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.




Go to Full Article