NR Redux
While I definitely sympathize with Clark Stooksbury over Stacy McCain in their recent spat about the exact nature of National Review, I think the truth is actually quite more banal and mundane.
As early as 2003, I can remember anticipating that after Bush NR would become the pathetic clarion of, paraphrasing Paul Wellstone, the republican wing of the Republican Party. But I’m not sure even this can be said now. To begin with, the banishment of Christopher Buckley last year to me served as the final proof that NR will never move on from the Bush years.
A while back I saw Jonah Goldberg on C-SPAN making the quite accurate point that the liberals have greatly neglected movement culture, with their magazines like The American Prospect and Washington Monthly getting themselves totally bogged down in policy wonkishness. (I would just add paranthetically that The Nation stands as the exception that proves the rule.)
But the Republican mirror image of this is precisely what Goldberg, Lowry, and Ponnuru have made of NR. Indeed, the only remaining links to the pre-Lowry era I can think of are John O’Sullivan and Richard Brookhiser, and only O’Sullivan even pretends to be distinct from Lowryism. In fairness, I may also be overlooking Kate O’Beirne, if she hasn’t yet completely retired.
That said, there remains a paradox, which is that because NR has adopted a posture of “realism”, I would guess that it will make it to the lifeboats in the years ahead while Commentary and the Weekly Standard go down with the Titanic singing Nearer My God To Thee.
The only thing redeemable about the Weekly Standard is PJ O’Rourke. The only thing redeemable about NR is Mark Steyn. So we’re left with AmSpec, which I think is just about the best synthesis of conservative thought in a print magazine- I leave out TAC because sometimes these nouveaux Jacksonian post Burkean agrarians or what have you that pop up now and again sound like moonbats. Reason is good as while. So don’t give liberals a leg up on conservative/libertarian news journals just yet.
I started reading NR in the late 1980s, influenced by my Ivy League brothers and fellow GOP conservatives. But within a few years’ time I sensed the magazine was not keeping up with the pace of cultural, political and demographic change. I lost faith in NR when they fired the likes of Peter Brimelow, Stever Sailer, and John O’Sullivan. Until NR discovers the National Question (NQ), focusing on issues of third world immigration, racial quotas, and the Multi-Cult, it will be irrelevant.
I didn’t think I was giving the liberals a leg up on anything . . .
Liberals have their leg up on everything — so flows the golden shower.
I’m looking forward to reading Richard Brookhiser’s “Right Time, Right Place,” to get his unique perspective on NR under WFBjr. “Twas a different NR back then, no doubt.
I second William in Orange. In order to attract the Neo-conservative’s Buckley threw the traditionalists overboard. Now the magazine is becalmed, The official voice of the Neo’s being the Weekly Standard, NR has nothing to add and nothing original to say.
I have to agree with Tripp deMoss about AmSpec. It seems to have regained some of it’s old luster. At least they are willing to print varying points of view on the right. They have Roger Scruton and I think Paul Johnson writing pieces for them. That beats Jonah Goldberg any day.
Perhaps a bit off topic, but the glory of the London Spectator is that they have always had the self confidence to print multiple viewpoints, including left wing ones occasionally. I think Buckley started the tendency to proscribe certain voices in his role as self appointed pope of the conservative movement. If NR still thinks of itself as the flagship of the movement, they need to outgrow this parochialism.
I perhaps was confused as to your exact thoughts about the Nation, Jack. All I’m saying is disparaging NR may be a fun past-time over here at TAC, and in many cases with good reason. I am rather fond of Jonah Goldberg, I admit, in particular concerning his book which is just awesome. However, making fun of the lightweights like Kathryn Jean Lopez or Rich Lowry is entertaining and entirely justified. I don’t like Sarah Palin pep rallies any more than you do. Regardless, there are other great conservative/libertarian news weeklys out there that produce intelligent, platitude free articles. (Policy Review ain’t bad neither).
For my money, the best liberal magazine out there is the New Yorker. If there is a conservative weekly or monthly as well-written or interesting I have yet to hear about it.
