The quality of op-eds columns today: a personal observation

■"America Wants Security," op-ed by Paul Krugman, New York Times, 23 May 2005, p. A21.

■"The Rumsfeld Stain: What happened to the U.S. military?" op-ed by Bob Herbert, New York Times, 23 May 2005, p. A21.

■"An Axis of Oil: The U.S.-Saudi equation still dwarfs China-Russia," op-ed by Vijay V. Vaiheeswaran, Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2005, p. A14.

■"On Monetary Policy: Yap At Japan, Not China," op-ed by Michael Cosgrove, Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2005, p. A14.

■"High-Profile Help for Africa," op-ed by Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post, 23 May 2005, p. A19.

The Times seems to be going downhill on regular columnists. Herbert, like his column today on Rumsfeld, is just plain bad, a real shrieker. Krugman, whom I used to consider a real water-walker, now just sounds shrill and relentless in his hatred of all things Bush. Friedman still performs, but he's given up on international security (good idea) and is back to his smiley-face globalization, although now it wears the sneer of competition from New Core India and China. When all is said and done, the one high performer there is Nick Krystof. No surprise, as he cut his teeth on economics and Asia (his book on rising China with his wife Shery Wu Dunn is the best I have read on the subject). But overall, the Times seems weak on the op-ed page now, even as its reporters remain the world's bestóespecially on China.

The Post has become less and less a source of op-eds for me. I used to think Jim Hoagland was spectacular, but he hasn't adjusted well to the post-9/11 world, and he seems more confused and befuddled than prescient. I don't know why he lost his edge, but I don't read him much any more for insights. Richard Cohen used to be great, but I think his health has taken him down a few notches in recent years, and that's too bad, because he has a rare gift. Frankly, the guy who writes the best there now is Sebastian Mallaby, likewise with an economic background. His stuff on national security outperforms the rest in aggregate.

Among the big three, though, the Journal right now is top performer. The two regulars who write on big global issues (George Melloan and Mary Anastasia O'Grady) are really solid. You may not agree with them, but their strategic minds are always on display. But where the Journal really cleans house now is in the guest columnists, who regularly outperform those invited in by the Times and Post. It's not surprising for me to find two great guest columns in the WSJ every day, like those two today by Vaitheeswaran and Cosgrove), and just as unsurprising to find any worth mentioning in the NYT and WP.

Have the trio changed that much in recent years? Shouldn't the NYT and WP naturally be way out ahead in the climate of a Global War on Terrorism? Why is this the case?

Or am I just becoming more conservative and more capitalist in my middle age?