SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
William F. Buckley, Jr.’s National Review was the intellectual bastion of Catholic-leaning conservatism in America, filled with well-written prose, a love of literature, and a critical take on G.O.P. politics. Today’s publication is pretty pale by comparison. It reminds one of the inside score-settling of the Bolsheviks, especially in the period after Fanya Kaplan shot Lenin and the Red Terror was let loose. A number of bloggers, notably Andrew Sullivan, have been following the intellectual disintegration with detached amusement or dismay, but I’m convinced there is no better narrator of it than David Frum, who demonstrates again why he was consistently recognized as the best stylist of the NRO crew—before he parted company with them:
How wonderful to return to a free country, I thought as I stepped off the plane from Beijing at Washington Dulles. No more censorship, no more official lies, no more kowtowing to high officials who gained power by their mindless repetition of party dogma… Then alas I opened my browser and read the dump-on-Manzi comments on NRO’s The Corner. Manzi had deviated from the One Correct Way of Mark Levin Thought, and all his former colleagues had been summoned together to Denounce and Struggle Against Him. Not one stood up to be counted in Manzi’s defense, not even colleagues whom Manzi might have had reason to regard as close personal friends. (Take a second to notice whose bylines are missing from yesterday’s discussions.) What makes this episode all the more remarkable is that Manzi is actually a member of NR’s board of trustees – i.e., somebody who might claim a little more scope to speak his mind. But even for trustees, there are limits, and Manzi crossed them.
The Levin-Manzi controversy highlights one of the right’s current unacknowledged problems: a group of charlatan radio hosts have hijacked the banner of conservatism in America. They have garnered unquestioning support from publications like National Review. Frum was among the first on the right to recognize this:
Reading through the comments in the [National Review Online] Corner, there’s no mistaking who’s in charge, who’s subservient. Two Corner contributors complained about Manzi’s “tone.” Levin is the most vituperative radio host this side of Mike Savage – but imagine anyone at The Corner complaining about Levin’s tone! Conservatism has always had both elite and popular wings, and in the past they worked together productively. Fred Schwarz drew tens of thousands to his Christian Anti-Communist Crusade in the early 1960s, at the same time as Milton Friedman was publishing Capitalism and Freedom; F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty; and Edward Banfield, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Nobody however demanded that Milton Friedman hail Schwarz’s pamphlets as serious contributions to conservative thought, in the way that the Cornerites demand that Manzi kiss Levin’s ring. It’s different now, to conservatism’s present shame and future detriment.
Good analysis. I would just add to this that Hayek tracked developments in popular conservatism in America, especially the right-wing reaction against Eisenhower, and was horrified by them. It’s why he wrote Why I am Not a Conservative. And indeed, anyone struggling to find much connection between Hayek’s thought and what is proclaimed as conservatism today at National Review would probably give up in frustration. In America today, the Eisenhower Republicans are called Democrats. And the Republicans are the people who gave Eisenhower hell from the right–when they weren’t too busy worrying about fluoridated water and the invasion of the body snatchers.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”