What’s A Nice Jewish Boy Like You Doing At A Website Like This?
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Noah Millman. For the past five years or thereabouts, I’ve blogged for The American Scene. I’ve also blogged occasionally for The Economist in their Free Exchange and Democracy in America blogs.
I’m a former Wall Street banker. Actually, worse than that: I used to work in derivatives. No, even worse: I used to work in structured products. No, that’s still not bad enough: I used to work structuring CDOs. But I don’t do that anymore. Now I’m in the process of building a second career as a Hollywood screenwriter.
In 2002 and 2003, I was a full-throated supporter of the Iraq War. In 2000, I supported John McCain for President. In 2008, I supported Barack Obama. I expect to support him again.
I support gay marriage. I’m not an immigration restrictionist. I think the Affordable Care Act was largely a good piece of legislation, should not be repealed, and is plainly constitutional. I don’t think the Federal Reserve should be abolished or that we should return to the gold standard.
My favorite living author is Philip Roth.
So what on earth am I doing blogging for The American Conservative?
The simplest answer to that question would be to say: they asked me, and unlike Groucho Marx I’m rather more inclined than not to join clubs that would have me as a member. And it’s not like I’m coming in under false colors; I laid out all of the above in my initial conversations with the folks at TAC, and they were well aware of the number of issues on which I’m “off side” from the bulk of the readership and, more than that, how few are the areas where we will likely see eye to eye. And they were interested in me anyway.
Moreover, they were interested in letting me do some things I very much wanted to do, such as doing more writing about culture. My other blog, Millman’s Shakesblog will be migrating over in a month or so, and I hope to expand beyond theatre reviews to writing more broadly about the arts.
But a more complete answer would reference their explanation for why they wanted me involved. As far as my political or ideological orientation went, they really weren’t too worried. From their perspective, the magazine stood not for any particular demographic group, much less for any particular politics, but rather for the conviction that what is closest to us – what we know best, and love best through the deepest knowledge – is what is most important, and worth trying to preserve. What that thing is will, of course, vary from person to person, but a respect for that sentiment – even when, in the end, one concludes that what one loves best cannot be preserved, may, in fact, be damaged more by the effort at preservation than by a more adaptive strategy toward change – is something I can heartily endorse.
Their other point was that they were not aiming for a magazine that spoke with one voice; they preferred, frankly, a cacophony if that is what a lively a spirited debate produced. And while I suspect I will often – perhaps usually – disagree with my interlocutors here, I have tried to make a habit of engaging with those with whom I disagree, even with those whose premises or conclusions I find strongly abhorrent. Indeed, I feel like an enormous amount is gained merely by coming to agreement on what those premises and conclusions really are. In my politics these days, I am functionally a liberal, and I may wind up as TAC’s house liberal, but I hope if that turns out to be the case that it turns out to be a good thing to have a liberal in the house.
Finally, I should say something about how my own history relates to my presence here. I spent the bulk of my adult life as a functional neoconservative. I also spent the bulk of my adult life working in the more rarefied regions of the financial sector. In the wake of the Iraq War and the financial crisis and subsequent recession, I have come to have serious qualms about both associations. I am now extremely critical both of the foreign policy views I used to hold and of the industry in which I used to work. I’m fairly aware of the critical arguments from the left. This magazine is the natural home of critical arguments from the right on these two issues. If those arguments are good, I want to lend my support to them. If those arguments are lousy, I want to make them better. Either way, that’s a reason for me to be involved in this magazine’s project.
Welcome aboard- Your politics sound similar to mine, and I am a greenie. TAC comes fairly close to my viewpoint, except for the occasional Christianism and VDAREism.
Welcome, Noah! This is a great little publication. I’m sure you’ll feel right at home here.
[...] time, and now I’m delighted to announce that he’s joined us as a blogger. Check out his self-introduction, as well as his provocative first posts: on whether the Fed, the mortgage mess, and Wall Street [...]
Good luck! Now that makes three good reasons (for me) to visit TAC more often. Looking forward to your posts!
As a life long Libertarian,devotee of Free Markets and a champion of Liberty I find the inclusion of the writings of Noah Millman in a traditional Conservative site such as The American Conservative as strange. However,with that said, I welcome many points of views,however misguided, to this excellent site. In future,it will be interesting to counter (or maybe even agreeing) to your pointed views. I would also like to add that Mr. McCarthy must have a good sense of humor. Good Luck.
I immensely enjoyed your writings at The American Scene, and am very happy indeed to have you aboard… TAC has now got a stable of writers that rival, if not surpass, the Atlantic.
Welcome sir! It is always important to have other views available from sincere sources. TAC always finds people with good character and judgement.
I have been reading this publication for years, and have become a regular commenter on Rod Dreher’s blog. In my comments there, I am always just “Noah.” Here, I guess, I have to put a distinguishing mark on my name.
I am a Buchananite paleocon, so I don’t imagine that I will agree with most of what you write, Mr. Millman. Let the battle of the Noahs begin!
in other words, more “conservative” rationalization of liberal ideas, Sullivan-style. funny you never see the reverse.
does amconmag have any principles beyond generic anti-neocon sentiment?
Honestly, in the context of everything else you wrote, the presidential election where your vote would be interesting is 2004.
[...] yearn for the day when “I was a full-throated supporter of the Iraq War” is understood — by writer and reader alike — to be a more damning admission than [...]
