Who Are the Best Conservative Columnists?
This week my friend John Hawkins released his annual ranking of the 50 best conservative columnists. A very generous guy, John included me on the list. And ahead of George Will too!
I wonder, though: what does it mean to be a columnist today?
I’m a traditionalist on the definition. Merriam-Webster claims that it’s “one who writes a newspaper or magazine column.”
Well, what qualifies as a column? The defining characteristics, which I invite others to dispute or refine in the comments: A) a regular appearance usually either weekly or bi-weekly, B) a standard word count in the range of 600-1500 words, and C) usually with a focus on opinion, analysis, or entertainment — not “objective,” fly-on-the-wall journalism.
But that’s the Old School understanding I learned in journalism classes in the pre-blogosphere days. Now in the New Media era a “column” counts as any piece of writing and “columnist” doubles for “writer.” And that’s fine — language evolves and we only gain so much from playing the semantics game. Here at PJ Media we call our all-star team of writers “Columnists” even though the content they produce ranges across the spectrum from blog posts to journalistic articles to traditional op/ed columns to extended essays on to Ed Driscoll’s podcasts and Zombie’s unforgettable photos.
But the truth is that the name does still fit for most of the PJ Columnists, and pressed to answer John’s challenge to provide “YOUR LIST of the best conservative columnists” I’d have to actually create two, the first of those I edit now and the second of those I wouldn’t mind editing someday. The 10 PJ columnists who predominantly write on a regular basis in the “newspaper column” style, of a 600-1500+ word, opinionated, elegantly stylized analysis (in no ranked order):
Roger L. Simon, Barry Rubin, Andrew Klavan, Roger Kimball, Michael Walsh, Andrew C. McCarthy, Claudia Rosett, David P. Goldman, Victor Davis Hanson, and Michael Ledeen
The other PJ Columnists I’d classify as top-tier bloggers (Stephen Green, Ed Driscoll, Helen Smith and Blog Father Glenn Reynolds) and deep essayists (Ron Radosh and Ion Mihai Pacepa.) J. Christian Adams’s Rule of Law, Richard Fernandez’s Belmont Club, and the mysterious Zombie transcend categorization in their own unique ways — the three of them have each taken the tools of New Media to innovate their own new mediums.
So about that second list… I decided to take John’s list and A) edit it down to my top 10 choices, B) re-order counting down to the best, C) throw on 5 more conservative columnists I adore who John neglected to include.
But here’s the problem: I’m fairly confident about the ranking of only the top 2. I could see legitimate reasons for why one should rank higher or lower than others.
So for my top 20 list of Best Conservative Columnists (forthcoming soon here at PJ Lifestyle) I thought I’d first hear the arguments of others about A) who should go where, B) which five additional columnists deserve inclusion, and C) if anyone I’ve already selected does not warrant placement.
Weighing who goes where requires juggling multiple factors:
- Strength of prose.
- Originality of voice and personality.
- Quality, creativity, and effectiveness of arguments.
- Is the column really their best medium?
- Consistency of quality. (A great columnist needs to be strong every week — they can’t constantly hit or miss.)
- Impact they have on shaping both the current debates and conservative thought.
So here’s version 1 of the list. (I’ve put John’s ranking in parentheses after their name if they appeared on his list.)
15. Seth Mandel (not included)
14. Jonathan V. Last (not included)
13. Sean Trende (16)
12. Frank Gaffney (not included)
11. Ben Shapiro (20)
10. Walter Williams (6)
9. Jonah Goldberg (5)
8. Michael Barone (14)
7. Charles Krauthammer (17)
6. Daniel Pipes (not included)
5. Dennis Prager (13)
4. Mark Steyn (1)
3. Stanley Kurtz (not included)
2. Thomas Sowell (2)
1. Ann Coulter (4)
As stated, I’m not planning on budging on my last two choices — and will make my arguments in the completed list. But if anyone would like to make the case against Thomas Sowell and Ann Coulter as the Conservative Movement’s two top writing MVPs, then by all means…
*****
Related at PJ Lifestyle:
Hey where’s David Brooks?
in therapy
AROMA?
Pants.
He’s out having a nice, crisp crease put in his pants!
Still admiring Obama’s pant leg.
I’d put in a word for wretchard’s Belmont Club entries, most of them could appear as published on PJM right into any dead tree newspaper editorial page.
There is certainly a loosening of *style* that occurs for most writers when they write for the blogosphere instead of print.
And certainly the best of zombie’s work (which includes some from before he/she/it came to PJM) deserves the highest praise.
I don’t know of a conservative columnist that I look to with more frequency and reliability than wretchard. Even VDH varies over columns and time enough to drive me nuts. And Mark Steyn is usually enjoyable but … but that’s not the question, is it.
Yeah David Brooks, heh, and equally Peggy Noonan?
Ah – I suggest Bret Stephens. One of the few remaining reasons to pick up WSJ.
The days of William F. Buckley are long gone. One of my big complaints about “conservative” pundits today is that so many of them haven’t had much of a life. Many of them go through the following trajectory:
1) in college, they’re a Young Republican or Young American for Freedom
2) they become an intern for some congressman, lobbying organization or opinion magazine
3) their first paying job is with said congressman, lobbying organization, blog or opinion magazine
4) the rest of their working career is with interchangeable congressmen, lobbying organizations, blogs or opinion magazines
And for many, this trajectory occurs almost totally in the Ivy-League/Megalopolis bubble.
