You may not have noticed, and frankly, you likely haven’t missed it, but gone are the days of ‘The Conversation’ – that mostly one-sided dialogue every week in the New York Times between liberal Gail Collins and pseudo-conservative Bret Stephens. Here was an odd couple, debating Trump-centric politics, while living a life cushioned enough to keep them unaffected by the very issues they dissected. They spent eight years in this dance of words, a rather self-indulgent display, with Stephens steering the discourse and Collins appearing all too complaisant.
A concept initially conceived to offer diverse opinion through politically polarised personas, The Conversation effectively deprived subscribers of the core essence of debate. And in the era of Trump’s ascendency, the column’s polite discourse struck an increasingly uncomfortable note. It seemed like a wasted space which, while fostering civility, pushed meaningful, issue-based debate to the corners. The framework of the Conversation engineered a broadcasting space where views could be expressed freely, but lacked any real intellectual grappling.
Unfortunately, civility superseded the need for productive distinction during their discourses. Imagine conversing about crucial issues with someone, certainly, the preference would be a respectful dialog. However, the problem surfaces when these representative voices of political ideology shield their flawed points of view under the umbrella of civility. In theory, this allows them to flaunt their unsound ideas unquestioned, knowing that a too vehement objection could be considered ill-mannered.
This dynamic was frequently seen during the 2024 presidential campaign, where Stephens, though not a Trump admirer, lacked the courage to criticize the then incumbent’s regimes’ potential catastrophic consequences. Collins, seemingly in an attempt to maintain a cordial Color their discussions, failed to offer any substantial counterarguments, thereby leaving Stephens’ arguments, however fallacious, rarely contested.
Case in point, surprisingly in favour of Trump, Stephens tossed a challenging question at Collins, minimizing the potential severity of a second Trump term. Even roping in the alarming predications of Project 2025, or flagging Trump’s potentially inept Cabinet, could have made for powerful retorts. Instead, Collins lauded Stephens for a ‘terrifying question’, offering no real counter that could ignite debate in a direction less complacent.
Interestingly, Stephens remained critical of both Biden and Harris throughout their respective campaigns. He rather controversially labelled Harris as an even weaker contender than Biden, sure to kindle reaction. Still, Collins chose to passively side-step, failing to persuade or challenge her counterpart. Her responses in these situations exhibited a comfortable indifference towards the discussion of important matters.
Almost amusingly, when Collins was given the opportunity to correct Stephens and argue for why Harris should be voted for, she attributed the voters’ predicament to ‘two unwelcome options’. This rather feeble response, instead of using clear arguments to validate Harris’s candidacy, reflects the columnist’s inability to engage in meaningful counterpoint discussions, thus reducing The Conversation to a chit-chat arena.
As the 2024 election season concluded, Stephens began acknowledging Harris’s political qualities whilst continuing to give unsolicited campaign advice. He warned Democrats against using derogatory terms and drew attention to some outlandish Democratic party views. Yet Collins responded passively yet again, failing to mount any real defensive.
This lacklustre engagement of opposing voices within the stirring election year underscored the pointlessness of the ‘liberal versus conservative’ setup. The idea of drawing out contentious arguments from both sides was lost in the column’s compulsion to maintain a faux decorum. They missed an opportunity to pull apart exaggerated narratives and pursue balanced debate.
A refreshing counterpoint to their humdrum discussion came when Stephens was pit against former Slate columnist, Jamelle Bouie. The respectful, yet more engaged conversation was a departure from the blandness of The Conversation. Bouie’s pushback against Stephens’ suggestion to supplant Harris with a less familiar governor prompted a much-needed debate.
With Buzzwords like ‘muscling Harris aside,’ ‘party elites coordinating,’ ‘sitting vice president,’ and ‘unexpectedly declining to continue his campaign,’ Bouie rekindled hope for what The Conversation could be. Yet, this engaging duo was never repeated in the Times. Meanwhile, the insipid ritual between Collins and Stephens carried on until the end of April.
Their last engagement continued the trend of cheerful, mutual self-congratulation, with Stephens claiming a ‘silent majority’ preferred their genteel disagreements above the constant conflict of modern politics. What seems to be lost on these two is that the turbulent, fraught nature of contemporary politics is a reflection of real struggles and disputes happening in society.
The scrutiny of political views, the debate, and the discord it may create play an inherent role in the political process and discourse. The moniker of a ‘food fight’, attributed by Stephens, seems a rather apt depiction of the robust disagreements that a healthy democracy supports. And we are all left wondering why so many ‘reasonable’ conservatives remain obtusely idealistic, failing to acknowledge the challenges at hand.
The column’s end will likely go unnoticed by many, but its departure does not leave a void so much as an opportunity for a more engaging, honest, and rigorous debate in its place. Transcending the bubble of civility for a conversation that pushes boundaries and challenges the status quo is vital for influencing political awareness and discourse. Perhaps, in this case, the demise of ‘The Conversation’ serves as a much-needed exigency for desiring better quality content.