Hey Jackie, maybe you want to use your (extremely) marginal influence and NOT go after NR whilst our institutions are under attack by a raging commie president?
William, did you really call Barack Obama a commie? He’s clearly much closer to fascism (pre-Hitlerian definition, anyway) than to communism.
But we’ve already covered this ground: You don’t believe in nuance.
Oh! This is pathetic. I take that back – you are pathetic. Pray tell, what is the difference? Are you really going to challenge my understanding of fascism and communism? you who has “little interest in economics”??? I called him a commie because he was educated by “Frank” in Hawaii.
To prove how silly you sound, I quote something I just read:
“It may be in place to remark here the essential identity of the various extant forms of collectivism. The superficial distinctions of Fascism, Bolshevism, Hitlerism, are the concern of journalists and publicists; the serious student sees in them only the one root idea of a complete conversion of social power into State power. When Hitler and Mussolini invoke a kind of debased and hoodwinking mysticism to aid their acceleration of this process, the student at once recognizes his old friend, the formula of Hegel, that “the State incarnates the Divine Idea upon earth,” and he is not hoodwinked. The journalist and the impressionable traveler may make what they will of “the new religion of Bolshevism”; the student contents himself with remarking clearly the exact nature of the process which this inculcation is designed to sanction.”
-Albert Jay Nock, from Our Enemy, the State
There are technical differences, but they amount to little in practice.
Educate yourself!
I agree, they amount to little in practice, but the serious student still needs to appreciate the differences as well as commonality. One must also consider that Obamaism likely remains the least bad option today when considered beside the likes of neoconservatism and Eurocracy.
1. Jack, exactly, at least on the first point. I’m not sure that it’s the least bad option, but it’s probably the least bad realistic option, you’re right.
2. William, you’re an incredibly amusing parody. You really are. Do you find it as amusing as I do that you adhere to such an interventionist philosophy regarding war and then refuse to ignore the substance of my point, that differences, however little the amount to in practice, separate communism and fascism (and that Obama falls into the latter camp) and, instead try to prove my alleged pathetic ignorance by selectively quoting some as firmly anti-war as Nock? Just wondering.
2a. My not having the right or ability to challenge your understand hardly follows from my having little interest in economics. Having little interest in the dismal science doesn’t preclude one from being able to realize that fundamental, even if relatively minor, differences exist between communism and fascism.
3. As for the differences, I’d suggest that, whatever the practical manifestations of either — especially communism as it has existed —, fascism aims to place a multitude of business interests into the hands of the government, in the name of particularly nationalistic conception of the common good, whereas communism, in theory, aims for collective ownership by the people and isn’t necessarily as foundationally tied to the State as fascism is.
Kent: “For my money, the best liberal magazine out there is the New Yorker. If there is a conservative weekly or monthly as well-written or interesting I have yet to hear about it.”
I’d suggest, maybe, The New Criterion; it’s generally well-written; unfortunately, it’s only particularly good when it steers clear of politics (where it all too often takes on a neocon bent) and focuses on arts and letters. It’s a monthly; not sure if any weeklies out there compare to The New Yorker, which, I agree, is a wonderful magazine.
Nathan, I agree about the New Criterion. Didactic politics in a cultural journal tend to mix poorly. The left has the advantage of being the establishment, and therefore can indulge greater variations on point of view than we can. We are stuck in proselytizing mode.
Says Nathan “Do you find it as amusing as I do that you adhere to such an interventionist philosophy regarding war and then refuse to ignore the substance of my point, that differences, however little the amount to in practice, separate communism and fascism (and that Obama falls into the latter camp) and, instead try to prove my alleged pathetic ignorance by selectively quoting some as firmly anti-war as Nock?”
I am having trouble comprehending that sentence. Maybe I’m stupid, but it’s very run on and confusing and not apparently logical.
Yes of course there were differences, technically. But they’re both Marxian spawn. This isn’t my opinion originally – it’s been made again and again – though I happen to agree with it. Rather than pedantically informing you, and being that I’ve already tried this with respect to Marxism, I’d point you instead to “The Vampire Economy” by Gunther Reimann. It’s available free online; read the first 5 or so chapters.