There are some worthy exceptions of course. People like Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn, Michael Walsh and Victor Davis Hanson have seen a good amount of life outside of the bubble, so I tend to value their opinions more than most. And Mike McNally, of PJMedia, seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
As a P.S., I’ll add that VDH is outstanding when he’s talking about California or the Classics, but otherwise his articles are often rehashes.
Mike McNally and Barry Rubin are the best PJMedia writers, in my opinion.
“The days of William F. Buckley are long gone. One of my big complaints about “conservative” pundits today is that so many of them haven’t had much of a life. Many of them go through the following trajectory:
1) in college, they’re a Young Republican or Young American for Freedom
2) they become an intern for some congressman, lobbying organization or opinion magazine
3) their first paying job is with said congressman, lobbying organization, blog or opinion magazine
4) the rest of their working career is with interchangeable congressmen, lobbying organizations, blogs or opinion magazines”
I would add to that list Republican campaigns, campaign committees, campaign planning/recruiting groups, etc. and the rest of their working career is with interchangeable campaigns, committees and/or fund raising groups
You are too intelligent; Get your own blog.
You’re right, HiPlanesDrifter. And I guess we could add “GOP administrations and think tanks” to the mix–all still part of the same bubble.
David Limbaugh.
What about Pat Buchanan,John Derbyshire,Daniel Greenfield or Michelle Malkin?
Pat Buchanan and John Derbyshire are paleo-conservatives, not conservatives. And Daniel Greenfield and Michelle Malkin are more bloggers than columnists.
Greenfield writes for FrontPageMag, as well as his own blog (Sultan Knish). He’s a prolific writer and smarter than most on the proposed list. Maybe we should reconsider not just the definition of columnist but the role he serves.
I’d also recommend Melanie Phillips, who’s written for UK papers, and Sarah Honig, who writes for the Jerusalem Post.
1 krauthammer
2 steyn
3 sowell
4 VDH
you could change the order of 2,3,4 as long as the hammer stays at #1
5 bill whittle if you allow video essay.
6 goldberg
I’d vote for Mark Steyn and Thomas Sowell. The others – not so much.
But if I have only one vote to cast – I want to cast it AGAINST Ann Coulter.
Yeah, I’d agree. My one vote goes against Ann Coulter. She sold out early for Romney, the exact type of moderate Republican she complanied so much about 4 years earlier. I think largely thanks to her we got the nothing candidate.
dang; *complained*
Romney wasn’t the reason why we lost. Romney could’ve won if they’d run a competent campaign.
1. Krauthammer – by far! 2. Thomas Sowell – but not too far behind.
3. Newt Gingrich(for US domestic policy only) 4. Mona Charen(perhaps TOO intelligent?) 5. Mark Steyn(mostly for advanced vocabulary with contents sometimes shrouded…but regularly a B+ or an A- writer 5. David Limbaugh(more even-tempered than his brother Rush, so more to reflect upon in his writing such as his book ‘Crimes Against Liberty’. (His columns are nearly as good…)
ah, Phylis Shafly
Very few PJM writers are actually Conservatives. Many are just former Leftists who just think they have become Conservatives. They talk a good game, until push comes to shove, then they start espousing all kinds of “moderate” Republican nonsense. The majority of them backed Romney early on.
If you want some real Conservative columnists, try townhall.com.
“Many are just former Leftists who just think they have become Conservatives.”
Is that not the definition of neocon?
I think the neocons have had a terrible effect on conservatism and the Republican Party (and I’m not equating the two). We owe the nation-building disasters to the neocons. We have Kristol the Younger and Podhoretz the Younger trying to pull the Republican Party away from conservative principles. And a lot of neocons unfairly attack other conservatives as being racist/sexist/homophobic, maybe so that they can be accepted by the big media and their more liberal girlfriends. And obviously nepotism has been a big reason for the prominence of some of them.
I’ll include the vastly-over-rated Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg in this mix. Those two know how to come up with clever phrases, but when the going gets rough they tend to stick with the beltway crowd.
Ronald Reagan said: “When I was young I had some ideals, I haven’t changed on them but I have changed about the best way of reaching them”. Basically: when you want the rich remaining rich and the poor remaining poo your are a conservative. When you want either to make the rich poor or use the poor to grab power you are a leftist/liberal, when you want the poor becoming rich then you are a neo-con. A neocon is a person who doesn’t think economy is a zero sum game, who believes welfare, regulations and powitive discriminations work against the poor and sereve mainly to get lucrative jobs to the leftists and that the way to go is education, hard work and removing obstacles to those who pick that path to social ascension.
In other words Reagan, who was left of center when he was young, was a neocon.
Reagan moved from considering himself an old-fashioned liberal to considering himself as a conservative, as many people of his generation did. Charlton Heston is another example. I do not consider them to have been “neocons.” As I believe Reagan said, and as my 87-year-old Dad says, they didn’t leave the Democrat Party–it left them. They, and many of us conservatives, believe in classic liberalism such as individual freedom and free enterprise–ideas that were part of our founding. The term “neocon” is more accurately used for Jewish leftists who turned in a more conservative direction, but maintained some sympathy for big government, advocated nation-building schemes, and tended to have a liking for beltway manipulations. They also have had many non-Jewish sympathizers, such as many in the George W. Bush admin, but such people are a far cry from Reagan.
