The idea that there are Straussian 'sects' is intriguing, I'll have to find out more about that. Whether Kristol is an esoteric cabalist or not, he seems to have put this lefty weblogger under a spell. She used to help edit suck.com before its demise, and writes for In These Times now.
BILL KRISTOL, SHINY-HEADED GOD OF LOVE More fodder for media conspiracy theorists appeared in the New York Times yesterday: a loving profile of The Weekly Standard and its quietly charismatic editor, William Kristol. The attention is deserved, no doubt, and not just because Dick Cheney sends someone down to pick up 30 fresh copies every Monday. (One does have to wonder why he isn't comped the "special delivery" edition, which arrives at the Antic Household every Saturday--is someone still smarting about the McCain fight?)
The Weekly Standard is simply the best political magazine in America. What's more, it is the best political magazine in America even though David Brooks is on staff. It has great reporting, sassy commentary, and--this is the part that seems hard for many publications--it seems to come to its editorial stances out of sincere moral reasoning. They're not the product of ideological throat-clearing, defensive knee-jerking, or desperate political glad-handing.
They were one of the first conservative outlets to argue for Trent Lott's dismissal, and they bravely called out Andrew Sullivan for defending the infamous "Harvard Penis Snow Sculpture." We, the editors wrote of the hotly debated member, "would rather be clumsily decent. . . than elegantly decadent," which pretty much sum up the magazine, even when it's in its bomb-throwing unilateralist mode.
I just wish I could agree with more of what they wrote.
Friends and acquaintances who work at the Weekly say that the decency of the magazine--which, truth be told, can also be elegant--stems directly from Kristol, who is inevitably described as "hands-on" and a "great boss." In political journalism, it is quite common to find a boss who is the former, rare to find one who is the latter, and almost impossible to one who is both. So I sort of have trouble believing this, except, well, I have seen a lot of Kristol on TV. . . He's always so, so, reasonable sounding. He has a great smile. He's very self-deprecating. In response to Nightline's assertion that he was, basically, the architect of the Bush Doctrine he all but blushed, saying all he did was "set the terms of kind of a way to think about the world."
This demeanor, combined with his obvious sense of humor and intelligence, make going to war sound great. Whenever I hear him on the radio or see him on TV, I find myself thinking, "Yeah, 'The cost of doing nothing is higher.' Right. 'Our freedom and security turn out to be inextricably linked to the character of regimes elsewhere in the world.' Of course."
It's as though I have been hypnotized by his large, luminous forehead, because as soon as I turn the TV off, I come up with doubts. Like, "Why is it that Republicans don't say anything about 'the cost of doing nothing is higher' when we talk about domestic policy?" or, "'If our security is linked to the character of regimes elsewhere,' doesn't that mean it's reasonable for, say, the European populace to be concerned about the character of our regime?" Stuff like that.
Perhaps this gullibility is just a side effect of watching TV, not Kristol in particular. That would certainly explain the popularity of other dubious ideas put forth by television, like, say, "Arranged marriages are fun!"
I return to Kristol, though. He seduces me with his big words, his toothy grin, his calm assurance. Oh, Bill, you make it so easy to believe.
posted by Ana Marie at 4:13 PM
theanticmuse.blogspot.com |
