Really Daniel, I'm quite prepared to believe that Jonah displays any number of faults (or least idiosyncracies that we might not approve of), but we wouldn't know it from the examples you cite. About Lindbergh, he pretty clearly argues that he's not trying to tar Yglesias with Lindbergh, but instead attempting to at least partially rehabilitate Lindbergh.
About Rod, I have to say that Crunchy Cons is just a really awful book, precisely because Rod hints at a very real, very important phenomenon, and then says virtually nothing useful or interesting about it. Frankly whatever Jonah's point about the sacralization of politics is supposed to mean, it's giving Rod more credit than he's due. For Rod to assert boboish fashion and food choices as a sources of spiritual renewal (and I do think that's a fair description of his work) is just as bad as anything he criticizes in the book. In fact, it was following the whole Crunchy Con thing while it was hot gave me a renewed appreciation for mainstream American conservatives, for having to endure anklebiting from the likes of Rod.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment