Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsJonathan Chait
IN THE NEWS

Jonathan Chait

FEATURED ARTICLES
OPINION
May 13, 2005
Jonathan Chait's column will return next week.
ARTICLES BY DATE
OPINION
May 23, 2008
Re "It's not personal," Opinion, May 21 Jonathan Chait is condescending to Hillary Rodham Clinton and her supporters. He allows that "plenty of voters support Clinton for the same essential reasons they support other candidates: her character, platform, etc.," but then goes on to say that "many also support her because her opponent is black." Perhaps he should understand that not supporting Barack Obama isn't an attack on African Americans, just like "not supporting Clinton isn't an attack on feminism."
Advertisement
OPINION
February 1, 2005
In response to "A Deficit You Can't Refuse," Commentary, Jan. 28: Jonathan Chait is exactly right. I went into a bar yesterday and there was a permanent brass sign promising "Free Beer Tomorrow." I went into the same bar today and I was promised "Free Beer Tomorrow." The Bush administration has the amazing ability to rehash promises without actually doing anything positive. It is as if we are going back to that bar day after day hoping for a different result. Michael R. Zervas Madison, Va.
OPINION
February 10, 2007
Re "Joe Biden's just a barrel of gaffes," Current, Feb. 4 Jonathan Chait tells us that Delaware Sen. Joe Biden has no chance of becoming our president. He utters too many gaffes to warrant serious consideration. Chait also says he has "tons of respect" for Biden and that he'd do a terrific job as president. So Biden is verbose. On occasion that gets him into a little trouble, but it also suggests an openness more likely to be absent in limited, circumspect expressions. Chait should have at least mentioned the real problem here: the average voter's use of faulty criteria to judge candidates.
OPINION
July 25, 2005
Re "The (over)exercise of power," Opinion, July 22 With all the reports that America is too fat, along comes Jonathan Chait to complain about a president who exercises. Mr. Chait, would it also horrify you to know that President Bush eats a balanced diet and gets eight hours of sleep each night? It's called a healthy lifestyle. You might find it "creepy," but it actually makes you healthier. Ask President Clinton; he also had a daily exercise routine. But, of course, his routine wasn't creepy because he was a Democrat.
OPINION
January 6, 2006
Re "Boola boola, not moola moola," Opinion, Jan. 1 Paying athletes would encourage them to finish their education and become more than illiterate NFL millionaires. Jonathan Chait's claim that this would reduce scholarship money is ludicrous because he conveniently omits the athletic scholarships already offered by universities. Colleges use football players to make huge windfalls of money from TV revenues. Liberals like Chait allegedly decry labor exploitation, preaching wealth redistribution, but scoff at paying college athletes when it threatens this cash cow that helps to fund left-wing academics with their failed socialist ideas.
OPINION
September 30, 2006
Re "Notre Dame never fumbles the myth," Opinion, Sept. 24 Notre Dame football has myths that have made it popular while Michigan (apparently) does not. Boo-hoo! Perhaps if Jonathan Chait had studied his history (then again, having gone to Michigan, he probably didn't get much of an education), he would have found that many other factors help explain Notre Dame's popular appeal. PEDRO SANTONI Redlands Chait's hit piece on Notre Dame's football history was totally unbalanced and unworthy of The Times.
OPINION
February 10, 2007
Re "Joe Biden's just a barrel of gaffes," Current, Feb. 4 Jonathan Chait tells us that Delaware Sen. Joe Biden has no chance of becoming our president. He utters too many gaffes to warrant serious consideration. Chait also says he has "tons of respect" for Biden and that he'd do a terrific job as president. So Biden is verbose. On occasion that gets him into a little trouble, but it also suggests an openness more likely to be absent in limited, circumspect expressions. Chait should have at least mentioned the real problem here: the average voter's use of faulty criteria to judge candidates.
OPINION
December 30, 2006
Re "Neocons and Bush deserve each other," Opinion, Dec. 24 Jonathan Chait gets matters partly right. There was an insurmountable asymmetry between goal and means in President Bush's policy in Iraq. But to claim this means Bush went to war with "Clinton's army" is like trying to fix the blame for Watergate on Lyndon B. Johnson. You don't have to look any further than Bush's own Department of Defense for the source of the fiasco. Bush attempted to realize former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's fantasy of an oasis of peace and democracy with Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's stripped-down, technocratic military.
OPINION
December 14, 2006
Re "The bubble boy in the Oval Office," Current, Dec. 10 Jonathan Chait's observation that President Bush "is treated by everybody around him as if he were a child" is chilling. As president of arguably the world's most influential country, this situation might make for amusing parody in a harmless novel. However, with thousands of lives affected by it in countless ways, this is real-life tragedy. Even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt -- that he's acting in what he believes are our best interests -- the statement it makes about Americans and our democratically elected government is disgraceful.
