The Albuquerque Tribune has an extraordinary lineup of syndicated columnists representing a wide spectrum of opinion. (More on that another day.)
Among them are Linda Chavez and David Brooks, both right-of-center and – I was reminded when they appeared recently on the same day - worlds apart.
Brooks appears to be trying to better understand how the world works, by evaluating events in the context of his conservative principles. He entertains the notion that he can err and, while tough, is not mean.
Ergo, while I don’t often agree with his conclusions, I take his views into account.
Not so with Chavez, who would have done well in the Soviet Union, such is her knowledge of the Truth and her love for the party line. (You will remember that President Bush nominated this apparatchik* to be his first Secretary of Labor. Also, that she withdrew amidst reports she’d employed an illegal alien in her household.)
Also, Chavez writes with a poison pen; often portraying those who disagree with her as villains or fools. In sum, she is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of my time other than in this context.
Does that mean the Tribune should not publish her column? No. I wish, however, there existed a formula to help readers distinguish the Chavezes from the Brookses. Unfortunately, editors may not append "This message brought to you by a paid political hack on behalf of her employers...." or anything similar.
Perhaps, though, newspapers could work harder to identify their contributors If, for example, Chavez holds an office in the GOP or gets financial support from one of the rightist think tanks, we readers ought to know.
* Apparatchik - an unquestinably loyal servant, especially of a political leader or
party. (American Heritage Dictionary)