A Made Man

The Italians weren't genocidal people.

By
64

Rather than dedicating today’s Ruminant to another interminable rant about the state of the GOP (although if you’re interested in one of those, you might want to read Wednesday’s members-only G-File, hint-hint), Jonah focuses his attention on topics less likely to drive him utterly insane. These include some major recent Supreme Court decisions, his shrinking skepticism of horseshoe theory, and our tendency to overlook the meaningful distinctions between friends, family, and strangers. Tune in also to hear Jonah thoroughly dispel all rumors of his anti-Italian bigotry.

Show Notes:

– The GLoP Culture podcast 

– The Dispatch Podcast on the end of affirmative action

– The Remnant with Bret Devereaux

– Guy is released from the pit for a Remnant AMA

– Jonah: “Defending Conservatism—From the Right”

– Gertrude Himmelfarb’s The Roads to Modernity: the British, French, and American Enlightenments

– Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History

By
Comments (64)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jason

    The thing about horseshoe theory is that it depends on how the spectrum is defined. For the most part, the left has been defined in pretty similar ways for a long time, but it's opposition has come in a variety of forms that have all be dubbed "right" even though they aren't the same and have different critiques of the left. In America, conservatism had been the longtime opposition to the left. That has since been supplanted by nationalists and integralists and MAGA because they are more demonstrative in their opposition to the left, not because of their substantive critique. Remember, national socialists complained bitterly about communists and socialism is literally in its name.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Martin Hernandez

    Gallagher! Gallagher! Gallagher!

    Collapse
  3. Paulkohlhoff

    I think it’s great that Justice Sotomayor now is an opponent of a legislative judicial branch….being unelected lawyers and all.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I don’t buy horseshoe theory either. I think these New Right guys are just leftists with some cultural conservatism. Their project is to move to right leftwards. Their resemblance to the far left more than the center left is important, but not necessarily definitive. They spend more time attacking conservatives and libertarians than progressives. They like FDR and Wilson. They have an unconstrained worldview rather than a constrained one. They bring to mind Hayek’s point about how European conservatives are actually open to socialism - they just don’t like radicalism and radical change.

    Collapse
  5. Jamesmullen

    I would be interested to know some left media names who Jonah or readers admire-not being smarmy, just honestly curious?

    Collapse
    1. ILiu

      Far left: Ben Burgis of Jacobin Magazine, Cornel West (more philosopher than left media name), Frank Wilderson (again, more of critical theorist/academic than left media name). IMO, most left-wing voices are in academia; the profit-driven nature of media leads it to be dominated by center-left/neoliberal commodification of leftist thinking.

      Center-left: Ta-Nahisi Coates, Matt Yglesias, David Graham, Jeffrey Goldberg.

      Center: Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowes, Connor Friedersdorf, Caitlin Flanagan, David Frum, John McWhorter

      Center-right: The Dispatch folk, some of The Bulwark folk, Cooke and Lowry from National Review. Robert George is also good when he writes.

      Far-right: Rod Dreher when he isn't nut-picking. There were others at The American Conservative I used to read, I think they were much better when they had an open comment section, and more liberals were commenting. TAC also did great work on urbanism.

      Not a fan of libertarians (least tolerable of all the political ideologies), but Nancy Rommelmann does among the best reporting I've seen, and Reason Magazine's (gross but must mention to be fair) video sketches can be kind of funny. They also do good reporting on police overreach.

      Collapse
      1. Jamesmullen

        Wow, a comprehensive list! Thank you. I don't know some of the folks you listed, but will pursue - Rommelmann first. For me, I would take Coates, Frum, and Goldberg off my admiration list but add Ryan Grimm. Not to throw pebbles at the stained glass, but there are too many good writers that lost it during the Trump era - Steve Hayes and Peggy Noonan (although Noonan is back) that come to mind. And let's not forget my current favorite besides Jonah...Chris Stirewalt!

        Collapse
        1. ILiu

          Definitely will look at Ryan Grimm. Must say, mine are super-influenced by reading The Atlantic in the 2014-2018 period, so could definitely use some broadening of perspective there.

          Collapse
    2. Guycatelli1

      Good question (I hope it gets many replies). My reply: Cathy Young, Bari Weiss, Jessica Tarlov, Matt Taibbi, Matt Yglesias, Bill Maher, Roger Cohen, David Brooks, Harold Ford Jr.

      James, aside from Jonah, do you admire others on the Right?