OPINION
December 30, 2006
Re "Neocons and Bush deserve each other," Opinion, Dec. 24 Jonathan Chait gets matters partly right. There was an insurmountable asymmetry between goal and means in President Bush's policy in Iraq. But to claim this means Bush went to war with "Clinton's army" is like trying to fix the blame for Watergate on Lyndon B. Johnson. You don't have to look any further than Bush's own Department of Defense for the source of the fiasco. Bush attempted to realize former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's fantasy of an oasis of peace and democracy with Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's stripped-down, technocratic military.
OPINION
December 14, 2006
Re "The bubble boy in the Oval Office," Current, Dec. 10 Jonathan Chait's observation that President Bush "is treated by everybody around him as if he were a child" is chilling. As president of arguably the world's most influential country, this situation might make for amusing parody in a harmless novel. However, with thousands of lives affected by it in countless ways, this is real-life tragedy. Even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt -- that he's acting in what he believes are our best interests -- the statement it makes about Americans and our democratically elected government is disgraceful.
OPINION
November 29, 2006
Re "Bring back Hussein, the lesser evil," Current, Nov. 26 Jonathan Chait asks why bringing back Saddam Hussein isn't the worst solution. That someone asks such a question shows how badly things have been handled in Iraq, but it is still the wrong question. We should be looking for the best solution and ask whether it is worse than what is currently being done. A better question is: What do the Iraqis want? An overwhelming majority want the U.S. out of their country. Everything else in Iraq should be resolved according to this simple principle, which is that Iraqis should be the primary drivers of what goes on in their country.
OPINION
September 30, 2006
Re "Notre Dame never fumbles the myth," Opinion, Sept. 24 Notre Dame football has myths that have made it popular while Michigan (apparently) does not. Boo-hoo! Perhaps if Jonathan Chait had studied his history (then again, having gone to Michigan, he probably didn't get much of an education), he would have found that many other factors help explain Notre Dame's popular appeal. PEDRO SANTONI Redlands Chait's hit piece on Notre Dame's football history was totally unbalanced and unworthy of The Times.
OPINION
September 22, 2006
Re "A liberal hawk strikes back," Opinion, Sept. 17 Jonathan Chait, citing my book as critical of liberal hawks like him, makes an unwarranted leap in his argument. The number of troops needed to pacify Iraq was probably close to 500,000, which politically was not feasible, rendering the war an immoral choice. Even with such numbers, knowing what we do about the origins of political violence and insurgency -- namely, that violence begets violence in an enormous feedback loop -- we may not have avoided a very ugly mess with a high mortality.
OPINION
July 14, 2006
Re "Destroying the party to save it," Opinion, July 9 Jonathan Chait was right on the money for the first half of his column. In trying to castigate liberal bloggers, he argues that "turning a rock-solid Democratic seat into a potential Republican pickup" is a political blunder. A better argument is that it is not a rock-solid Democratic seat if the Democrat holding it votes Republican, favors Republican concepts, attacks Democrats and could continue doing so for another six years.
OPINION
August 8, 2005
Re "How Bush thinks: intuition over intellect," Opinion, Aug. 5 I have no problem with people using intuition as long as their decisions do not affect me. But we expect someone whose actions affect billions on this planet to use intellect and common sense as a guide to decision-making. It is like a scientist using superstition in scientific experiments that have global effects. When lives are being put in jeopardy because of such decisions, who steps in to right the wrong choices? Do we keep relying on one man's intuition?
OPINION
December 15, 2004
Re "Why Academia Shuns Republicans," Commentary, Dec. 10: By far the major reason for the shortage of Republicans as professors at universities is the incestuous hiring practices at the universities. By nature, academia became highly populated with idealists, who tend to be Democrats. The hiring practices of the idealists have been to hire those who mirror their beliefs. Jonathan Chait is trying to make a case that Democrats are more intelligent than Republicans. Knowing how far Chait leans to the left leads me to believe that his own example belies that fact.
OPINION
January 6, 2006
Re "Boola boola, not moola moola," Opinion, Jan. 1 Paying athletes would encourage them to finish their education and become more than illiterate NFL millionaires. Jonathan Chait's claim that this would reduce scholarship money is ludicrous because he conveniently omits the athletic scholarships already offered by universities. Colleges use football players to make huge windfalls of money from TV revenues. Liberals like Chait allegedly decry labor exploitation, preaching wealth redistribution, but scoff at paying college athletes when it threatens this cash cow that helps to fund left-wing academics with their failed socialist ideas.
OPINION
December 6, 2005
Re "Logic isn't flip-flopping," Opinion, Dec. 4 The dilemma in Jonathan Chait's analysis is that it needs analysis at all. It took columnist Max Boot one line to say that Democrats had flip-flopped on the war. Chait needed his entire column to explain that it is not flip-flopping when the information surrounding the war had changed. The current rules of debate have taken on the attention-span limitations of a cocktail party. A simple rule of thumb is that you must get in your response in less time than it would take for Sean Hannity to interrupt you. The fact is, if people truly wanted a real understanding of a matter, talk radio would be out of business.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|