I ask people on the left, constantly, “so what, precisely, is the problem you have with Katherine Kersten – besides the fact that she’s a conservative?”
The closest thing I’ve seen to an answer that wasn’t solely fueled by politics was “she was never a reporter; she’s nothing but a think tank writer”. In this story – one you usually hear from people in the media – the idea that spending years becoming a hard-drinking, dyspeptic “ink-stained wretch” is the bit of seasoning in the human stew that makes a columnist a columnist. It’s sort of an echo of Nick Coleman’s classic explanation of why he’s better than bloggers, “I Know Stuff”, where “stuff” equals “reporter” stuff – as if the life experience we all bring to the table doesn’t really give one a useful perspective on anything. To these people, knowing the double-dog secret ace reporter handshake is the only real qualification.
Enh.
Another one – and this one is overtly partisan – is that “Kersten is closely linked to Power Line“. I’ve heard it from any number of Twin Cities’ lefty writers, although Brian Lambert actually wrote it.
Now, I’ve seen a few leftymedia types jump from that to “Kersten and Powerline have the same opinions”, as if it’s unthinkable that four conservatives would have some occasional synchronicity, and ignoring that they, the critic, was usually in completely sync with “The Daily Kos” at any rate…
…but that’s not really the point.
I’m curious: the leftymedia says that Kersten having the occasional episode of synchronicity with Power Line is a bad thing…
…while Nick Coleman – the columnist against whom Kersten is constantly unfavorably compared because his decades as a reporter and columnist and just-plain observer – can get a complete pass for writing an uncritical, incurious, note-by-note regurgitation of a liberal think-tank piece to which Coleman added not a whiff of his vaunted no-nonsense reportorial curiosity or experience or world-weary inquisitiveness. Indeed, Coleman added nothing but a little brow-beating prejudice.
So let me ask, again – what is the comparison, here? Other than politics, of course?
Nick knows stuff. You already said that. What else do you need to know?
I think that Katherine Kersten is a horrible writer. Most of what I’ve read of hers are pathological rants. They very rarely have a clear thesis, and when they do her arguments for her claims involve huge leaps of faith over large gaps in logic. Most righty blogs write better than she does. [If you really want me to be specific, pick an article of hers and I’ll deconstruct it for you.]
And the tone of her writing makes it clear that she has trouble respecting people who oppose her point of view. If I felt that she would be willing to listen to my point of view I would be far more willing to consider hers.
The fact that I don’t like her opinions doesn’t really help either, but that alone is no excuse to ignore someone. I’ve never heard of Power Line or Nick Coleman, but I’m not in favor of drawing hasty connections. I’m sure the two of us agree on many things (even in politics), but I wouldn’t say that makes you a liberal.
Awesome post, Mitch. Katherine Kersten is smart and she brings the exact kind of diversity in thought that Minnesota needs. She’s annoying to liberals because she’s logical and presents non-emotional ideas. She’s also a smart woman who’s managed to juggle a career and raising a beautiful family – sort of your Sarah Palin type. Katherine Kersten, you could argue, had just as much – if not more – “professional” journalistic experience than our sitting President had “professional” political experience. We need to accept diversity of backgrounds from the right too – not just the left – if we are going to grow as a country.
I like the theory that it’s classic projection. Liberals have sugar daddies like George Soros and Arianna Huffington who pay “independent” writers to write what Soros and Huffington think, so they can’t imagine a world where independent thought occurs.
Yet another reason to keep your kids out of the government schools.
KT wrote: “She’s annoying to liberals because she’s logical and presents non-emotional ideas.”
I just find the few things of hers I’ve read NOT to be terribly clever, insightful, and certain neither logical nor ‘non-emotional’. The sole reason I can discern for her popularity is conservative culture-war conformity.
I do agree with KT that we need diversity of thought, and would add that we need it at all levels, local, state, and national. But from what I’ve seen, Kersten doesn’t provide that in her writing. Quite the opposite; I think AB nailed it very perceptively.
AB: Most of what I’ve read of hers are pathological rants. – Pathological? As in, caused by a disease? I’m not trying to be obtuse, and while words do matter I also know “pathological” has a colloquial meaning as well. But if anything, I’d say Kersten is the opposite of a “ranter”; if I could fault her writing, it’s that it’s almost too clinical.