Wow, Nock was anti-war! Thanks for the breaking news!
Reading over 2a and 3, it’s obvious you don’t understand collectivism and totalitarianism. “In theory” they are polar opposites. In practice they are nearly identical. If anything separates communism from fascism, it’s how they are sold to the gullible and soon to be suffering masses. The “Stato Corporativo” and the Soviet planning boards offer the same miseries, and both stand in stark contrast to the free market. Hey, that’s a little like saying you have a choice between *gasp!* Liberty and Tyranny!
It actually cracks me up that you say “communism, in theory” as if the theory were ever practicable. “Foundationally not tied to the state.” Did your really just write this about Communism? The Ultimate State? Want to give it another shot?! Seriously man, the joke’s on you.
Ah, William!
“I am having trouble comprehending that sentence. Maybe I’m stupid, but it’s very run on and confusing and not apparently logical.”
I apologize. It’s not actually a run-on sentence, but it is insanely sloppy, with a significantly miswritten couple of words that made it ridiculously unclear. I should learn not to mix Weblog-commenting and work, especially when I’m perpetually sleep deprived; they both suffer.
*and skipping ahead momentarily*
“Wow, Nock was anti-war! Thanks for the breaking news!”
You’ll find few bigger fans of sarcasm that yours truly, but it’s wholly out of place here. My point was, obviously, not to provide “breaking news”, but to make a point that, as I’ve conceded, I failed to elucidate because of egregious mis-strokes on the keyboard.
My point was that it amuses me that you’d selectively quote someone whose philosophy diverges so much on such an important issue from yours as to make your buttressing your argument with an excerpt from him to be absurd to the point of disingenuous. It certainly isn’t hypocritical to quote selectively, something that we most all do, but there is something dishonest about trying to make a claim about the totalitarian and collectivist forms of the State by drawing from an author who opposes the State, period, while you warmly embrace what Bourne aptly dubbed the health of the state and defend an economic system that relies heavily on the state for its sustenance.
“Reading over 2a and 3, it’s obvious you don’t understand collectivism and totalitarianism. “In theory” they are polar opposites. In practice they are nearly identical. If anything separates communism from fascism, it’s how they are sold to the gullible and soon to be suffering masses. The “Stato Corporativo” and the Soviet planning boards offer the same miseries, and both stand in stark contrast to the free market. Hey, that’s a little like saying you have a choice between *gasp!* Liberty and Tyranny!
It actually cracks me up that you say “communism, in theory” as if the theory were ever practicable. “Foundationally not tied to the state.” Did your really just write this about Communism? The Ultimate State? Want to give it another shot?! Seriously man, the joke’s on you.”
I continue to wonder if you actually read what those with whom you dispute offer before you respond — or if you re-read what you said that incited such rebuttal.
Imploring me to educate myself, you wrote, “There are technical differences, but they amount to little in practice.” One could, and probably should, translate this as, “Yes, they differ in theory, but, no, they don’t in practice.”
I don’t disagree. But you asked me to explain what I thought separate the two, which required me to speak of communism in theory. In no way does the impracticable nature of communism (which I’ve already conceded, without dissent, to be true) preclude me from speaking of theoretical communism. Unless, of course, you intended to open a door for me that leads directly into a brick wall, so to speak.
I do, however, disagree with you that “‘In theory’ they are polar opposites.” Just as they, in practice are virtually identical, they are similar — both left-wing ideologies, for starters — more fundamentally. Are they not?
And yes, I did write that about communism in theory, and no, I don’t want another shot. However, I shall concede that I phrased this poorly — or, rather, inadequately. Communism, in theory, I submit, isn’t tied to the nation-state as it exists when the revolution begins, so to speak. It seeks to overthrow the the bourgeoise state, whereas fascism seeks to co-opt it through the consolidation of (often legally acquired) power. This salient difference, however trivial in practice is an important break between the two and why I suggested, in what was meant to be a lighthearted joke (notwithstanding the needless comment on my part about nuance) about Obama’s being a fascist, rather than a commie. He’s an elected official who, like most all of his predecessors, leads a government that consolidates power and happily unites the interests of big business and big government.
