Fayette Durlin and Peter Jenkin
Fayette Durlin and Peter Jenkin write from Brownsville, Minnesota.
We write this Survey in order to acquaint Review readers with a wide range of conservative thought as reflected in a dozen or so magazines. By doing so, we are better informed about issues we all care about, and we always learn more, sharpen our knowledge - as we hope this issue's column will reveal. Incidentally, this column is unique; no other conservative magazine dares do it!
First, let's compare how our magazines cover the same stories. Almost all have published several articles about the economy, specifically on the debt crisis and attempts to deal with it, and of course, we need to understand the issues and their ramifications, but by now we sense a sameness about the stories, and our eyes glaze over as we turn the pages. There was, however, one article, "Who Do You Really Believe?" (American Spectator, Oct.) by Brian Wesbury, that was a real standout: a clear, simple explanation of the 2008 financial panic that cut through all the conflicting arguments to show how politicians, rather than greedy bankers and Wall Street villains, were the bad actors. Most conservatives know that, but Wesbury's article, with its straightforward clarity, makes an unforgettable argument.
The London riots, covered in several magazines, were trenchantly commented on by Roger Scruton and Tom Bethell (American Spectator, Oct.) And there were also good pieces by Jonathan Foreman (National Review, 8/29, and Commentary, Oct.).
The magazines have sedulously followed the campaigns of the various GOP hopefuls, and the best pieces have been Andrew Ferguson's long, thoughtful piece on Gov. Perry (Weekly Standard, 8/29), Kevin Williamson's analysis of Ron Paul (NR, 9/10), and Jon Huntsman (NR, 10/17), and Fred Barnes' comparison of Hermain Cain and Obama (WS, 10/10).
Obama himself, of course, gets a lot of attention, such an easy target that the articles have become tiresome, but once again, there are outstanding pieces. In "Being Obama" (WS, 9/5), Jonathan Last convincingly nails Obama's vanity as his hallmark. In "The Innocents Abroad" (NR, 9/10), John Bolton writes the best analysis we've seen of Obama's foreign policy, stressing his "intellectual laziness," "credulous and inexperience," "gullibility," "narcissism," "incompetence," and "inattention." "Obama is simply an invention; there is less to him than meets the eye. Worse than being merely doctrinaire, he is hollow at the center." An indelible portrait. Noemi Emery's "Overrated" (WS, 10/10) is another definitive piece, a brilliant description of Obama's lack of political skills. "His governing theory was that he would make speeches and win people over; then Nancy Pelosi would twist arms, or break them."
Now let's turn to important stories that are not so generally covered. The Weekly Standard, which was initially more hopeful than other magazines about the democratic possibilities of the Egyptian uprising, has a grim piece, "The People, No" by James Kirchick (WS, 10/3) about the emerging dangers of populism in Egypt, a sobering account by a well-informed reporter. There's a sharp story by James Panero, "Blunder at the Biennale" (New Criterion, Sept.) about the exhibition by our State Department at the biennial show in Venice that "broadcasts a singular anti-American message created by second-rate artists," and it concludes, "The first lesson of [the exhibit] is that the world is as unimpressed by the orthodoxies of American political correctness as it was by Soviet orthodoxies." The description of this shameful show has to be read to be believed. The October issue has a deadly description of Brasilia, the capital of Brazil (designed by followers of Le Corbusier, a description fatal to the pretensions of that overrated architect). Noemi Emery describes the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" (WS, 9/5) - all politicians - with her accustomed clarity and wit, exposing "a class to whom money - its own, or that of the people - means little or nothing at all." Such incredible ostentation was an eye-opener for us. Jonathan Last writes "The Lost Girls" (WS, 9/25) about the demographic disaster of China's one-child policy. Simon Wynberg's "Shoah Biz" (Commentary, Oct.) is a critique of Holocaust exploitation: "New works that draw on the Holocaust are all latently exploitative, but there is something doubly offensive about turning an existing masterpiece into Shoabizness."
"The Trouble with Turkey" (NR, 10/17) by Michael Rubin is a sobering account of that country's turn toward Islamism with attendant muscle-flexing throughout the Middle East, a danger to Israel and U.S. interests, evidently unsuspected by our State Department. Caroline Glick in The Jerusalem Post (10/3), reprinted in Israel News (10/7) adds to Rubin's analysis information which indicates considerable economic weakness, so that:
Its hopes to be a regional power are faltering. The only thing Israel really needs to be concerned about is the United States' continued insistence that Turkey is a model ally in the Islamic world. . . . [I]t is U.S. support for Turkey that makes Erdogan a threat to the Jewish state and to the region.
Clearly, a country to watch.
Finally, there are articles interesting in themselves about things by the way. So Judy Bachrach writes a very funny review (WS, 8/29) of the latest Jane Fonda book, and Andrew Ferguson writes a hilarious critique of Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with JFK (WS, 10/3). Mark Steyn, who we think is the best columnist of all the writers in these magazines, turns out, every two weeks on NR's back page, witty, deeply perceptive essays criticizing contemporary culture (in the broadest sense). "Is America Periclean," an essay by Victor Davis Hanson (New Criterion, Oct.), is an excellent analysis of Pericles' funeral oration, as reported by Thucydides, and its application to America and its past. Finally, Joseph Epstein has a discerning review of Alfred Kazin's Letters (NR, 8/29).
Merits and Demerits
Commentary made some welcome changes in its October issue by eliminating Jon Podhoretz's embarrassing editorial and printing Joseph Epstein's Jewish joke right in the front of the magazine.
National Review has a soft spot in its head for Matthew Scully, a former staffer, now a very stupid and wildly untrustworthy animal rights advocate, and in its 10/3 issue prints a review by a Scullyite (Claire Berlinski) of an animal rights book by another Scullyite, advocating the end of farming (of course called "factory farming"). That NR should print such trash is depressing, and it lessens our respect for the magazine. *