But OK – pick a column of hers. Deconstruct it (perhaps over at apathyboy – feel free to link to it over here) and we can talk.
KT,
There are so many reasons the lefties hate Kersten, including the whole Palin/Bachmann “I can raise a family AND smoke you in a debate” thing. But the big one? The ones that do know the secret journalist handshake just can’t stand having an outsider at the next desk.
DG,
The sole reason I can discern for her popularity is conservative culture-war conformity.
While I was about to dismiss that, I thought about it for a bit – and there’s something to it. It’s not “conformity”, of course – but given that Kersten is the only “out” conservative employed anywhere in the Twin Cities mainstream media, there may well be a certain “circle our wagons” or “lay down covering fire for the friendlies” attitude among conservatives, especially those of us who’ve dipped our toes into the local media scene (as both KT and I have).
That said, if theStrib were to conjure Hayek, Buckley or Hume from the dead and give them a column, the usual suspects would still call them “terrible writers”, “emotional”, “nonsensical”, “teh crazee” and “partisan”. And the “journalists” would still chuckle about that whole “secret handshake” thing.
Mitch: by pathological I meant that her writing is designed to moreso to trigger emotions than thought. [Yes, this is a rather arcane usage of the word but I couldn’t think of a better one at the time.]
And the tone of her writing makes it clear that she has trouble respecting people who oppose her point of view. If I felt that she would be willing to listen to my point of view I would be far more willing to consider hers.
You’re likely not aware of this, but when Kersten was a regular metro columnist for the Strib, she also maintained a blog on the Strib website and she regularly had it out with all manner of lefties on all manner of issues. The threads would have hundreds of comments and Kersten would respond to all comers in an unfailingly polite way. There was a lot of agreeing to disagree involved, of course, but it was a far more civil discussion than what you would see on Eric Black’s “Big Question” blog, where you had people like Bill Pendergast bloviating away.
And to bring it back to Mitch’s point, Nick Coleman certainly didn’t welcome that sort of feedback or commentary on his Strib metro columns.
As if Mitch needed more proof that liberals criticism of Kersten is unsubstantiated. PatheticBoy and DogNagIt, thanks for making his point.
Mitch,
While I didn’t answer you directly, I have commented on what I think of Kersten. She wrote a pathetic little piece of condescension a couple of month’s back basically telling the women of the America how stupid they were because they didn’t know how good they had it. Her piece was poorly reasoned, and argued a point which was essentially irrelevant.
I’d put that label on nearly everything she writes, and that’s my issue with her. I COULD reiterate her sillyness here if you like, but I suspect you would rather that I not. If you like I’ll post a link – however, I’m not looking to ‘recruit’ people who don’t want to read it to come look at the blog – either way, let me know.
Here is the link if you would like to use it:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2009/10/sanctimonious-silliness-staid-sexism.html
Mitch wrote:”While I was about to dismiss that, I thought about it for a bit – and there’s something to it. It’s not “conformity”, of course – but given that Kersten is the only “out” conservative employed anywhere in the Twin Cities mainstream media, there may well be a certain “circle our wagons” or “lay down covering fire for the friendlies” attitude among conservatives, especially those of us who’ve dipped our toes into the local media scene (as both KT and I have).”
That sense of common cause doesn’t negate the very accurate criticism of AB when he writes about her articles “They very rarely have a clear thesis, and when they do her arguments for her claims involve huge leaps of faith over large gaps in logic. Most righty blogs write better than she does. ” The woman argues poorly, her premises are at best superficial, and she frequently gets her facts wrong.
I agree completely with AB when he writes “Most righty blogs write better than she does.”
Mitch then writes “That said, if theStrib were to conjure Hayek, Buckley or Hume from the dead and give them a column, the usual suspects would still call them “terrible writers”, “emotional”, “nonsensical”, “teh crazee” and “partisan”.” I don’t know who you mean by ‘the usual suspects’, and find it an odd turn of phrase here for what I think you mean, as it referred to those who were not actually guilty of something but got blamed for it anyway, as Claude Raines used the phrase in the wonderful classic movie, “Casa Blanca”. A Freudian slip perhaps?
