Monday, September 30, 2013
The American Conservative is Worthless
Reading these blog posts on Obamacare, Rod Dreher Daniel Larison, which treat the conservative wing of the GOP as if they were the extremists and the Democrats as if they were a sane party (rather than the rabidly anti-American, anti-white globalists they are).
It's official. I agree with the Occam's Razor blog: The American Conservative should fold.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You are presupposing that The American Conservative, after its founding by Patrick J. Buchanan, had as its institutional purpose the elaboration of a counter-point to the regnant strands of thought in the academy and the press corps (albeit one distinct from what was promoted by most outlets with some affinity for the Republican Party). Whatever Buchanan intended, that is not what his deputy Scott McConnell was intent on producing. See here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0705.konetzki.html
--
It was purchased by Ron Unz, who has a history as an immigration enthusiast. So, you see one of the few distinct features of palaeo discourse out the window.
---
Whatever Ron Unz has in mind for his hobby, the publication remains a collecting pool of conceited misfits. They have no real program. They just bitch about the various projects of others whom they have convinced themselves are their inferiors.
I see here that Unz has not been the proprietor since 2010. It is organized as a philanthropic agency.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354893/american-conservative-unfused-betsy-woodruff/page/0/1
Now the board of the philanthropy has removed him as publisher in spite of his patronage over the years.
Now, just what is Daniel McCarthy's skill set? He is what Samuel Francis called a Career Conservative. What he has done his adult life is edit opinion, which is not and has not been for generations a commercially viable activity.
I was astonished to read that the publication has issued 20 pieces in favor of 'gay' 'marriage'. So, we have a Career Conservative whose shtick is editorializing in favor of pet liberal causes.
I've only read Dreher in the past, not Larison. I would describe Dreher as a liberal who supports Christianity. In all other respects, as I recall, he holds modern liberal positions.
I think it is a mistake to endow Dreher with a political perspective. His is more a stew of emotional reactions. His baselines over the years have been a loyalty to other journalists (trusting what they say by default, which he does not do with regard to anyone else), an accusatory disposition, a self-conscious and other-directed disposition, and a tendency to make himself a bitch of more vehement and self-confident sorts (Larison). After that, you are just filling in the Mad Libs.
"I was astonished to read that the publication has issued 20 pieces in favor of 'gay' 'marriage'."
I wonder if that statistic can possibly be true. I don't remember any in the print magazine except the infamous Huntsman piece.
I visit Dreher's blog a few times a week. His political commentary is awful, and I zone out whenever he hawks his book about his sister and Dante. His cultural commentary is pretty good, though.
And occasional posts on the State of the Union blog are more illuminating. But Pat Buchanan himself is a better outlet for what you occasionally get out of TAC.
Post a Comment