsibility for her own fertility and gone on the pill, and (b) that Ross Douthat does not take this to be a learning moment--is not self-reflective enough to say "Hmmm... If there are other men like me who are turned off by women who take responsibility for fertility control, isn't that likely to be a cause of more abortions?"

Combine that with what Ross Douthat's dismissal of Belle Sawhill's point that free-as-in-beer (but not free-as-in-no-hassle) birth control appears to prevent 1/5 of abortions--and there is an awful lot here not to like, and an awfully good reason to think that Tyler Cowen or Kerry Howley or Virginia Postrel or any of a large number of other candidates would be an infinitely better choice for the job.

And, of course, there is the other point: here is a Reese Witherspoon look-alike who has offered Ross Douthat the extremely precious gift of wanting to make love to him, and he writes her into his book in this way with what look to be sufficient identifying details. You can write that paragraph in a way that is calculated to try to make her feel bad about herself should she ever read it; you can write that paragraph in a way that does not try to make her feel bad about herself should she ever read it; normal human sociability and empathy suggests that one should try to do the first second; Ross Douthat chooses to do the second first.

Regarding the contradiction in his birth control/abortion positions, this isn't a Douthat-specific complaint so much as a complaint against the broader Catholic take on reproduction. Is there a Catholic pro-lifer who would be less objectionable to liberals? I suspect not. So the argument is not so much about whether Douthat deserves a place on the Times op-ed page, but whether Catholic pro-lifers do.

As to his description of the episode with the woman in college, of course this wouldn't be particularly classy were it a factual blow-by-blow account, but why does DeLong assume that Douthat didn't change enough of the facts so as to make the woman unrecognizable? For all we know, it was actually a Jessica Biel clone who mentioned her diaphragm over a coffee.

Katha Pollitt objects to a handful of past blog posts as well his lack of openness to women's views despite discussing issues that are very important to women. As to the posts, well, yes, I can't deny that Douthat comes off looking pretty silly during his meditation on the evolutionary advantages of the female orgasm, and rather petty when calling Michelle Obama a whiner. (As to his take on stem cells, again, I'm not sure what else you'd expect from a conservative Catholic author.) However, the presence of a few embarrassing reflections is as much a product of the medium as the man. Over the course of several thousand blog posts, where the writing often isn't chewed on for more than a few seconds between completion and publication, it's impossible to avoid having a few cringe-worthy entries. (I'm certain the same is true for Matt Yglesias or Ta-nehisi Coates, though surely the nature of the cringes their poorest posts induce are quite different.) A few wrong-minded blog posts aren't a powerful argument against Douthat.

As to his supposed close-mindedness to the woman's perspective, there may be something to that, but I don't think that during his time at the Times Bill Kristol ever touched an issue that could be described as remotely female-related. I'd also say that Douthat's wide-ranging interest and openness to debate are far more likely to make him an interesting (although at times infuriating) voice on women's issues, which is to say that he is a huge step up from the man he was replacing. Of course, not being a woman, I'm open to the possibility of being completely wrong on that score.

More generally, what were the big criticisms against Kristol? He was unoriginal, uncreative, lazy about facts, and a bit hysterical in his criticism of Democrats. Do any of the previous characterizations apply to Douthat? No. You can't please everybody, but he's clearly an improvement.