And there are many of us who were more liberal or left-wing in our youth, including me, but we saw the light when we started to grow up, and become conservatives. We believe in economic opportunity and individual freedom, but we are not neocons. I also don’t agree with your definition of conservative as those who “want the rich remaining rich and the poor remaining poo [sic].” Bill Buckley wasn’t a neocon. Jack Kemp wasn’t a neocon. Glenn Beck isn’t a neocon. Michelle Bachmann isn’t a neocon. All of these people, though, would advocate for economic opportunity along with other conservative principles.
“These people aren’t neo-conservatives, they’re just Conservatives. By neo-con they mean Jew.” – Rush Limbaugh (one of the reasons I will always be in hos corner)
“Basically: when you want the rich remaining rich and the poor remaining poo your are a conservative. ”
No. Not at all.
A neo-conservative to me is a conservative who used to be liberal. A ’40′s liberal, a Reagan Democrat. I never used to be liberal, but I come from that culture. Rush considers it an anti-semitic term, and I think he has a point there.
John Corry, non-interventionist, considers himself one of the early neo-conservatives. But we’re generally anti-isolationist, and have little use for the old country-clubbers.
Bill Whittle was asked what he answers when he is called a “neo-con”. He said, “thank you”. You can be a neo-conservative tea-partier. He is (as am I).
The confusion stems from the fact the “the rich” who are “getting richer” are not the same people over time; many of them used to be “the poor”.
A Leftists fights over an ever-shrinking pie.
A Conservative wants to increase its size.
In some contries people say “former robbers make the best cops”. Former leftists know first hand the tricks used by the left and know how not to allow leftists to shut them up and how to counterattack against them. Also people who have been leftists and turned conservative after noticing they had been duped often in a traumatic event (my own was noticing the utter indiffernce of former anti-Vietnam activists to the plight of Cambodian people aa soon as they fell into Khmer Rouge hands) have a powerful incentive to fight the left: anger.
Now excuse me but your “true conservatives” are people who have allowed universitiies use their (conservatives’) money to make liberals and communists out of their childfren, who have watched sitcoms deriding them and portraying them as evil or dumb, have allowed massive ballot stuffing in last election (turnout in most districts of Boston was around one hundred and twenty per cent) without daring to contest Obama’s victory and instead are tempted by the ultimate coward’s solution: secession that is cutting and running with emphasis in the running.
So that is what your “real” conservatives, thaose who have never been leftists, are: cowards.
You make some good points JFM. And people who migrate from left to right often need courage, because they are going against the powerful and shrill community that they have been immersed in. They risk losing all their friends, or even family members. Consider the viciousness that is directed towards blacks like Thomas Sowell, who used to be a Marxist.
Some of the original Neocons like Irving Kristol did good work, but the younger neocons have been awful, like Kristol the Younger and Podhoretz the Younger. I still have some respect for George W. Bush, but its very limited, and his administration helped entrench a lot of people in the establishment who plague us today, whether they are pundits, consultants, strategists or “elder statesmen.”
A lot of the supposedly Smart People on our side live in a bubble, and they haven’t had to face much of what us little people have to face on a daily basis. They send their kids to private schools, live in gated communities, etc. They might pay lip service to reforming education or criticizing the culture, but as you said, they don’t come up with realistic game plans for taking back the schools, colleges and culture.
And there are more things that us “little people” should be doing, like canceling our cable or satellite TV, refusing to spend money on Hollywood movies, being more careful about where our kids go to school or college, etc. I haven’t had TV for a long time now, and I don’t miss it a bit.
People who have been fooled by the left should be treated as what they’ve shown themselves to be–gullible fools whose opinion must never be trusted and whatever they say must always be independently verified.
Only someone with a defective intellect could believe the precepts of the left or it’s rhetoric–particularly in the face of examples of it never working. The only ex-leftists that have any excuse are those who are very aged, who were there at the beginning, when rhetoric could substitute for action.
Anyone after that looked at something that was demonstrably not workable and said ‘this is a good idea’.
Like Ronald Reagan?
JW is close (though the order is wrong), and ranking is all a matter of weighting:
1: Steyn
2: VDH
3: Nordlinger
4: Sowell
5: Krauthammer
In the spoken word category, and omitting full-time talk show hosts, Steyn still wins by a hair, but Krauthammer is an awfully close second, thus weighting entertainment over content.
i’ll forgive you for ranking the hammer #5, #2 spoken word. clearly you mean well and with a few more years under your belt you will see the light. however, if we are allowing spoken word, bill whittle has to be here somewhere.
Ann Coulter? Mitt Romney’s and Chris Christie’s biggest fan?
Maybe that’s why judgement isn’t on the list of critria.
Hey gang, let’s nominate the best looking and/or loudest liberal republic next time too!!!! Ann says that’s the only way to win!!!!!
Sowell’s the best for the exact reason Coulter shouldn’t even be let near a best list. He is absolutely clear about everything he says, unassuming, consistently correct, and he doesn’t spend 95% of his time promoting himself.
No; The entire U.S. Government does.
Amen, Captain. I will never read anything by Ann Romney Coulter again.
But boy that George Will sure does know how to use a colon! (Grammatical, that is.)
How do you know?
He uses the word ‘meretricious’ more than any other columnist.
Walter Mead, Melanie Philips, Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Takuan Seiyo, Theodore Dalrymple, Fjordman, Douglas Murray
Almost forgot Spengler!
