Here’s what, ahem, bugs me about the latest Bret Stephens column:
He starts from the punchline and works backwards. That’s just sloppy writing.
“Those with plans for everything prove only that they can’t be trusted to plan for anything.”
Sounds clever, but what does it mean?
He starts from the punchline and works backwards. That’s just sloppy writing.
“Those with plans for everything prove only that they can’t be trusted to plan for anything.”
Sounds clever, but what does it mean?
Would Stephens be more open to a Warren Presidency if she had fewer plans? Of course not.
Would voters be better off if candidates avoided making policy proposals? Nope.
Can he show us a single example where the absence of planning actually proves you’re good at planning? Nah.
Would voters be better off if candidates avoided making policy proposals? Nope.
Can he show us a single example where the absence of planning actually proves you’re good at planning? Nah.
Stephens doesn’t like Warren because she’ll raise taxes on the ultra-rich.
She’s bad for people who were born into inherited wealth. People like the sons of manufacturing magnates. People, in other words, like Bret Stephens.
google.com/amp/s/newrepub…
She’s bad for people who were born into inherited wealth. People like the sons of manufacturing magnates. People, in other words, like Bret Stephens.
google.com/amp/s/newrepub…
This column is particularly galling because it’s an intentional response to @nytdavidbrooks, who last week wrote that, in a choice between Warren and Trump, moderate conservatives are duty-bound to choose Warren.
And Stephens’s rejoinder is no deeper than, “well maybe, but I don’t wanna.”
He doesn’t wrestle with the moral quandary or expose an alternate line of thought. He just... punts.
For this, the @nytimes continues to give him column inches.
He doesn’t wrestle with the moral quandary or expose an alternate line of thought. He just... punts.
For this, the @nytimes continues to give him column inches.
I don’t mind that the Times has a few House conservatives on the opinion side.
But I think the Times ought to have higher standards than this.
Stephens’s argument is that you can’t break up big tech because, uh, jobs. That’s not an argument. It’s barely even a tweet.
But I think the Times ought to have higher standards than this.
Stephens’s argument is that you can’t break up big tech because, uh, jobs. That’s not an argument. It’s barely even a tweet.
Stephens just isn’t a very good writer. He starts from the punchline and then works backward until he has a column. He adds no real substance along the way.
The Times wouldn’t accept that from a culture writer or a tech writer. They shouldn’t accept it here either.
(Fin)
The Times wouldn’t accept that from a culture writer or a tech writer. They shouldn’t accept it here either.
(Fin)
