The American Conservative (three issues)

The Republican primaries are as much a focus of attention here as are the Democratic primaries in The Nation (see below.) 

11 Feb: A terrific cover shows a cartoon of John McCain with a large globe, apparently about to eat it.  The text: “Invade the World, Invite the World” (ostensibly a summary of McCain’s hawkish foreign policy and liberal immigration policy.)  An editorial endorses Ron Paul for president (wonder how that worked out?); an article by antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo documents McCain’s warlike intentions towards not only Iraq and Iran, but Russia and China as well; and Thomas Woods reviews Paul Gottfried’s Conservatism in America, praising Gottfried for debunking earlier writers’ attempts to gloss over the eccentric and sometimes alarming character of the older American right by claiming to find links between American conservatism and European conservatism. 

25 Feb: A cover depicts Barack Obama as Christ, but wearing ammo belts and a machine gun; an article by Brendan O’Neill documents Obama’s history of support for US military intervention everywhere but Iraq; and Nicholas von Hoffman investigates Bill Clinton’s post-presidential moneymaking activities.

10 Mar: Another arresting cover, this one with text: “Fuel imported into Iraq- 3 million gallons/ day  Cost to the US- $929 million/ week.”  Steve Sailer (your favorite blogger!) analyzes Hispanic voting patterns; Scott McConnell is slightly encouraged by Barack Obama’s apparent reluctance to grovel before the most extreme elements of American Zionism; Leon Hadar dismisses the foreign policy terms “realist” and “idealist” as empty, appealing to Walter Russell Mead typology of Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, and Wilsonian as somewhat more capable of carrying meaning; Eamonn Fingleton critiques the view, widespread among America’s elite, that a prosperous China will naturally become democratic (though strangely he neglects to mention James Mann, whose recent book provided a powerful argument exploding that view); Daniel Larison sounds the alarm about Kosovo’s “independence”; Neil Clark finds that refusal to join the European Union has strengthened the economies and preserved the liberties of Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and (get ready) Belarus; Jesse Walker praises The Kinks; and Doug Bandow looks at Christian Zionism and sees a collection of crazies.

The Nation (five issues)

The Democratic primaries dominate the issues of 25 February, 3 March, 10 March, 17 March, and 24 March.  Interesting bits do slip in, though.  What are these bits?

 25 February: A long review of a biography of Joschka Fischer and Stuart Klawans’ review of the Romanian illegal-abortion drama 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days

3 March: Alexander Cockburn declares that diverting Social Security taxes to Wall Street “was never a job for the Republicans, any more than was welfare ‘reform.’  Eradication of the social safety net is a job for the Democratic Party,” a job Bill Clinton would have completed had God not sent Monica Lewinsky to rescue us.  Kathryn Joyce writes on the New Natalists, right-leaning types who worry that too few white babies are being born.  Joyce identifies historian Allen Carlson as the intellectual godfather of this group.  I’ve read some of Carlson’s books and can attest that he is at once an excellent historian whose works anyone can benefit from reading and a far-right crackpot whose triumph in the realm of public policy would be catastrophic.  Jochen Hellbeck reviews two books on Stalin, tracing the development of Utopian plans into hellish institutions.  Ronald Grigor Suny reviews two other books about Bolshevism.  And from Charles Bernstein, a nifty little love poem called “All the Whiskey in Heaven,” which ended up in my Valentine’s Day package to Mrs Acilius.

10 March: Tom Hayden revisits Vietnam and is very uncomfortable with what he finds there; Daniel Wilkinson reviews four books on Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela and reaches far less rosy conclusions than have previous issues of The Nation.

17 March: Jeremy Scahill reports on Barack Obama’s stated willingness to continue using mercenary firms like Blackwater; and Daniel Lazare reviews two books on religious conflicts in early Modern Europe, arguing that secularism is older than the Enlightenment and defending it as the one tried-and-true means of overcoming religious conflict. 

24 March: Mark Mazower wrings his hands about the implications of the Kosovo’s “independence”; Neve Gordon reviews work on Palestinians who collaborate with Zionism; and Stuart Klawans reviews Chop Shop, a film which he identifies as part of “a small but fascinating group of Iranian-flavored movies made in New York City.”