And Heather MacDonald
Andrew McCarthy and Richard Fernandez and Ron Radosh are great around here as well. And I particularly enjoy Ed Driscoll’s cultural commentary.
Barry Rubin is much appreciated too.
And the dynamic duo covering the DoJ!
Victor Davis Hanson
Thomas Sowell
Walter E. Williams
The end.
Nice!
K.I.S.S.
No sarcasm.
Gets to the “Low information voter”.
I share your choices. I almost never miss a VDH post.
Hansen, Sowell, Williams, Stossel and Steyn.
Leave Ann Coulter off the list… big supporter of RINOs and sodomites. Here is my list in no particular order:
Joseph Farah
Michelle Malkin
Vox Day
Pamela Geller
D.J. Dolce
Les Kinsolving
Mychal Massie
Thomas Sowell
David Limbaugh
Phyllis Schlafly
Molotov Mitchell (Not really a columnist, but great videos)
Walter Williams
Jack Cashill
Larry Elder
Erik Rush
Alan Keyes (probably my No. 1)
Ilana Mercer (tied for No. 1)
Larry Klayman
Patrice Lewis
Star Parker
Richard Rives
Drew Zahn
Jesse Lee Paterson
Linda Bowles (rest in peace)
Harry Browne (rest in peace)
Henry Lamb (rest in peace)
Jude Wanniski (rest in peace)
Read WND much?
Only once a day since 1997
How can you leave Coulter off the list? She hammers the left better than any one.
Ann is an opportunist without solid conservative values. She jumps ship often (i.e., just last night on Hannity she was advocating a surrender by the Republican House to an increase in taxes for the “wealthy” so the middle class could avoid an increase in their taxes). Jumping on the “soak the rich” bandwagon is not a conservative, principled, stand. Either you are for low taxes and smaller government or you’re a liberal. So-called conservative leaders in this country always throw away their principles thinking that will help them win the next battle (election), progressives never do that, and that is why they are winning the culture war.
And she is the most strident and negative of them all. VDH is an erudite hand-wringer.
You missed her point. She was being tactical. She said to go ahead and get the fiscal issue taken off the table by supporting taxing the wealthy and that way the middle class will not have their taxes increased per ending the Bush tax cuts (SS going back to 6.2%). Additionally if the economy collapes, it is on the WON and the dems.
Besides who cares about the wealthy when most of them are lefties. I say tax them all into oblivion with the possible exceptions for businesses with less than 100 employees. Why are we protecting the money of the left when they use it against us??
You seriously just referred to people who don’t share your sexual orientation as “sodomites.”
Not only must I register my disapproval of that term, but on a more practical level I care deeply about capitalism and individual rights, and it’s hard to expand our ranks when people like you so cavalierly engage in obvious discrimination against 4% of the population.
Think about what you’re saying. Think about the 11 million or more Americans you’re writing off as somehow inherently immoral. How is it any difference than the rampant discrimination against blacks in the earlier part of last century? Something to consider.
Would you rather he write “sausage smokers” and carpet munchers”?
Thomas Sowell should be number one. I don’t think any explanation is required.
Bow to the blackness, good citizen.
I agree; Dr. Sowell is #1 in my book; a wise old man in an age where wisdom is in recession.
If I could convince the local Democrat chain paper (but aren’t they all?) to run one conservative columnist; it would be Sowell.
Coulter incites; Sowell persuades. I like both, but we need steadfast principled persuasion.
Melanie Phillips and Carolyn Glick should be added. Sowell is spit on.
I like
Walt Williams about the economy and Mark Steyn slices and dices! Lately John Stossel has been good.
“Sowell is spit on.”
Do you mean to say that Sowell is “spot on”, the mostly-British term of approval? Or do you mean that someone has actually spit on him, literally or figuratively?
Ann Coulter a conservative? Not even close. Poser and opportunist.
Nice collection; But, seriously flawed. COLUMNIST is someone that writes REGULARLY.
COLUMNISTS
DR Victor Davis Hanson;
Michael Barone;
Michelle Malkin;
Jonah Goldberg;
John Stossel;
Brent Bozell;
Paul Greenberg;
We (Conservatives) have several that contribute on a regular basis, thank God.
They should be decorated for their relentless vigor in pursuing Conservative values.
Thanks for posting a running hit list for the Democrat and media mercenaries to focus their energy on.
VDH, Steyn, Richard Fernandez,
How could I forget;
WARREN BONESTEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of PJM’s most prolific “blasters” (aka blogger).
Your welcome, Warren.
Well, Sowell is a lock. No one mentioned Reihan Salam, but he definitely belongs very high up there.
But #1?
William F Buckley, Jr.
So what if he died? So did Shakespeare. The writing lives.
I would also add two more occassional WSJ contributors, Fouad Ajami and Amir Taheri. Actually I haven’t been reading WSJ recently, I assume both of these are still active and have not changed their stripes.
But really, I can’t get an “Amen” on Bret Stephens?
“Who Are the Best Conservative Columnists?”
Now that there is funny! I don’t care what anybody says.
Why do we want to put divisive propagandists up on some pedestal regardless of what political or religious persuation(s) they profess to be from? We’ve had a 100 years of this kind of crap (more intensely since the 60s) and we can easily see what its done to our nation.
> We’ve had a 100 years of this kind of crap
Do you possess some special expertise in this arena?
> Why do we want to put divisive propagandists
Not when we can post divisive remarks.
