At the end of last month, the New York Times discreetly wrapped up a regular feature that was often an exercise in frustration for many. Aptly titled ‘The Conversation’, this series was a weekly exchange of ideas between Gail Collins, the left-leaning journalist, and Bret Stephens, a conservative who was opposed to Trump. For nearly a decade, this duo engaged in a weekly discourse on the politics of the Trump era, showcasing a Hollywood version of bipartisan conversation filled more with witty banter than concrete discussions.
Indeed, this segment was less of a thoughtful intellectual exchange and more akin to a theatrical performance featuring off-kilter dialogues over political issues. Despite Stephens’s tendency to annex the conversation with his self-important proclamations and punny remarks, Collins acted as if she were at a high tea social, giggling and hardly objecting to his opinions. This absurd exercise in discussion, particularly nestled within the prestige of the New York Times op-ed section, was nothing short of a laughable waste of space.
In a nation gripped fiercely by polarization, this ‘Conversation,’ paradoxically, was anything but meaningful dialogue or an attempt to reach a consensus. Instead, it was more of a dull affair in which Stephens droned on and Collins chimed in with courteous laughter and agreeable comments. The layer of passive resistance to actually challenge the points under discussion highlighted the ineffectual nature of such exercises camouflaged under the banner of ‘civil discourse’.
These hollow pundits, evading deep analysis and scrutiny, hid behind a veil of politeness, which gave them an unwarranted protection from counterarguments. They were able to throw in their questionable opinions while assuming their counterparts would hesitate to respond vigorously to avoid seeming disrespectful. Such dynamics surfaced frequently in this ‘Conversation’, especially during the 2024 presidential campaign.
Stephens, despite his critique of Trump, showed unmerited leniency towards the potential consequences of another Trump administration. Collins hardly made an attempt to persuade him about the grave implications, as this real talk may have punctured the comfortable bubble they were used to. In July 2024, when Trump’s re-election was a possibility, her response to Stephens’s underestimation of the hazards was confined merely to labeling the query as ‘terrifying’ and then quietly moving on.
As the race for presidential nominations unfolded, Stephens continued his string of objectionable comments by branding Kamala Harris a weaker candidate than Biden. He even expressed his inability to vote for her while not even supporting Trump. Collins gently retorted, but failed to convincingly challenge his standpoint. Instead of providing a robust argument, she tacitly admitted to the less than ideal options for nominees that the elections often yield, and moved on without any impactful conversation.
A week later, when Harris had clinched the Democratic nomination, Stephens made more insinuations against her, questioning her credentials. Instead of replying with a well-thought-out rebuttal to his reservations, Collins fueled the virtue-signaling narrative by labeling his refusal to vote for a less bad option as snobbish behavior. Such weak challenge to a key argument defied the purpose of the entire discourse.
The ‘Conversation’ further degraded as Stephens started advising the Democrats on their campaign strategy while Collins responded nonchalantly, ‘Not gonna fight with Tom. Or you, at least on that point.’ It begs the question, what purpose does a dialogue serve if there is nopushback against unsubstantiated claims?
A prior debate with Jamelle Bouie exemplifies what engaging dialogue can look like. Despite the evident contrasts in their opinions, Bouie showed remarkable gusto in challenging Stephens. However, it is noteworthy that this lively exchange didn’t see a repeat feature on the Times. It is indeed bewildering that the columns with Collins and Stephens, on the other hand, continued until April.
Disturbingly, their final column was an exercise in self-congratulation. Stephens even claimed their style of ‘good-humored disagreement’ was preferred by a ‘silent majority’ over today’s volatile political discourse. However, such a claim appears incredibly tone-deaf, disregarding the genuine angst and frustration of many towards the current political landscape.
Stephens’s dismissal of the volatile political climate as merely a ‘food fight’ stems from his obliviousness to the real challenges that we face today—racist tirades, socio-political discontent, and a broad disillusionment with the so-called ‘reasonable’ conservatives who insist that everything is business as usual.
In retrospect, the closure of ‘The Conversation’ series isn’t mourned but celebrated. Its ending offers an open space for more meaningful, hard-hitting journalism that can confront the tremendous socio-political issues we face today without the veneer of false politeness or avoidance of confrontation.