Debate at The Corner

The New YorkTimes ran an article today on the state of National Review  that actually pretty well summarizes the problem with the right wing at the moment; ideological rigidity is leading the rubes like Jonah and K-Lo to push the more intelligent, moreattched to reality voices like David Frum and Christopher Buckley off of the scene, and the remaining contingent is just a bunch of unhinged wingnuts. Read the whole thing. In response, Dana Goldstein writes:

It’s sad, because The Corner, for all it rankles, has always been the model of a blog that fosters debate among its contributors. As an employee of a small ideological magazine, I sincerely hope NR pulls itself together, abandons its knee-jerk hostility toward racial and ethnic difference, and becomes a voice of intelligent opposition. The web needs more informed and intelligent policy debate.

Now I’ve only been reading The Corner regularly for a little over a year, so it is possible Isuppose that there was a lot of debate going on there at one point. Now I think you’d have to be rather generous to describe the dialogue as such, as a typical day of “debate” at the corner goes something like this:

K-Lo: Stupid statement X.

Andy McCarthy/Mark Steyn/Mark Levin: That’s not wingnutty enough!

K-Lo: I disagree guys, and think it’s perfectly wingnutty. Mitt Romney/Rick Santorum/Catholic.

Jonah Golderg: You know who’s not wingnutty enough? Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin.

Ponnuru/Y.Levin: We are so!!!!

Jonah: I’m sorry if you read it that way guys. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that youare wingnutty enough.

Rinse and repeat daily.

Although I guess I do agree with Goldstein’s ultimate point; the internet needs much better debate than this.