LOL… Brilliant reply! You should be on the list.
Well Zeke, I’ll explain why in three simple words: The First Amendment. The “divisive” voices you complain about are continuing a fine tradition going all the way back to Colonial broadsheets. Even the Declaration of Independence was first printed as a broadsheet and posted publicly for the populous to read, in the hope that it would spark support for a revolution. It worked and here we are today, teetering on the brink of losing all that was fought for. The Web is now our town square and we need those “divisive” voices more than ever, posting their broadsheets and clamoring for our attention.
Since you’re the only one who responded with some intelligence, I’ll respond back to you.
I’m a strong constitutionalist if you’ve seen my other posting on PJM. Ask Jeanette.
My point was not to involve the constitutions first amemendment! My point involved “putting on a pedesta” those self professed literary “experts” whose only apparent skills when providing opinions, divides people. I would go even a step farther and say they do it with full intent.
If we’re to succeed as a nation we must build and maintain some common ground as a society — we once did! Intentionally using the first ammendment to further divide a nations society in the name of building unity is lunacy!
Most of these social literary “experts” in spite of their fifty cent vocabularies are shallow, self serving people who lack the skills of bringing people together — aside from their little typical niche markets.
We have had some great social and political unifiers but not a single name being bantered about on here would rise up to the toenails of our nations past great unifiers.
Are you confusing columnists with leaders? They should not be the same. Sowell’s reasoned persuasiveness is compelling, and he is number 1 in my view. A few have mentioned Richard Fernandez here. His “long view from History” approach coupled with his ability to see America both from within and from without offers a much more well-rounded perspective than comes from many on the list who are limited to speculating from too close to the beltway. Conservatism is more than DC politics so I place Fernandez in the #2 spot.
“Are you confusing columnists with leaders?” No I’m not.
Todays generations are without any historical points of reference concerning what a columunist is, especially, those labeled as political columists. Todays political columnists are progandists! In past history, political columists were generally publishers of newspapers and everybodys next door neighbor in their communities. Regardless of their party affiliations, they remained fair, objective and reasonably factual in publishing their opinions.
In many parts of the country, party centric politics carried the day until later in the 20th century which gave way to more candidate centric politics and opinionating. At the same time there was a growth of cottage industry political columnist which continues to grow today through the internet.
But for the primary process, democrats have retained more of the past party centric philosophy wheras the GOP has abandoned it nearly entirely for the candidate centric approach as witnessed today. If you read and listen to the democrat side it is nearly always about the party philosophy. If you read and listen to the GOP side it is nearly always about the candidate(s).
Just look at the decimation of the GOP in recent times from within as opposed the the continuty of the democrat party. Take a look at how many registered conservative parties, Tea parties, Constitution parties, etc., all associated with the GOP.
Why is that? In my opinion, its the result of a vast self serving propaganda machine associated with the GOP. While some propaganda is directed towards the ‘Democrat Party’ most today is directd at the GOP and its candidates. I can’t think of a single ‘GOP columnist’ today, that is bent towards unifying the party.
Zeke, I know you didn’t invoke the First Amendment; I did because for liberty to exist all voices must be heard. Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I believe concerned Americans will separate the wheat from the chaff.
It may be infuriating when pundits air arguments that are fallacious, dishonest, weak, silly, or just plain wrong, but it’s also useful, just as it’s elevating when a commentator inspires and informs us with the truth. The citizens of a republic need to hear both sides because the danger isn’t in having too many competing opinions, it’s in having too few.
“…I believe concerned Americans will separate the wheat from the chaff.”
First, I understand and can appreciate the positions you have by the demeanor in which you presented them.
Next, to the quote above. Concerned and or informed americans represent such a small percentage of our adult population and an even smaller portion of our voting population.
Poltics and politicized issues are rarely matters of concern to the overwhelming majority of citizens. To borrow a term, most americans across all levels of education and profession are in the “low information’ category. If and when they become inspired (usually at the 4-year national election cycle) by politics or an issues being baited by politics, they only seek snippets of information which of course is heavily propagandized by most all sources. Most americans by the way, are quite turned off by all the political and social movements tactical strategies for conversion. Its all political and social corruption and devisivness and the majority know it. They ultimately vote the party they were born into or converted too by which one offers the best return of social benefits.
As a side note prediction. Watch the swell of voter involvement to significantly receed during future election cycles from the 2008 and 2012 election cyles — after Obama, the first black president leaves office.
The traditional GOP was already a long term minority party in terms of registered voters and since 2010 and 2012 it has become a decimated party with long term consequences to come. Do you really have confidence in these divisive experts, who decimated the GOP from within, to have the stragic skills to see past their eye lashes?
Mark Steyn and VDH are my two faves, hands down.
Johag Goldberg? Ann Colter? Krauthammer? Seriously? Party hacks. They’re republicans first, consveratives if they’re forced to be. Where are VDH and Michael Ledeen
Simply not true. All three frequently criticize Republicans and the Republican party. To any of you posters arguing that many of your fellow conservatives are not actually conservatives at all, especially if they’re not haters of Republicans (unless it’s John McCain, a Republican who hates Republicans because they’re too conservative), I think you should take a step back and understand: 1) conservatism is a broad movement that attracts many who share a few core beliefs but differ on some core and many non-core beliefs; 2) conservatives need to achieve some electoral successes in order to be able to influence policies in a conservative direction; 3) even conservatives who agree on principles can differ on the tactics conservatives need to adopt to achieve short term and long term goals; 4) pundits serve to elucidate principles, argue which principles are core and which are non-core, and suggest tactics to achieve electoral or legislative successes. A good conservative pundit doesn’t gratuitously attack other conservatives to demonstrate a supposed ideological purity, but applies arguably conservative principles to questions of ideology, policy or tactics. There is no such thing as ideological purity in conservatism.
