Go Team!
Thanks to Google reader, I've been reading the unrelenting prattle at National Review's blog. It is a strange thing in many ways. They post relentlessly on anything that crosses their minds, accepting no comments so that only those with log ins talk only to each other, and while their writing tone is different, their opinions and judgments are not diverse in any way. This allows a full look into the workings of the modern conservative mind, and it is not a pretty sight.
Maybe it is only because I happened to subscribe during the conventions, but the dominant topic is watching who is up and who is down in national politics. All the posters pretend to be experts in political management, poll watching, what helps and hurts candidates, speech writing and critiquing, electoral demographics, what every voter group thinks, and on and on, even though none of these people have had any actual political experience at all.
So we are given such insights as these: "[McCain] was himself and he said what he believes. And that's probably the most you can ask for in a candidate.... The gratitude that McCain expressed for Bush -- superb. Honorable. Right. Filled me with a warmth about McCain... He said, 'I won't let you down' three times -- well done. Effective."
I know that this doesn't make them very different from a zillion other blogs. In tone and method, it is no different from being at a sports bar and listening in on the conversations among the patrons, each of whom pretends to be a world master at whatever game they are watching. In sports, this is a form of self flattery that is harmless, if you can stand it. I personally can't, which is why I never go to sports bars.
And if politics were only a game, this National Review sport would be harmless too. But it is not in fact a game. The subject they are discussing concerns what junta will be running our lives (and the lives of many other people around the world) in a few months. That they are writing about real life and the real state doesn't seem to figure into their outlook at all. It really is just sport to these people--politics as a consumption good. In this, they are only mimicking what they see on television 24/7 which treats the business of politics as nothing more or less than entertainment, as if nothing fundamental were at stake.
Why should this be so offensive? It has something to do with the lineage, I think. National Review used to be home to people like Richard Weaver and Henry Hazlitt. Mises even had some articles here, as did Rothbard. Even I can vaguely recall that this was a serious institution even if often wrong. It is hardly new to observe that this institution has been taken over by kids who have never read these thinkers and mainly care about yelling "Go Team" to the Republican party. But it took Google Reader to give me that reminder in the most aggressive possible way.
Comments (9)
jaqphule
Frank Zappa used to say that, "Politics is the entertainment branch of industry." Pretty apt, if by "industry" you mean "Big Oil", "Big Pharma", "Big Labor", or even as was frequent in FZ's case, "Big Record Industry".
It was just as true twenty years ago. Only now, to preserve ratings, Politics has upped and gone the "Reality" route.
"Big Brother" indeed!
Published: September 5, 2008 12:58 PM
Chad
Before this current campaign cycle, I used to read National Review's Corner religiously every day. Mistakenly not understanding the difference between paleo-conservatism and neoconservatism back then, I thought the NRO crowd would be absolutely ecstatic over Ron Paul's candidacy and endorse him wholeheartedly, having been a big fan of Paul for years. After all, he was Mr. Constitution, and Republican political conservatives support the Constitution, right? Right???
When the NR crowd soundly rejected and outright marginalized Paul and his policies (with the exceptions of Freddoso and "ornery" Derbyshire), my eyes were opened to the blindness and outright foolishness of neoconservatism. I quickly migrated over to lewrockwell.com and mises.org which subsequently led me to antiwar.com and amconmag.com, too.
Now, my daily "fix" of online news comes from completely different sources than it did only three years ago thanks to the Paul campaign and the rude (but necessary) awakenings it brought me regarding political policy and parties in this country.
Published: September 5, 2008 1:35 PM
Dennis
Neoconservatism does not embrace limited government and economic and civil liberties. It is a thorough going statist movement that has much in common with the Left as best exemplified by Wilson, FDR, and Truman.
Besides Ron Paul and perhaps a handful of other politicians that have similar views and vote those views, both major parties adhere to the same corrupt fundamental economic and political principles.
Published: September 5, 2008 3:38 PM
Bruce Koerber
It may have been taken over by kids who 'who have never read' about classical liberalism but that implies that it was merely a random and unsystematic occurrence. Why would something like that be left to be unsystematic when an unConstitutional coup needs to take over the media to secure itself and to expand its powers?
It may have been taken over by kids who have never read about classical liberalism but those 'kids' have ambitions that are encouraged by the power elite. The promise that stirs them on is the gift of their own little empire under the control of their own vain ego-driven intervention.
The entrepreneurial spirit of truth-seeking leads away from these cesspools of nepotism and empiricism and towards the liberating truth of subjectivism. Nauseating is any encounter with or memory of association with the putrid version of 'reality' adhered to by the neoconservatives.
Published: September 5, 2008 8:23 PM
Jack Diederich
It is said the Democratic party has "no enemies to the left." I'd say that mises.org finds "no friends, anywhere." Please stop.
Did you like Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism?" Did you know John Derbyshire was a full-throated Ron Paul supporter? Asking people to agree with you 100% of the time is too much. Asking the quick response part of a current events publication to not pontificate on news-of-the-moment is dumb.
Please stop. If mises.org was in charge of purges there would be no one left on the right except for members of mises.org.
Please stop. I can barely read this site anymore.
Published: September 6, 2008 3:57 AM
jeffrey
Goldberg's book is respectfully reviewed here.
Published: September 6, 2008 5:57 AM
Jesus Martinez
Jack,
I'm sure there's plenty of room for you at The Free Republic and Little Green Footballs. You're purposefully ignoring the MASSIVE amount of NON-editorial academic content at this site, so why stay?
Published: September 6, 2008 2:06 PM
lentil
They post relentlessly on anything that crosses their minds, accepting no comments so that only those with log ins talk only to each other, and while their writing tone is different, their opinions and judgments are not diverse in any way.
This sounds like the LewRockwell.com Blog.
Published: September 6, 2008 6:40 PM
TokyoTom
Yes, and their "Planet Gore" is often unrelenting idiocy on climate change issues.
Published: September 8, 2008 2:43 AM