The Baffler, no. 17

More politics and less whimsy than in most issues of this irregularly produced Chicago-based magazine.   Labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan explains how understaffing of regulatory agencies has effectively repealed many of the reforms of the early 1900’s; Jim Arndorfer chronicles the role of Milwaukee industrialist Harry Bradley in financing the American right; Kim Phillips-Fein reports on the business of online poker; Martin Riker contributes a story about a conceptual artist who develops a piece around an impossible challenge that may not be impossible after all; Steve Evans describes the consequences of Ruth Lilly’s bequest of $100,000,000 to Poetry magazine; Jim McNeill remembers Victor Reuther and the battles that built the United Auto Workers; Matt Weiland looks in on a revival of the Chataqua circuit; and Catherine Liu looks at the use of the word “creativity” in modern corporate-speak, concluding that “It is apparent that ‘everlasting uncertainty’ is code for no job security, ‘lifelong learning’ is code for constant retraining, while ‘creativity’ is code for workforce docility.‘”

Telos, Number 141, Winter 2007

A special issue on “Nature and Terror.”  Tim Luke endeavors to rescue Edward Abbey from his admirers; Dan Edelstein considers the history of the phrase hostis generis humani (“enemy of the human race”,) beginning unfortunately from a misunderstanding of Cicero’s special use of the word hostis; Victoria Fareld, in a piece on “Charles Taylor’s Identity Holism,” argues that neo-Hegelian philosopher Taylor’s attempt to transcend individualism ends in a form of radical individualism.  I have a copy of Taylor’s “The Politics of Recognition,” I’ve been meaning to read it for several years, this essay should make me likelier to read it.  In fact, I fear it will have the opposite effect.    Telos‘ current editor, Russell Berman reviews a book which defends, alas, the term “Islamofascism.”  All in all a pretty good issue, even though Berman drags his neoconservatism in at the end.

Scandinavian Headlines

Police get a grip on serial masturbator

Clearly I’ve been reading “The Local” – a website in English about Sweden. Enjoyable:

  • “manual labor”
  • “feeling his way around”
  • “holding his own”

There’re a lot of other interesting headlines about Sweden, too:

  • Lesbian compensated for prevented puppy purchase
  • Children banned from wearing multi-coloured clothes
  • Viking women had sexy style
  • Death notices get cute ‘n’ quirky in Sweden
  • Woman trapped in laundry room by irate neighbour

The Atlantic Monthly, January/ February 2008

The Atlantic has been heavy with neoconservative politics for several years now, and this issue is no exception.  The chief criterion the magazine uses in evaluating any political institution or proposal seems to be the degree to which it is compatible with control of affairs from Washington, DC.  If a system increases Washington’s power, it is good, if it restricts Washington’s power, it is bad. 

The cover story, “After Iraq,” spouts fantasies of partition, not only of Iraq, but of most middle eastern states.  A middle east redivided along ethnic lines will respond more predictably to initiatives from Washington than will a group of states, each of which must balance the interests of a melange of groups. 

In “First, kill all the school boards,” Matt Miller asserts that American education policy must be brought under federal control, a claim supported by arguments showing that only if the schools are controlled from Washington will Washington control the schools.  Our current system of “radical localism” presents us with these problems: “No way to know how children are doing”; “stunted R & D”; “incompetent school boards and unions”; “financial inequity.”  “No way to know how children are doing”- no way for whom to know?  How they are doing what?  No way for Washington to know how well they are doing what Washington wishes.  That local communities might have distinctive characteristics, that what children need to be able to do might depend on the local community of which they are a part, that their parents and other adults who live in those communities might know what’s best for their own children- these ideas are not mentioned.  “Stunted R & D”- that educational research will produce one set of ideas which are right for all schools everywhere is simply taken as a maxim.  That these ideas should be developed under central control is also taken as a self-evident truth.  “Incompetent school boards and unions”- this needs to be disambiguated.  At first blush, it looks like Miller might be complaining about “incompetent school boards and incompetent unions.”  However, he is actually attacking two targets- “incompetent school boards” and “unions.”  His complaint about the teachers’ unions is that they are all too competent and outgun the school boards.  Again, Miller simply assumes that an administration based in Washington would be competent.  “Financial inequity”- to be sure, there are huge financial disparities between districts.   This is certainly the weak point of any system of local control, and the selling point of any authoritarian proposal.  Strangely, it is also the point on which Miller spends the least time.      