My top ten,in no particular order:
Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn, Bret Stephens, Jonah Goldberg, Dennis Prager, Victor Davis Hanson, George Will, Jeff Jacoby
Ezra Levant has my vote (he’s in my top ten list).
Jean Kaufman, occasional PJMedia contributor and excellent blogger, who goes by the monicker neo-neocon ( http://neoneocon.com/ ). From neo’s biography, . . .
“Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I’ve found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. My friends and family don’t want to hear about my inexplicable conversion, so I started this blog to tell the tale of my political change and provide a forum for others. I have a Master’s degree in Marriage and Family Therapy, and my politics make me a pariah there, too. Little did I know that I moved in such politically homogeneous circles.” ( http://neoneocon.com/bio/ )
Under-read and under-followed is Jeff Goldstein at proteinwisdom. I love Steyn, VDH, Krauthammer, Levin and the rest but Goldstein, though his style is sometimes off-putting, is the brightest and the most intellectual. He pulls no punches.
+1 on Jeff Goldstein. He should rank up there with the best.
Language matters. Until it doesn’t any longer.
1)Mark Steyn
2)PJ O’Rourke
3)Victor Davis Hansen
5)David Goldman
6)Thomas Sowell
7)Paul Kengor
Nice list!
I read many columns at townhall daily. Thomas Sowell is my favorite. Sorry, Ann Coulter uses too much hyperbolie for my tastes. The other two I never skip are Walter Williams and John Stossel.
From PJTV, I like Andrew Klavan’s video essays and his onoe on ones with Bill Whittle.
Victor Davis Hansen
Michelle Malkin
Cal Thomas
Walter E. Williams
Jonah Goldberg
Thomas Sowell
Ann Coulter
Fred Barnes
Alan Keyes
Mark Steyn
Michael Medved
Larry Elder
Milton Freidman, brilliant pioneer of conservatism (RIP)
Forgot one more favorite:
Deroy Murdock
Kay Hymowitz is elegant. She is devastating to her opponents. Her articles on early youth sexual miseducation have left public school teachers in tears and shame.
Ann Coulter. She has an acidulous wit. She’s easy on the eyes. She has the single best modern quote about being a christian.
The guy who profiled Catholic schools in New York. He called out Jonathan Kozol’s fakery.
Andrew Klavan. The bones shaping his stories’ body, even before he came out conservative- he was wrestling in public view.
Bill Whittle goes somewhere on the list, for his Tomorrow-land video.
Rita Mae Brown, for the end chapter in High Hearts.
Milton and Rose Friedman, even today.
Any of the modern popes, easily. I’m not Catholic, but, whoo, that’s a granite reef.
judith wallerstein. books, not columns.
tara parker popes book on marriage.
The best conservative who wrote every day was Ronald Reagan. Using him as the standard for defining a conservative writer in any category, I find the original list wanting. Most on the list, Sowell being the biggest exception, lack a consistent political and moral view founded in conservative principles. The result, I offer George Will as the example, is that they have too often espoused positions that are anything but conservative. Having gone off the reservation due to their apparent lack of conservative principles aka philosohy, can they still be called conservative writers? Egil and HiPlanesDrifter described most of the original list. The bottom line for them is that they have acquired bylines because they are part of the elite political crowd. Ann Coulter is a prime example and she adds her shock jock routine for emphasis. Some of the suggestions are great, though.
What, no Pat Cadell? No Hugh Hewitt? No Neo-Neo-Con?
For shame…
1.) Thomas Sowell
2.) Although not a ‘columnist’, anything that MARK LEVIN puts down on paper
James Taranto should be mentioned, if not one of the finalists.
VDH. Radosh.
Add me to the “strike Coulter” list. I cannot forgive her Premature Romneyism, much less her embrace of Chris Christie.
The Hawkins list is ridiculous. No Kimball, no Simon, no Solway, but the tiresome Bill O’Reilly gets a place at the table? In addition, while I’ll be charitable and assume Hawkins meant American columnists, such a list that excludes Anthony Daniels, aka Theodore Dalrymple, isn’t much of a list.
Theodore Dalrymple is someone I edit for PJM, hence he’s not included. But I would rank him up there with the PJ columnists. His writing is fantastic.
I LOVE Clarice’s Pieces on Sunday Morning on American Thinker. She HAS to be in the list. Clarice Feldman.
Would Iowahawk be considered a columnist? He’s great.
Agree with most of the rest. VDH is a must-read and Walter Williams too.
Michelle Malkin should be in the top 5, along with Prager, Steyn, Sowell, and Stossel.
Two of my favorites are missing here: Arnold Ahlert (Jewish World Review and Front Page Magazine) and John Hayward (formerly Doctor Zero) at Human Events. I agree that Sowell, Steyn, and Theodore Dalrymple have to be on the list. Finally, I would also nominate Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard, who has recently done particularly well on the Libya fiasco.
Pat Buchanan
Milton Friedman
George Will
Jack Schwager
Michael Totten
Christopher Hitchens
Newt Gingrich
You lost me when you included Ann Coulter anywhere near the list.
