Timmer was inspired by this item to cast a most pejorative of insults. This Stephen B. Young makes his living from this. Publishers of this. Bombastic and empty, yes, the Kersten parallel exists. Young and Kersten each being sustained for reasons seldom found sound to questioning minds.
Timmer's seeing a parallel is an insight. Likely Kersten and Young each liked Ike. Still do, perhaps. And those nice likable and fun loving Dulles brothers.
UPDATE: Actually Young, in fairness and on paper, seems Kersten's better. Again in fairness with the low bar of Kersten as a measure, Young appears to have a Kerstenian scold's perspective, but in a sounder head.
In closing, an actuality of Katherine Kersten in drag is a fretful thing to even contemplate. One's mind could blow a fuse imagining KK in drag. Which is all the more reason to say Timmer knows how to write a headline.
FURTHER: As a thought experiment, would Young agree or disagree with Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III's current culture war on marijuana? Would he write of it happening being evidence of loss of our collective capitalist moral compass? Would he beat Kersten to press with any such thought?
FURTHER: For those willing to put in the hours; this websearch linking to a series of Young lectures on Vietnam; as he perceives things. Not having viewed a one of the series, not even in part, the lectures are online and analysis is left to readers wanting to invest the effort.
FURTHER: This Strib published - Young authored op-ed:
"The case for Trump - We need to turn our backs on the elites, and he's the one who has emerged as the rebel leader in that cause."
Going the whole length of the thing without mention of Bernie seems contrived and artificial blinders-on stuff; even with the two-party offerings being set at the time of Strib's publication it is vision-challenged to decline a look at a third way between Clintonian character defects and deficiencies, and Trumpian lying bombast.
And as a crystal balling sooth-sayer, get this, from within that op-ed:
Thus, Trump has brought illegal immigration out of the cultural closet to pose the question: Should there be only one law for all Americans or different laws for different people? Metaphorically, Trump rightly asks: “Can we live well as a community with some Americans following the law and others not?”
Third, a Trump administration would be filled with innovators willing and maybe even eager to upset apple carts. They, too, would be upstarts and parvenus in the corridors of power. They would be inexperienced, and his administration would be chaotic. But how else can a nation rejuvenate its elites except by challenging their smug conceits with countervailing emotional energies?
[italics emphasis added] In light of Young's prescience in guessing how Mike Pence's role in things would shake out - the transition team's teeming hoards of corporate greedsters put into places - would you let this gentlemen Stephen B. Young pick your Derby Day bets?
What you do get from "Can we live well as a community with some Americans following the law and others not?" is it indirectly sure looks like a huzzah for JBS III going hopping mad and all over pot.
BOTTOM LINE: An outlook grounded upon: Get behind the mule, in the morning and plow rhetoric, is pure vanilla Kerstenianism, as I see it. In drag.