Stephen M. Walt has an important column up at Salon. Using the controversy over Bill Kristol's new gig as a New York Times columnist as a springboard, Walt argues that there is less of a difference between the liberal and neoconservative views on foreign policy than we think, and that a third, oft-underrepresented group has in recent years been excluded from the mainstream discourse: foreign policy realists.

I'll leave the dissection of the arguments in Bill Kristol's column today to those more qualified to discuss the myriad failings and instabilities of the war in Iraq.

I will, however, comment on the correction posted to his column last week--turns out that quote he attributed to Michelle Malkin really belonged to Michael Medved. What a relief! The thinking world was up in arms that Kristol would quote so reviled a source of mindless conservative rhetoric in his examination of Republican presidential nominees—turns out he was quoting a guy who thinks “Happy Feet” was part of the evil gay agenda that’s invading America. A big step up, I’d say.

The premiere of Bill Kristol’s New York Times column, unsurprisingly, leaves much to be desired. It seems that in the face of so much frothing anticipation, Kristol opted for the kind of ordinary primary season piece that’s dominated op-ed pages in recent weeks (ok, months). If you’re looking for the Kristol we all love to hate, look elsewhere.

Instead of doing anything interesting, Kristol, like many conservatives, bemoans the slim pickings in the Republican primary. Worried that a Democratic president would, among other things, "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq," Kristol tries to build up Huckabee as a looming threat that Democrats are too dumb to understand. But instead of selling the candidate, he offers up a very safe “maybe he is, maybe he isn’t” argument about Huckabee’s chances as the Republicans’ strongest nominee.

Despite its unoriginal thesis, it’s worth reading just to say you did. Check it out here.

The proliferation of media has lessened the importance of the Times; so have the newspaper's mistakes (which include too great a kinship with the Democratic National Committee). To be sure, there are some unmissable individuals in the paper, such as John F. Burns in Iraq. But, seemingly every day, journalists and others are discovering that they don't have to consume the whole deal.

I just graduated from college this May, and right now I'm thick in the middle of my first real full-time job search. Any other recent grads or other people who've conducted a full-time job search recently can probably commiserate with me about the near-endless optimism one has to put up in front of family and friends. "Oh, yeah! Things are going great…couple interviews…some great leads…no, I haven't had any offers yet…" I was thinking a little bit about that eternal optimism as I was reading yet another right-winger's proclamation that things were indeed getting better in Iraq, if only we'd hang on just a few more months/years/decades. Such optimism, while necessary when facing the real world after college, blinds too many opinion makers from the real world of US policy. To see this in action, click "read more."

Wow. I know that it’s pretty easy for anyone, on any given day, to find something stupid that someone wrote somewhere. Such is the power of the internet. It’s counterproductive and borderline cliché, in fact, to author a blog post that does nothing but excoriate a terrible column or blog post. I didn’t plan on doing this today. Really – I didn’t. 

And then Bill Kristol had to go and have one of his columns published in the Sunday Post.

You have to respect Bill Kristol. Yes, you can disparage his politics--his imperialist hawkishness that got us into this bloody, sand-caked fiasco, or any of the ridiculous op/eds you find in his Weekly Standard. But on May 3, at the National Press Club, he did what few conservatives would do in this somber age of Congressional minorities and 28% presidential approval ratings: he swallowed his pride and attended an event titled, comically, the Failure of Conservatism Conference. And at the luncheon of the Conference, hosted by the Campaign for America’s Future, not only did he share the same room with a group of people who probably wanted his head on a platter instead of the veggie pasta, but he was forced to defend his much-maligned movement in a debate with The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner. The topic at hand? The equally cruel and funny inquiry “Can Conservatives Be Trusted to Govern?”