Forget Ann Coulter. She’s a fraud.
I agree that Thomas Sowell should be at the top of the list. Ann Coulter is good and has had some of the best post-election analysis, but I think Sowell is better.
And Jack Cashill deserves a mention for his probing research which exposed Obama for the lying fraud that he is.
Also, Jeffery Lord.
Ann Coulter?
Do you mean tax-the-rich and endorse the RINO Ann Coulter?
You can stop with Thomas Sowell.
Sooner or later, almost everyone else includes some form of ad hom attack against their ideological opponents, or else they engage in populist bombast. Many of the rest also engage in crude depictions of their ideological opponents.
Sowell doesn’t go there. He’s reasonable and rational.
You can find a niche market doing those other things, and even get rich doing so…but how many Americans are convinced by ad homs and the rude behavior that you display against them?
These days, Merriam-Webster is to serious discussion of the language as McDonalds is to gourmet food.
They are firmly in the deconstructionist camp, with a large serving of downright stupidity.
No need for a list. Everyone look for info sources they can personally trust. These may or may not include any modern media types.
Prior to last night (12/5/12)I was an Ann Coulter fan & reader. I now have a much different opinion of her after watching her on Hannity. She endorsed the Dem’s income tax rate increase on the top 2%, even after being badgered by Hannity asking her numerous times if she was serious. I couldn’t believe her reasoning was because if the GOP doesn’t, the lamestream media will bury them and they’ll (GOP) lose even more popularity with the public and risk losing control of the House and potential to regain the Senate in 2014. Both Hannity & I were incredulous that she’s retreated & resigned herself to going along w/the Dems & surrendering her conservative beliefs/principals all for popularity with the MSM and the general public. That revealed to me that she’s become a Washington Establishment Republican and no longer was a neo-con and independent thinker. It truly disheartened me. RIP Ann Coulter
Welcome to reality. She’s NEVER been a solid conservative.
For crying out loud, she was one of the earliest to endorse Mr. Homosexual Marriage himself, Mitt Romney. Remember him? The guy who thinks socialize medicine is a GOOD thing, if it’s just done right? The guy who was pro-abortion, then pro-life when it suited him? The guy who governed somewhere to the left of Teddy Kennedy?
It’s one thing to say we should vote for an out-and-out RINO like Romney because he’s not as bad as Obama, it’s quite another to be his one-woman cheerleading squad early in the primaries.
Ann Colter is not now, nor has she ever been, a principled conservative.
You are both lost. She is correct and you refuse to see reality. They will get their tax on the Rich anyway, it will fail to do anything but destroy the economy, and the MSM will blame it on Republicans…as you watch it unfold. Keep telling yourselves she’s not a conservative. What the Repubs need to do is allow the Leftists to own it..ya, here’s your increased taxes on the rich. The rich won’t care, they will stay rich, they won’t invest in risky new business, they will invest in tax deferred whatever. You know, the rich know, it’s not going to hurt them, it hurts those that would have been hired by them, but now won’t. Those new taxpayers that will not exist from those new successful business ventures that also will not exist because if this leftist Utopian Tool. The Repubs need to shout it out from the roof tops..here’s your tax increases libs…are you going to cut spending?? F no, they won’t and it needs to be repeated every day, but they won’t..so the MSM will for them..only it will be the Republicans fault, because they didn’t speak up…Coulter will.
Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that the central fact of our age is the Left’s assault with intent to kill the White West and doesn’t say so forthrightly is of no account in the struggle for our very survival. The tip-off is the conservatives who go all squishy when faced with the inevitable charge of “Racisss!!!” All those conservatives who look the other way or turn on the conservatives who forthrightly state that the only fight that counts is the fight against the Left’s War on Whites, all of them are worse than useless. In this matter of life and death Jared Taylor, Lawrence Auster and Paul Kersey count. Charles Krauthammer doesn’t.
Hear, hear!
In the past year, Ann Coulter has shown herself to be a neocon, not a conservative. Her gushing support of Crispy Creme Christie betrayed her lack of understanding of true conservatism. Krauthammer also often ventures into neocon territory on hot button issues, and he rarely gives full-throated endorsements to true conservative ideas. Sowell should probably be considered the standard bearer, and I see him as much more intellectually compelling than Bill Buckley ever was.
Mark Steyn is excellent, and Jonah Goldberg is usually on target, as is Michael Barone, but the rest of the people on the list are marginal to questionable at best. Where is Michelle Malkin? She’s a much more principled conservative than Coulter ever was. Coulter is clever and deliberately provocative, but she is not, not a solid conservative.
The data was there for a long longer than the past year.
I’m not even sure she’s a neocon. She’s just a con.
You mention Zombie but he/she didn’t make the final cut. She should be on the list (I may be wrong, but I’ve found a few clues in her work that make me believe she’s a woman). Man or woman, Zombie’s work is brilliant, unusual, consistently entertaining and enlightening.
Ann Coulter shouldn’t be on your list. She’s a self serving bomb thrower with bad instincts (Chris Christie for God’s sake?).
What about Victor Davis Hansen?
All right just to get my $0.02 in I would have to include Michele Malkin, Roger Simon, and very especially Ronald Radosh and Jack Cashill, all very informative writers and thinkers dealing with facts in evidence. In truth we have many folks we can listen to. Nobody is going to agree with anybody all the time, example: I find myself at odds with Ann over Mitt & Christy but I do not turn my back on her for it.
