From reading Twitters and a few other places
I take it that some of my fellow liberals and progressives like Ross’s new column more than his other recent columns, particularly his now notorious Texas vs. California column. I’m with them, incidentally, and I do think that Ross’s column today is better than his last effort.
I can’t help but think, though, that a big part of the reason that I and other liberals prefer this column to the last is because we think that we’ve won the argument against social conservatism. This isn’t a matter of Ross, heterodox conservative that he is, endorsing a position that liberals like; he is endorsing a socially conservative position. But I think that liberals don’t mind arguments to social conservatism that much (the way they do arguments to economic conservatism, ala Texas vs. California) because they think that, politically, social conservatism is a settled question, and we’ve won. I don’t think that’s entirely true, personally, and if I put them on the spot, I imagine many liberals wouldn’t admit to feeling that way. But my suspicion is that liberals are more amenable to a column like today’s because they think that, on this set of issues, we can’t lose.