To be fair, this was no worse than some of the panel titles I saw while undercover blogging at CPAC (for example, “The Left’s Continued War on the American Soldier”), and Kristol’s amiability promoted a certain tongue-in-cheek, sport-like quality in the contest that prevented it from ever getting ugly. Plus, the subtext to the harsh title was clear: in the midst of the Reagan nostalgia that Bush’s mess of a presidency has inspired and that is currently clouding the minds and words of the Right’s 2008 nominees, it is in the Left’s best interest to cut off the problem at its stem instead of at its goofy, vacant, Texan head. At Kuttner’s podium was a sign that read “Pro,” and at Kristol’s one that marked him, in blood red, “CON.” The stage was set. The bell was rung.

Round 1

Kuttner comes out swinging, characterizing the last six years as a laboratory for elected conservatives to try every idea they ever had, in the absence of a president who would remotely challenge them. What manifested, he notes, was not principled libertarianism or a return to tradition, but a movement based on sheer, unadulterated opportunism. The laziness, corruption, and greed was not a temporary ailment but at the heart of the Right’s cause.

Kristol pursues an exclusively economic counterattack, rhetorically pondering if we really want to return to the fiscal state we were in before 1980 and Reaganomics, then citing the positive influence of such policies on developing nations. He hits a sensitive spot by pointing out that none of the Left is campaigning on their party’s pre-1996 position on welfare. He wipes his brow.

Round 2

Kuttner notes Kristol’s conspicuous failure to mention Bush or Iraq once in his opening statement, and asserts that the family unit that Kristol’s conservatives are so desperate to attack has been hurt more by the Right’s rich-favoring tax cuts than by any sort of cultural deterioration. Kuttner continues to focus his blows on the fiscal cronyism of the Right, attributing conservatives’ enduring ability to win elections to the inevitable translation of wealth into power.

Kristol bobs and weaves, defending himself by proclaiming that he would gladly accept Clinton-era Reubenomics as a suitable alternative to Reaganomics (being as it is in his mind influenced by conservative policy), and points to Giuliani’s success in making New York “liveable.” On Iraq, he unashamedly insists that the next president will have a similar foreign policy to Bush’s, but with a different “style.”

Round 3

Kristol suddenly breaks ranks with the conservatives and launches a strictly Neocon attack—he embraces a rightist welfare (read: nanny) state, heralds Bush’s Medicare bill and tax cuts, and boldly counters criticism of military build-up by lamenting that we didn't bolster defense spending more before 9/11 and Iraq. When pressed on the war, Kristol, unexpectedly fatigued after his offensive, graciously yields that Bush’s certainly hasn’t been the most competent presidential administration, to roaring applause.

Kuttner sticks to his reliable jab, insisting that corruption and conservatism go hand-in-hand, using as evidence the K Street Project and the Right’s massive investment in think tanks. Kristol goes into block mode, attributing the growth of said think tanks to the enlistment of conservative political science professors who can’t get tenure on college campuses. Kuttner tries new moves as he unflinchingly credits the Left’s 2006 election success to the pocketbook problems of average Americans, instead of Iraq. Kristol attempts one last hook by disparaging the Left’s unity, noting that liberalism seems to be merely comprised of grievances against conservatives, rather than a force in its own right.

Post-Match Analysis

Against all odds, and despite definitely lacking the home-team advantage, Kristol was able to at least hold his own against Kuttner. He looked calm and comfortable for almost the whole debate, but when he went for economics, it allowed Kuttner to focus on the money-grubbing disenfranchisement of the poor that he claimed was at the heart of conservatism. Both men more or less played by the rules in that they avoided the opportunity to make Bush the centerpiece of an argument about conservatism in general, but when they did mention his name, a weird kind of consensus was reached. Though these days one would expect any self-respecting conservative to denounce Bush as a tainted, wrong-headed deviation from the base movement, Kristol actually agreed with Kuttner (quite happily) that future conservative presidents will have the same goals and ideas as George W. Bush. He seemed to think this was a good thing. I’m not so sure, but it certainly raises a more appropriate but no less pitiless topic for a debate: “George Bush: Totally Misguided, or Just Disastrously Incompetent?”