Ann Coulter is #1. There is no comparison.
Yes, tax-the-rich Coulter, yes, she’s number 1.
Oh, and don’t forget her ringing endorsements of the man who created homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, and who thinks socialized medicine is great, as long as it’s done correctly. And then there’s her gushing endorsement of the RINO Christie.
Yes, she’s certainly #1
For the RINO crowd.
For people who understand and love the Constitution and the principles on which this country was founded, not so much.
She’s more like the enemy within the gates.
Oh ye without sin….ya, she may pick an apparent loser, but she is no way a RINO lover. You can tell yourself that all you want. Ya, I’m a fan, ya she makes mistakes, but her WRITING and speaking skills, not backing down and slapping liberal idiots with their own idiocy, about which this article is about, brings her to the #1 spot.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mac_donald.htm/
Heather MacDonald
Diana West
http://www.dianawest.net
Good call.
I could quibble with your top ten, but I won’t. And certainly not your top two.
I’d like to add David Solway to the list.
Where is the sage from South Central, Larry Elder???
Yes, the former Libertarian is far more a conservative than the “darling” of many conservatives, Ann Tax-The-Rich Coulter.
I value Larry Elder much more as a talk radio host than a columnist. Talk radio is the medium he’s mastered more than the column.
Mark Styne has that certain something of expression coupled with wit that makes him a star.
Lawrence Auster would have to be #1
I’ll second the Bret Stephens nomination, and also Diana West’s.
The top 2 in exactly the order you have them!! I wish Miss Coulter would write columns more often as I pop by her website often to check for new ones more than she writes..I know, she’s got a lot of books to write. Coulter for Pres.! =0)
Mr. Sowell, by far the most articulate conservative. I use his quotes often.
Michelle Malkin for sure!
Seriously, you Coulter haters need a pair of diapers. The fact that she wants the Democrates to own their tax increases to show the world what those policies to do to economic climate is a proper analysis of the current situation. We have lost every media but Fox news on television. Conservatives lag far behind in being published writers for most major news papers. We may have a leg up on talk-radio, but where are the feet on the ground? Coulter may use snark and sarcasm – it’s because that is her style of writing. Getting people pissed off gets her ideas out in the main stream media where people sometimes get curious and then stumble upon her well-writen and obsessively fact-checked articles and books. To me it is a tie between Sowell and Coulter; they are the only two people I never miss an article from. The only other is Dan Mitchell of CATO fame.
There is nothing “fake-conservative” about Coulter – she is completely consistent in her values and analysis. She no more desires to tax the rich more than any of us here, she simply recognizes that America has to reach its rock-bottom before any healing can done. Breaking government dependancy that has crept on the ignorant while us conservatives have been shouting from the rafters is going to be ugly, but needs to be done!
Yep, I agree Kirsten. The Coulter haters are the worst tacticians. It is better to broker a deal where most of the people can get a tax cut, than no one gets one, which is where we are heading. The rich have lobbyists. They will come back and sneak in some of their tax deductions later.
How is it that Victor Davis Hanson doesn’t make this list? Hanson, Steyn, Sowell are top three in any order.
Because I didn’t include any of the writers I edit here at PJM on the list.
I greatly enjoy the pieces by David P. Goldman (aka Spengler), Barry Rubin, Victor Davis Hanson, and Michael Ledeen here on PJMedia. Elsewhere I admire the steadfastness of conservative women like Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick and the sharp wit of Mark Steyn.
Zombie is in a league of its own with an acute eye for the detail yet not missing out the bigger picture and thereby defining and giving a new twist to a specific new online journalism. I enjoyed the Zombie still in its blogging/ commenting days and it was a joy “seeing” that mind work so fast.
With a mind just as fast, a small almost hidden jewel here on PJM is buzzsawmonkey with his new lyrics he puts on well known tunes – these two are to me an inspirational, intelligent, witty and NEW face of what conservative journalism should also always contain if it wants to keep being relevant and up-to-date.
On video Bill Whittle and Stephen Green are outstanding. IMHO
Victor Davis Hanson
Thomas Sowell
Ion Mihai Pacepa
Caroline Glick
Any conservative columnist who correctly predicted the election gets my vote. And that leaves…
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/11/04/the-15-best-books-for-understanding-barack-obamas-mysterious-political-theology/5/
Sitting here on this Sunday morning before the election, the Sun now up, reflecting back on these years scouring through dusty old Marxist books, trying to understand a president who built his career on a mountain of lies, I confess a peace with either electoral result on Tuesday. A part of me almost wishes that Obama steals wins reelection (as I anticipate he will). The thought of him quietly retiring to a mansion in Hawaii in January to live out the rest of his life in comfort and adoration should inspire nausea. Only if Obama wins reelection do conservatives have a chance to hold him accountable for Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and all the crimes we don’t even know about yet. The man has blood on his hands and we can’t let him get away with it.
An ancient dictum popularized in recent years by the late Christopher Hitchens on the path forward, should Tuesday disappoint:
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Do Justice and Let the Skies Fall
Only issue is quoting Hitchens. I saw him on a clip with a panel of British Conservatives. They are nothing like American Conservatives, almost the opposite. (Where is Maggie Thatcher?) Reminds me of why we had the revolution.
Whoops! Wrong Hitchens. Never mind.