Not looking to beat a dead horse, or extend this exchange, but it’s worth mentioning: socialist (communist… whatever, same thing) theory teaches the dissolution of the state after a dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas fascism embraces the state as completely dominant and all-encompassing (taken directly from Hegel). This is why I called them polar opposite in theory – because, you see, in this critical aspect, they are.
Will, no reason not to want to club deceased equine, nor to desire not to prolong the conversation.
As I noted, I don’t think that they’re polar opposites, but I do believe , pace William, that they differ critically, as I’ve tried to make clear.
Thanks for the contribution. The more voices, the better.
Cheers.
I could sit here and have an academic debate until I’m blue in the face, and it wouldn’t do a thing to stop the Communist in office (that, if you insist on making the thin, superficial distinction, is using techniques that more closely resemble Italian historical Fascism).
What can be gleaned from studying the histories of both ideologies are the mentalities that undergird the ethos of their respective movements. Fascism is militant, so-called “right wing” statism that (historically, anyway) emphasizes the superiority of a people or land. It demands adherence to one superman ruler, or “leader.” Once in power, modern fascism used Marxist economics (i.e., centralized government control, if mafia-like in execution) to enforce a stranglehold on the economic processes of the nation, driving it towards war.
Communism is utopianism, or started that way. Marx dismissed utopianism by claiming to have discovered the scientific progress of history; he did this by perverting Hegel. Marx and Engels turned towards the advocacy of violence when they realized that capitalism was not going to collapse on itself (it can’t, and won’t). They became more extreme and began taking on the intonations of prophets. Hence, the ideological fervency of its followers (Obama is of this ilk). Marx was largely ignored during his lifetime. Only slowly did his ideas infect Europe’s liberal minds – first in Germany, then in France (and later London, from LSE).
The Holocaust ended Fascism’s reputation, and clearly few people are going to embrace anything branded as “fascist.” Socialism was discredited nearly as soon as it was introduced, and more technically by the Austrian school (Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek), but desperate people are susceptible to visions of utopia painted by demagogues (e.g. Obama). Intellectuals, more accurately pseudo-intellectuals, have always had a soft spot for Communism (socialism, whatever…) and so they, and we as society, largely overlook the purges of Stalin et al. What few people perceive is that the actual differences in economic policy are semantic. They are in essence economically identical.
To sum it up, Barack Obama is a communist of the Alinsky variant. If you were to posit that Alinky was a functional fascist rather than a textbook communist, then I’d agree – the ends justify the means. But the salient point is that his mindset, his mentality, his ideology, his understanding of the world is Marxist – like Hitler, like Stalin, like Alinksy.
You can take those explanations to the bank; they are spot on. Ultimately this really boils down to a dead academic debate, one that was won decisively a long time ago by classical Liberals. For me the time for quibbling is up although I confess I always take a certain satisfaction in educating. Your own personal apprehensions (and, frankly, misunderstandings) regarding capitalism aside, now is the time to strategize, brand, and act to defeat, and hopefully change for good, the rogue party.
“[N]ow is the time to strategize, brand, and act to defeat, and hopefully change for good, the rogue party.”
I agree — depending on to which party we refer here. I’d suggest that both major parties are rogue parties. Forced to choose between the two, I’m inclined to support the G.O.P., however hesitantly. I don’t think that you mean to refer to it, but I’m not sure that the Democrats, rogue or not, can be changed. Defeated, yes — if the Republican Party pulls its head out of its posterior, that is.
The most recent print issue of TAC has a review, by Jim Antle, of Joe Scarborough’s recent book (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/sep/01/00043/). If that kind of reform can happen in the party, then I can seriously see myself being more willing to support the G.O.P. And I think that it may be the only way for the party to distinguish itself, in a meaningful way, from the Democrats in a way that the general voting public can both understand and really appreciate.
Have you read Liberty and Tyranny?