The further the magazine gets from politics, the better it is.  An article on river surfing in Munich will catch anyone’s imagination.  Two television reviews, Caitlin Flanagan on the greatness of the Today show,  the obsolescence of the nightly news, and the fall of Katie Couric, and Mark Bowden on David Simon of The Wire, made me want to turn the set on.  A review essay by Virginia Postrel about the history of typefaces led me to bookmark www.myfonts.com – not that i’m really going to pay $12 to be able to type an authentic-looking Old West wanted poster, but she does bring out a real fascination in the art form.

The American Conservative, 5 November 2007

A particularly good issue of this always-surprising publication.

The cover story, “The myth of the oil weapon,” explains why the market is a better guarantor of a steady flow of oil to western states than military force could ever be.  “Secular Fundamentalists” offers a pitying account of a recent convention of atheists.  “The Creativity Conceit” picks up one of the magazine’s recurring themes, that Americans have no inherent advantage over people of other nationalities in intellectual work and that research and development operations are likelier to follow production facilities than production facilities are to rise up as a consequence of a concentration of R & D shops.  “There’s something about Barry” describes recent attempts by advocates of every possible shade of American political opinion to claim the late Barry Goldwater as a precursor, then argues that he was essentially a man of his time, not a prophet of any current movement.  Elsewhere in the issue, Pat Buchanan points out that Rudolph Giuliani disagrees with him on every political issue of the day; Daniel Larison argues that our government can be honest about the Armenian genocide of 1915 only if we are willing to end our alliance with Turkey, which is to say, if we are willing to renounce our single most important startegic asset in the middle east; Philip Giraldi reports on a belief, apparently widespread among his former co-workers at the CIA, that Dick Cheney is directing the US government from an underground command post attached to his house; John Laughland says nice things about Vladimir Putin; Ted Galen Carpenter analyzes the misunderstandings among the leaders of the USA, China, and Taiwan, warning that war between the US and China is quite likely as long as the US continues to interject itself into the China/ Taiwan standoff; and A C Gancarski praises Bruce Springsteen’s latest album, among other things for its echoes of Magnetic Fields’ song “Born on a Train” and Green Day’s “Wake Me When September Ends.”

The Nation, 22 Oct/ 29 Oct/ 5 Nov 2007

Three issues in one posting.

The most notable pieces in both of the October issues were book reviews.  In the 22 October issue, Daniel Lazare reviews Mearsheimer and Walt, concluding that their methodology is incoherent, their assumptions about US foreign policy naively optimistic, and their work as a whole a specimen of “a new form of nativism that sees foreigners and their domestic allies as a big source of America’s problems and believes that the country would be better off if it could eradicate such influences.”  The 29 October issue reviews Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, the latest book by Vthunderlad’s favorite Chalmers Johnson (author of Blowback.)  Stephen Holmes finds Johnson’s comparison of the USA with ancient Rome far-fetched and the concept of “blowback” marred by an “inherent slipperiness.”  These weaknesses, Holmes claims, make it difficult to take Johnson altogether seriously, for all that “Nemesis is a serious contribution to contemporary debates, richly repaying careful study.” 

In the 5 November issue, Alexander Cockburn cites the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore as yet another example of the moral bankruptcy of the Swedish Academy; James Ledbetter hails the publication of a volume of Karl Marx’ columns for the New York Tribune; and Russ Baker and Adam Federman look at one of Hillary Clinton’s more alarming moneymen.

The American Conservative, 22 October 2007

The highlight of the issue is a piece by psychotherapist Jim Pittaway analyzing American nationalism in terms of the therapeutic model of “Criminal Thinking.”  Pittaway explains that “the unholy triad at the core of antisocial thinking is narcissism, impatience, and need for control.”  “The narcissistic predator carries senses of special entitlement and deep grievance.”  Because his view of himself is so exalted, he cannot recognize that his behavior has brought unjust suffering upon anyone else.  As an example of this kind of pathology, Pittaway quotes United States Senator Jon Tester.  “Refereeing a civil war in Iraq has distracted us from fighting a war in Afghanistan.”  As if our troops were just minding their own business, quietly making their way to the home of Taliban/ al Qaeda, when they took a wrong turn and wound up in the middle of this mysterious conflict in Iraq. 

