Late in the previous month, the New York Times subtly marked the cessation of my recurrent disdainful read. Aptly titled ‘The Conversation’, this weekly exchange was the brainchild of Gail Collins, a flag bearer of liberalism, and Bret Stephens, vociferous critic of Trump encapsulating the ‘conservative’ ideology. Over the course of eight years, this duo wrestled with the political upheavals of the Trump era, exuding the casualness of privileged individuals whose personal lives remained unscarred by any socio-political decision under debate. ‘The pleasure was all ours to indulge in these enjoyable weekly exchanges over the past eight years,’ stated Collins to Stephens as part of their final joint piece. These sessions, candidly, seemed only to amuse those engaged in them.
For ages, editorials and broadcasting channels have turned to debates between ideologically opposing pundits as a filler. These discussions can be entertaining and enlightening, acting as a bridge between polarizing viewpoints. Unfortunately, ‘The Conversation’ was more of a monologue than a dialogue. Stephens, despite being excessively verbose, overshadowed the discussions, while Collins, never being too confrontational, relegated herself to appreciating his verbose wit and his false narrative of treating both sides equally, an approach which remained unchallenged.
Placed within the reputed New York Times, ‘The Conversation’ felt strangely like an elaborate way of wasting column space. More shockingly, in the wake of Trump’s political comeback, its insistence on maintaining civil discourse seemed rather detached from reality, bordering on the absurd. Courtesy took precedence over meaningful dialogue in ‘The Conversation’, which left productive arguments quite scarce.
Civility in political discourse, in theory, is much appreciated. I’d much rather engage in discourse with those willing to consider my points of view respectfully rather than bearing constant interruptions accompanied by derogatory comments. Unfortunately, those who often applaud political civility are the ones who come undone from well-measured scrutiny. These hollow pundits gain most from this shield of civility; they can dish out flawed opinions unquestioned, knowing their adversaries would hesitate before making aggressive counterarguments.
Stephens himself often downplayed the destructive potential of Trump’s second term, whilst Collins refrained from stressing the devastating threats a possible Trump re-election represented, possibly to prevent discomforting discourse. In July 2024, Stephens posited his belief that a second Trump term, despite being damaging and foolish in numerous instances, would fall short of being a catastrophe. Collins, instead of presenting cogent counterarguments, vaguely lauded Stephens for a ‘terrifying’ question.
Later that same month, in the ominous period after Biden’s retreat from the presidential race and before Kamala Harris’s official nomination, Stephens boldly declared Harris to be a weaker candidate than Biden. He stated his unwillingness to vote for her despite not siding with Trump. When mildly challenged by Collins, Stephens refused to re-consider his stance, confidently stating his belief that a victory for Trump would not spell the end of democracy.
Collins, rather than countering this notion effectively, ceded ground, shifting the conversation to J.D. Vance. Even after Harris garnered the Democratic nomination, Stephens continued to display his dubious approach by doubting her political acumen and refusing to vote for her due to her contradicting views.
Surprisingly, Collins responded to this by admitting there were situations where one had to choose the lesser of two evils, and refusing this necessity was ‘kind of snobbish’. In an overtly complaisant conversation, one wonders what point there was in presenting a liberal perspective if it could not boldly confront conservative arguments that could potentially mislead the public.
An effective dialogue between differing political ideologies does not need to be as unstimulating as this. One instance showcasing this was when Jamelle Bouie, formerly a writer for Slate, and Stephens had a conversation. Unexpectedly, they collided on viewpoints, and despite maintaining respectful discourse, Bouie did not let Stephens’s rhetoric go unchecked.
When Stephens proposed the Democrats consider candidates other than Kamala Harris, majorly the Governor of Maryland, Bouie beguilingly replied, ‘The argument to marginalize Harris in favor of comparatively nationally unproven candidates overlooks huge risks involved, including potential fragmentation within the Democratic Party’. Stephens appeared thrown off-balance, unable to define the term ‘muscling Harris aside’ as employed by Bouie, who undeterred, continued to critique his viewpoint.
Post this dialogue, the Times never brought the two men together for another exchange. Stephens and Collins, however, continued with ‘The Conversation’ until late April, when they decided to pause it to concentrate on their books. Their last installation was filled with mirth and a laudatory note to their brand of amicable disagreements.
Those lauding civil bipartisan dialogue for its own sake fail to comprehend the reason behind the chaotic and polarized nature of politics. Currently, what Stephens terms as a ‘food fight’ can be more accurately seen as racist, bullying tirades by the right, the left’s justified outrage over the current administration’s authoritarian policies, and the consolidated frustration at so-called ‘reasonable’ conservatives who continue to pretend that everything is just fine.
To the cessation of their weekly dialogue, Stephens and Collins might feel a sense of loss. For rest of us, it comes as a much-needed respite.