I was an avid follower of Buckley, both in print and on televsion, even when I was a child. In particular, I admired him for his ability at argumentation and his magnificent vocabulary. To compare him even obliquely with Kersten in unwarranted.
I have posted my deconstructive criticism piece on Kather Kersten for those who care to read it. All comments welcome.
Mitch, it occured to me that a possible answer to your question on why iberals hate Kersten, and Bachmann for that matter, has to do with relgion. I think there is a big difference between a political zealot and a religious zealot. You are a political zealot. So am I. So I can relate to that, as long as it stays political. But when someone comes across as a religious zealot, it’s harder for me to relate. I’m not that religious.
Bachmann and Kersten do a poor job (from a liberal perspecitve, anyway) of keeping their religion out of the politics. A good contrast would be Palin. I am sure that her and Bachmann have very similar religious views, but Palin is very successful of focusing on politics. That is one of the reasons Palin is more widely regarded as a leader rather than a soldier. [This is a methaphor, Ben, I’m not saying that Bachmann is literally going to bear arms against her government.]
Sometimes I get the feeling that Bachmann would burn the constitution if she could replace it with the Bible. I doubt that she really would, but tone and demeanor go a long way in politics, one way or the other.
Sometimes I get the feeling that Bachmann would burn the constitution if she could replace it with the Bible.
Having met Rep. Bachmann and spoken with her in some depth, I know that to be mistaken.
But that is the “conventional wisdom” about her, at least among the left. Anyone who avows faith is one step away from being called a zealot.
I doubt that she really would, but tone and demeanor go a long way in politics, one way or the other.
Tone and demeanor are also the most subjective, and misrepresentable (since they are so subjective, “representation” is in the mind of the beholder) traits in a person’s public persona.
Sometimes I get the feeling that some people have no business criticizing the arguments of others. Their own arguments are far too weak.
Dog Gone said:
“The woman argues poorly, her premises are at best superficial, and she frequently gets her facts wrong.”
Wait, who are we talking about again? 😉
That sense of common cause doesn’t negate the very accurate criticism of AB
Nor was it intended to. It was to counter, or at least explain, the idea that agreeing with Kersten was a matter of “culture war conformity” (your term).
“They very rarely have a clear thesis, and when they do her arguments for her claims involve huge leaps of faith over large gaps in logic. Most righty blogs write better than she does. ” The woman argues poorly, her premises are at best superficial, and she frequently gets her facts wrong.
I don’t see that from her.
Mitch then writes “That said, if theStrib were to conjure Hayek, Buckley or Hume from the dead and give them a column, the usual suspects would still call them “terrible writers”, “emotional”, “nonsensical”, “teh crazee” and “partisan”.” I don’t know who you mean by ‘the usual suspects’, and find it an odd turn of phrase here for what I think you mean, as it referred to those who were not actually guilty of something but got blamed for it anyway, as Claude Raines used the phrase in the wonderful classic movie, “Casa Blanca”. A Freudian slip perhaps?
No slip at all. The usual suspects are the crowd in the Twin Cities left-leaning media and blogs who’ve been bagging on Kersten (as they do on every conservative female, pro forma.
To compare [Buckley] even obliquely with Kersten in unwarranted.
Well, it would be, if that was what I was doing.
The point, boiled down into a nutshell; you can be the most principled, intellectual, reasonable conservative in the world; the moment you become a threat to liberals, you will be labelled “crazy”, “extremist” or “stupid”, and usually some combination of the above. See John McCain – who spent decades buffing up his “across the aisle” and “hero who’s just a little above it all” cred – only to be labelled “extremist” and “crazy” the moment he stood a chance of standing between a Democrat and the White House.
Kersten was was of the conservatives who always got along with liberals just fine when she was at the CAX. But once she broke into the Double-Dog-Secret Journalist’s Club, she became a threat to the existing order, and thus no insult or degradation are off limits. See Sarah Palin.
Mitch asks:
“what, precisely, is the problem you have with Katherine Kersten”
She routinely says things that are false. This causes false beliefs to be more widely held. This results in me living in a country that is worse than it ought to be.
