|
Neoconservatism accelerates its downward course
What I’m about to tell you, which I just heard myself, is beyond unbelievable, beyond disgusting. Guess who has been appointed as the next editor of Commentary, replacing Neil Kozodoy? John Podhoretz. That’s right, John Podhoretz, son of Norman Podhoretz, Commentary’s long-time editor until 1995 and now Editor at Large. Norman Podhoretz, whatever you think of him, is, or rather used to be, a top-quality intellectual, a major figure of our time. Also a literary scholar. Kozodoy, though he is not known as a writer himself, and though he has made Commentary more Judeo-centric than it was under Norman and has published anti-Christian articles of a type that Podhoretz never published, is still a top quality editor. Under both Podhoretz and Kozodoy Commentary was the best edited magazine in the country. “J-Pod,” as he calls himself (after “J-Lo,” the nickname of the entertainer Jennifer Lopez), is an adolescent lout, a man whose sensibility has been formed by and is still focused on junk tv shows; just the other week, the Corner was monopolized by a long discussion between him and Jonah Goldberg about the Star Trek spin-offs. Whenever J-Pod makes a historical or cultural reference, at least one that is beyond the world of tv, he almost invariably gets it wrong. Though he attended the University of Chicago, in his writings he has never evidenced any interest in political philosophy, conservative thought, religion, history, literature, or the arts. He’s never even expressed any interest in Judaism, except to invoke his Jewishness when he wants to label immigration restrictionists bigots and anti-Semites. His worldview is defined by neocon ideology and pop culture. After 9/11 he triumphantly declared that the culture wars were over, meaning that because we had an external enemy again we didn’t have to care about the state of our culture any more. He regularly gives vent to impulsive, embarrassingly unsound opinions, which he often quickly reverses. He is so immature that when he joined the Corner, he immediately began calling some of his colleagues there racists because they didn’t support the neocon position on open borders. He is famous for grossly insulting correspondents who write to him to disagree with his articles. He is, in short, an uncontained, “unbuttoned” person, the last person in the world for the high-level job of editing Commentary. Moreover, J-Pod has never had anything to do with Commentary, has never worked for it or contributed a single article to it. By contrast, Kozodoy when he was chosen had been Norman Podhoretz’s long-time assistant editor. I’m not saying J-Pod is without talent. Some of his columns in the New York Post are bright and have useful insights. But most of his columns are unsound, show a lack of steady thinking, are focused on trivia such as the supposed great excitement of a presidential contest between Rudy and Hillary, and are a waste of time to read. And get this. David Frum, who cheerfully announced this appalling news at his NRO blog, has the chutzpah to insist that nepotism has nothing to do with it, since, Frum says, J-Pod was selected by Kozodoy, not by the elder Podhoretz. But of course Kozodoy is the disciple and creature of the elder Podhoretz. At Podhoretz’s retirement dinner in 1995, Kozodoy spoke of him in terms that seemed to surpass anything said in the Old or New Testament about God. The notion that Norman was not involved in the selection of John is unbelievable on its face. For Frum to huff and puff and act as though the unavoidable conjecture of nepotisim is outrageous and absurd is itself absurd. So, assuming that his father and his mother, Midge Decter, had input in the decision, why did they and Kozodoy pick such an unsuitable person? A possibility suggested by a reader is, indeed, pure nepotism. They’re thinking that their son has reached his late forties, he has a couple of good gigs, a column at the New York Post, movie reviews at the Weekly Standard, yukking it up at NRO, an occasional tv appearance, but nothing really major. Making him editor of Commentary is the one chance of getting him into the big leagues, as well as of assuring him a six figure income. Frankly, I wouldn’t have thought of this scenario myself. But now that it’s been presented, it does seem plausible, as awful as it is. A non-nepotistic explanation is that they wanted to spice up Commentary with a more youthful, pop-culture orientation. Well, yes, if they want to make Commentary the magazine of South Park, The Simpsons, and Star Trek The Next Generation, J-Pod is certainly the man for the job. Any way we explain it, the selection of J-Pod shows that the neoconservatives, once known for their devotion to high standards, have become a shameless clique of careerists and self-seekers. There is not much left of what was once an admirable intellectual movement but the desire for power and advantage. My own concern is less about the damage to Commentary, a magazine I now only read occasionally, than it is about the damage to the conservative movement as a whole, and, even more, about the sheer lowness of this act. To make J-Pod editor of Commentary is to announce to the world: we have no standards any more, we don’t care what people think anymore, we don’t care how demoralizing this is to people who thought conservatism stood for something; we’re just doing what we want to do to suit ourselves and the hell with you. It is, in short, an act of cultural violence, like Bush nominating Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, like Giuliani boasting of how he’ll bring his third wife into cabinet meetings. By the way, J-Pod will not take over the helm of Commentary until January 2009, which, if J-Pod’s candidate wins the election, is the same month Rudy and Judi will be entering the White House.
John Hagan writes:
J-Pod is a good moniker for this loathsome, uncouth buffoon. Just remember, it has nothing to do with nepotisim. After an exhaustive world-wide search the best canidate was found. It just happened to be J-Pod. This great magazine will be ruined in short order.LA writes:
For a good example of John Podhoretz’s quality of thought and method of argumentation, here is how he responded at the Corner a couple of years ago to John Derbyshire’s criticism of automatic birth right citizenship for children of illegal aliens: For a further example of how J-Pod responds to criticissm or disagreement, here is an e-mail exchange between Podhoretz and me that took place on September 17, 2001. I sent to a small e-mail list, including Podhoretz, an article of his under the subject line, “John Podhoretz celebrates suicidal tolerance,” with the following introduction by me:
In this column, Podhoretz admits that “This nation is so fundamentally anti-racist that ordinary Americans and law-enforcement officers have evidently allowed a fifth column of terrorists to live among us for years,” but instead of condemning this suicidal excess of anti-racism, he celebrates it—as an expression of “the greatest and noblest country the world has ever seen.”The following exchange ensued:
——Original Message——-Podhoretz didn’t reply.
Sage McLaughlin writes:
Add me to the list of people who have had nasty run-ins with J-Pod. For disagreeing with him on the supposed brilliance and originality of a movie poster , he sent me a response so snide and caustic I thought it must be a joke. I suppose he really does take his pop culture damn seriously. The man hurls insults and vitriol at his own colleagues over minor disagreements, calls them “disgusting” and “reprehensible” for such grave offenses as criticizing Tony Blair’s domestic policies, and so forth. Is it any wonder he’s gotten so few atta-boys from the NRO crowd? Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 17, 2007 12:58 PM | Send Email entry |