In the context of a disordered nationalism, impatience and the need to control others combine to create a sense that one’s leaders are in fact omnipotent, and that if there is evil in the world it can only be because those leaders have defaulted in their duties.  “In this construct, any failure to control must necessarily be failure on the part of whoever was supposed to do the controlling; the core idea of America’s potential to control everything can never be questioned.  This logically absurd notion is an irreducible component of both the criminal personality and our New Nationalism.  So, like the habituated criminal, nationalist America does not have to accomodate society around us and instead must pursue ever more desperate measures to control things that cannot, and ought not, be controlled.”  These “ever more desperate measures” form a “kind of progression of increasingly less desirable outcomes experienced by the Criminal-Thinking offender when he tries to take control of the situation, loses it, escalates, and winds up dead or in prison for crimes he never intended to commit when he started out.  As long as he cannot self-regulate, and the criminal thinker cannot, he is doomed to play out to the end.” 

Pittaway gives two ways out of nationalistic Criminal Thinking.  As you would expect in a magazine called The American Conservative, one way out is an appeal to such American exemplars of the republican tradition as Lincoln and Jefferson, claiming that they both preached and exhibited self-restraint.  “Self-control — not controlling others — is at the heart of American patriotic tradition.”  The grimmer way out is the path Germany traveled after the Third Reich.  “When you’re living in the rubble you’ve created, narcissism is difficult to sustain.  When you have to engage in a daily struggle to survive, impatience is useless if not deadly.  When you have been defeated so thoroughly that you lack both capability and will to resist those who beat you, you don’t control anything.  By 1950, those same German people and their leadership reverted to pro-social thinking in government.” 

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/article1.html

In the same issue Dave Lindorff reports on a bizarre incident that occurred this August 29, when without authorization a crew loaded a B-52 with six cruise missiles armed with live nuclear warheads and flew across the country.  Even more bizarre, six airmen connected with the incident have died in the weeks since.  Most bizarre of all, the story has barely received notice in the mainstream press. 

The cover story argues that conservatives will need to share more than hatred of Hillary Clinton if they are to win the 2008 elections.  An article about Graham Greene expresses amazement that G. W. Bush recently mentioned The Quiet American when he himself so obviously embodies the worst traits of that novel’s two protagonists.  Uri Avnery reviews Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Lobby,  Neil Clark decries the British Conservative Party’s leftward drift, and Pat Buchanan expresses nostalgia for Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

The Nation, 15 October 2007

Two pieces deal with the likelihood that rightists will spend the next few decades trying to convince themselves and the voting public that the reason the war in Iraq was such a disaster was that the left stabbed America in the back.  A column by Eric Alterman compares the rumblings to this effect that we have already heard to the Nazi movement’s claim that Germany’s defeat in the 1914-1918 War was due to a Jewish plot to stab the country in the back.  A review essay by Rick Perlstein takes on recent books claiming that the USA was at some point close to success in Vietnam, dismantling the scholarly pretensions of these books and using Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ theory of the stages of grief to argue that when an American military intervention turns out badly, hawks “begin with denial, anger, and bargaining, just like you and me.  And that’s where they stay- forever paralyzed by a petulant refusal to acknowledge their fantasy’s passing, a simple inability to process reality.” 

 The article that made me the angriest documented a systematic effort on the part of the army to pressure doctors to misdiagnose wounded Iraq vets so that they would not qualify for disability benefits.  Hardly less angering was an article about the immunity that mercenary gangs like Blackwater Corporation enjoy for murders and other crimes committed in Iraq. 

The closest thing to light entertainment in the issue was Jane Smiley’s review of the memoirs of Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis and Edith Schaeffer, two of the founders of the contemporary Christian Right.  Schaeffer’s rebellion against his parents’ beliefs and his horrifying descriptions of the personalities of leading evangelists seem to be part of a lively, interesting personality.