RickDFL said:
“She routinely says things that are false. This causes false beliefs to be more widely held. This results in me living in a country that is worse than it ought to be.”
You know, I had no idea it was International Projection Day. *shrug*
Troy said: “I know you are… but what am I?”{
Bravo, Troy. Well done!
“She routinely says things that are false.”
So do I. She gets paid for it and I don’t. This fuels my bitterness in her general direction. (Then again, I’d have to work for the Strib… hrm…)
“You know, I had no idea it was International Projection Day. ”
Projection? Again? From someone just as biased as RickDFL? I’m with AC, you guys need to get some new material, add to your repetoire.
She routinely says things that are false.
Er, like what?
“Er, like what?”
Okay, I’ll bite:
“In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U’s College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of “the American Dream” in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching.”
“The almost-2,000-page bill … invests an Orwellian-named “health choices commissioner” with power to shape millions of Americans’ life-and-death decisions.”
” Today, no one of either sex can count on marriage or family for the social support we need to get through life’s inevitable challenges.”
Not to mention the insidious anti-gay rhetoric that I fiercely repudiated on my blog of justice and freedom. (Did you like my use of hyperbole to sell my product? If it works for her…)
“…teachers there must repudiate the notion of “the American Dream” in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching.”
Didja read the report? It wasn’t an unreasonable interpretation; hardly objectively “false”, in any case.
“The almost-2,000-page bill … invests an Orwellian-named “health choices commissioner” with power to shape millions of Americans’ life-and-death decisions.”
Er, a bureaucracy by nature has bureaucrats. What is false about the statement? Are you saying the “public option” will not include any form of Case Management? What about the saying is objectively “false”?
” Today, no one of either sex can count on marriage or family for the social support we need to get through life’s inevitable challenges.”
You might be getting warmer, but I’ll have to re-read it; I have a nagging feeling there’s some context we’re missing.
Not to mention the insidious anti-gay rhetoric that I fiercely repudiated on my blog of justice and freedom. (Did you like my use of hyperbole to sell my product? If it works for her…)
Getcher own material.
I’ll try to sneak in a vicious fisking of your piece during my copious free time.
I apologize if the material has been done before. People just keep writing things, intending to describe others, that make me think of the writer more than the subject.
The material has been done before, and it still works because Berg’s 7th law is law, not theory. I have known KK since I was literally in 1st grade. I was friends with her son but sadly I have fallen out of touch with him over the years. She has raised a great family and is always nice and warm whenever I run into her in public. We joke about her job and she is overall an amazingly decent person. Anyone have a similar experience with Nikolai Kolmenov? I enjoy her writings and like how libs foam at the mouth when it comes to her. To quote Winston Churchill, “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. “
“What is false about the statement? Are you saying the “public option” will not include any form of Case Management? What about the saying is objectively “false”?”
The Health Choices Commissioner will run the insurance exchange, not any actual plan. All case management will be done by the insurance companies that offer a policy through the exchange. If there is a public option people choosing it will have their case management done like any other private insurance company.
More here
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/health-choices-commissioner-does-not-decide-your-h/
What makes Kerten such a vicious liar is the use of the vague and meaningless term “shape”. Anyone will “Orwellian” power would do more than “shape”. It is a dead give away that she knows the Health Choices Commissioner will have little actual power and she choose her words to decieve readers like you.
she choose her words to decieve readers like you.
Alternate – and as it happens, accurate – version: Kersten and I choose our words to convey actual fact, as opposed either pollyannaish worship of our partisan choices and/or the kind of pointillistic “gotcha” games like, well, you.
There was nothing about the statement that was false. You and AB may chortle and say “aw, they don’t have absolute power” – in other words, you may think her statement overreached – but there was nothing “false” about it.
“to convey actual fact”
What actual fact does her statement convey? You got it entirely wrong on your first pass. The position will have nothing to do with any case management in the public option.
“There was nothing about the statement that was false.”
How direcltly will the HCC have “power to shape millions of Americans’ life-and-death decisions.”? What life or death choice will they have the power to shape? You got it wrong the first time around and could not provide any example in your second try. Third time is the charm.