It’s good to have another sensible conservative onboard. I believe in Equality, you believe in an extremely vague (race and culture not allowed) Community as well Temperamental Conservatism that bears no relation to historical conservatism whatsoever, but we come to the exact same conclusions! Neat.
honestly, i think the leading “alternative” conservative publications need to have a meeting and decide exactly what the baseline is for conservatism. not an orthodoxy, but some general principles. OK, so the critics of what could go wrong in Iraq were vindicated, but this is not a cue to engage in the type of anti-GOP nihilism and “enemy of the enemy” unprincipled tribalism that tons of non-mainstream conservative mags engage in.
more than that though the philosophical masturbation over “what conservatism really means” and “the conservative case for liberalism” has to stop. i don’t know that Millman does this as much as others, but at some point it’s just, go and become a center-left talking head or something. i could care less about someone operating on “conservative” premises when all their conclusions are exactly the same as the Democratic Party. it may make for an occasional fresh take on the usual liberal arguments but that’s it.
With people like bankster Millman writing for this publication I’m glad I let my subscription lapse.
Judging from your track record, even you would have to agree that a few years ago you weren’t a very good analyst – in my sense of the word, which means having a decent idea of the likely consequences of political action.
At least the short-term consequences.
Particularly in foreign affairs. Are you more accurate now? Why? I realize that this is a high standard. The overwhelming majority of pundits score worse than a magic 8-ball. I’m guessing you’d like to do better than that.
Yeah, full-throated supporter of the Iraq War. Wonderful. This magazine was founded in opposition to that war. Like Bob, I don’t see any point in renewing my subscription either. We already have the New Republic, and we don’t need another.
The overwhelming majority of pundits score worse than a magic 8-ball. I’m guessing you’d like to do better than that.
Awesome.
“I support gay marriage. I’m not an immigration restrictionist. I think the Affordable Care Act was largely a good piece of legislation, should not be repealed, and is plainly constitutional. I don’t think the Federal Reserve should be abolished or that we should return to the gold standard.”
Nothing personal, Mr Millman, I’m sure you’re a great guy, but you’re about as “conservative” as Barney Frank. Of course the problem here is not you, it is Ron Unz and his desire to remake The American Conservative into The New Republic.
“i think the leading “alternative” conservative publications need to have a meeting and decide exactly what the baseline is for conservatism.”
Not a bad idea. But TAC no longer counts as a “conservative” publication, even as an alternative one.
Damn, just as I was about to subscribe the editor of TAC hires another high IQ Jew to dissemble the Conservative message, to spread confusion, to describe black as white, and to try to make Obama look good. O tempora o mores!
Dan Kurt
Millman every penny Unz pays you is an affront to every conservative.
An interesting variation on “conservatism.” There are people, however, who do claim to be pro-gay marriage and conservative. (Conserving what, I must ask?) The common thread that Ron Unz seems to have kept is right-of-center pacifism.
Just wanted to say welcome aboard (and I’m sorry the welcome isn’t resounding). I think the world would be a much better place if everyone listened to others’ opinions, even if they don’t share them. I look forward to reading your posts!
Noah, I am sure that the crowd will loosen up. It is good to hear that Dan found someone to cover the arts. Are there any literary critics you tend to admire?
So, what happened to this web site? We have a liberal hypocrite, who apparently loves wars for Israel but also want to flood our country with illegals and this is a conservative site?
I can read this kind of tripe at the Huffington Post….. Nobody is advocating that smug neocon/liberals be censored. They simply don’t have to be on sites that espouse immigration restriction, non-interventionist foreign policy and fiscal responsibity.
Perhaps if the blogger repeatedly said “I was horribly wrong on Iraq” but all I see is a faint regret over support.
Welcome Noah. May I offer a gift tag to a fellow lover of letters?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/fast_track/9680129.stm
http://thisiscentralstation.com/featured/mysterious-paper-sculptures/
What of the unknown-known? Whence come these delightful works?
Can planned giving be trusted? What intent lies in the mind of their maker?
How to respond to the encounter with the fanciful?
There really is no “conservative” case for SSM. Only a radical, a statist, or a positivist (or some combination thereof) can take the fundamental social relationship–preexisting all states, ideologies, and cults–and “redefine” it so as to drain it of all meaning.
SSM is the final F.U. to culture, tradition, and natural society. It is the denial of natural law. It is Lucifer’s Non serviam. It is the denial of God–because without God all things, including sodomistic pseudogamy, are permitted.
Now I’m in the process of building a second career as a Hollywood screenwriter.
Hell, why not? Everyone wants quality. What kind of venue, that is to say, thematically, uh…
[...] Noah Millman’s new blog at [...]
So no true sophisticated, reactionary home is left for conservatives, but only demented mass-media pseudo-conservatism of the HotAir or WeeklyStandard variety, or the irrelevant, curmudgeonly Chronicles. Goodbye TAC?
@Mike w
I don’t even see faint regret. I see nothing but full-blown establishmentarian credentials AND beliefs. Obviously nobody wants these ‘censored’ but they have plenty of homes – most mass media and even online media infact. Why, pray, should some last bastions of reactionary thought be soiled ? Are there dwindling sources for establishmentarian hackery?
[...] The American Conservative (TAC) brought Noah Millman on board as a blogger. By Millman’s own admission, he is not a conservative. I thought this was an unfortunate move at the time and was already [...]