Albuquerque Journal’s opinion pages need a dose of balance

“Wagner’s music,” said Mark Twain, ”is better than it sounds.” And the Albuquerque Journal is better than a perusal of its Op-Ed pages suggests.

Unfairly, the Journal’s loud right-wing voice obscures the paper’s many virtues, of which I will write another time. Today, though, the focus is on those Op Ed pages. If they’re intended as a marketplace of ideas, the Journal has stocked them poorly — more like a neighborhood grocery than a supermarket.

First, a generalization: Based on the syndicated columnists alone, the Journal’s Op-Ed pages sing paeans to fear. This makes sense because most Journal columnists are conservatives and conservative doctrine rests on the bedrock belief that humans -– unless restrained — will choose folly, if not bestiality. See Hobbes’ “Leviathan”, 1651.

The Journal’s preferred columnists, who range from far-right to traditional conservative, labor mightily to alert us to threats from within and without.

Most prominent, until the recent advent of George Will, were the neo-conservatives (Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, Max Boot, et al) who championed the Iraqi adventure. For years, we’ve had numerous “National Review” rightists, too, including the late founder, William F. Buckley Jr. Today, the NR standard-bearers are Jonah Goldberg, Kathleen Parker and Mr. Hanson. Also, the Journal publishes religious and cultural rightists like Cal Thomas, an often-conservative Mexican-American, Ruben Narvarette Jr., and Mr. Will, keeper of the old conservative flame.

Moving horizontally leftward, we find David Broder, a quintessential Establishment voice, happiest when he’s scorning grass roots Democrats on behalf of party insiders. Next, definitely left of center, the Journal publishes real, live liberals –- unshowy types like the Roman Catholic intellectual E.J. Dionne Jr.; feminist Ellen Goodman, Eugene Robinson and (promoted from the West Side section) Leonard Pitts. And that’s where it stops. The Journal excludes the rest of the Democratic (and American) left, except for an infrequent commentary from The American Prospect’s Harold Meyerson.

The imbalance, exaggerated because the rightists appear more often, becomes even more pronounced in economics. There the Journal leads with Robert Samuelson, an Establishment rightist under the delusion he’s objective, and complements him with local foundation-supported libertarians. Dissenting opinions are rare indeed, so the Journal’s Op-Ed pages narrow economic opinion to two schools of rightists –- the Pete Domenici “trickle downers” vs. the CATO free market fundamentalists.

I am reminded of Dorothy Parker’s comment on a stage performance by Katherine Hepburn (or Tallulah Bankhead; memories differ): “She ran the gamut of emotions from A to B.”

It’s a tribute to Journal editors that none of their syndicated columnists is dull. Applaud them, too, for publishing sharp, un-ideological observers like the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Trudy Rubin. She analyzes American Mideast policy brilliantly and, after careful reading, I’ve no idea what her politics are.

No question, the publisher has every right to dictate the content of Op-Ed pages. In fact, I admire the Journal’s owner; his newspaper’s strong rightward tilt almost certainly depresses circulation and, ultimately, advertising revenues.

Still, must New Mexico’s major daily cling to its past? In the wake of the presidential election, even the Sunday TV talk shows, long monopolized by Establishment talking heads, are rethinking.

Robert Kuttner, leftist economist and founder of “The American Prospect,” appeared on ABC’s “This Week” last week. And Arianna Huffington sat next to him! Their full-throated disagreement with conservatives Will and David Brooks enlivened the program.

There’s no need for balance, but the Journal should refresh its marketplace of ideas by adding a bold leftist voice or two to the shelves.

They might be good for business, too.