      Collapse
      1. Jamesmullen

        Thanks for the reply. I think many you mentioned attempt honesty, but you need to dig deep to find Ford or Brook's political hardpan. Albeit Brooks gives thoughtful consideration on American culture and life in general. The Brooks interview on Ben Shapiro's podcast was great. I would add Maureen Dowd, Andrew Sullivan, and Josh Barro to your list (although Barro writes mostly economic stuff.) Thanks again.

        Collapse
      2. ILiu

        Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, and David Brooks are all practically conservative. David Brooks for sure is, and the others cater to a very right-leaning audience.

        Collapse
        1. Guycatelli1

          Iirc, David started out as an American version of a social democrat. Somewhere along the way, he decided he enjoyed being a guest at yacht parties (metaphorically at least, maybe even literally). To be sure, he does see the world through a moralistic framework, which is far more typical of conservatives than non-conservatives.

          But, for example, he came out in favor of same-sex "marriage" as soon as it started getting attention in the mainstream media. In my ideological framework, s-s marriage is the most Marxist social innovation in the history of the world. (nb: My view of the matter would be the same even if the Bible had nothing relevant to say about it.) It's not just that he's adamant about wanting the GOP to stay away from battling cultural Marxism. He himself seems to have no will to do so. Is that conservative?

          For your consideration:

          A gushing endorsement of Barack Obama in *2006*! (when Obama didn't yet have any political accomplishments on his resume, aside from winning popularity contests): https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html

          A (very clever) panning of Mitt Romney -- and his whole immediate family! https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/opinion/brooks-the-real-romney.html

          I think these examples, especially in combination, reveal that David never stopped being a social democrat.

          Collapse
          1. ILiu

            Ah, I never read him that far back. Just saw that liberals criticized him, so assumed he was more conservative. I guess NYTimes commentators criticize anyone with even an inkling of conservative thought.

            Collapse
      3. Guycatelli1

        And, of course, WNYC's Brian Lehrer.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Dave in Houston

    I'm actually disappointed that you offered an apology to the ingrates claiming you were guilty of anti-Italian bigotry. The claims were so bogus and silly, they deserved nothing.

    Collapse
    1. Guycatelli1

      Afaik, I've never accused Jonah of *conscious* anti-Italian bias. I take him at his word that, iirc, he has a warm spot for Italians. (nb: As someone with deep Southern roots, I sincerely have a warm spot for African-Americans. Nonetheless, not all of them are impressed by this.)

      What those of you just tuning in don't realize is that I've been pointing this out to Jonah for a decade or so. I follow dozens of pundits on Twitter. Most have never mentioned the Mafia. A very few have used the word "Mafia" once in a blue moon. But Jonah brings it up over and over no matter what the actual topic.

      The Devereaux interview was so over the top, in this regard, that 2 other commenters brought it up. (It's extremely rare for something like this to happen.) It was almost like an extended SNL skit. Again and again Devereaux would try to return to what he was there to talk about. Again and again, Jonah would interrupt him by changing the subject to the Mafia--for almost an hour!

      To repeat: I'm not accusing Jonah of being "conscious* of the implications of this wild statistical disparity between him and other pundits. I AM trying to *raise* his consciousness of the issue (and, as noted, have been trying for a decade). He doesn't see it, because as the ancient Roman poet Catullus put it (Devereaux spoke not a word about Roman poetry), we see the backpacks (ie, "baggage") of others, but not our own (MeToo).

      I'm cursed with the ability to see double standards in whatever direction they flow. In my NYC days, I couldn't get white liberal Ivy-trained lawyers to see that NYC Asians were greatly discriminated against(!!!) (Btw, Japanese friends complain about getting really dirty looks from Korean and Chinese New Yorkers.)

      I couldn't get men to see how baked-in sexism is. I'm a rightwing white Southerner, at this stage of my life--which wasn't always the case. Yet I'm staggered by the inability of so many whites to grasp the obviousness of systemic racism and white privilege.

      (Btw, thanks to those of you who are keeping this topic alive. I have plenty more to say about it.)

      Collapse
      1. David Shoemaker

        I was intrigued by your comment that 2 other commenters “brought it up.” I went back to the Devereaux podcast and reread the comments twice. I couldn’t find any other commenters who”brought it up.”
        One commenter to whom you replied didn’t appreciate the comparison of the Romans to the mafia. However, their grievance was that this comparison was unfair to the Romans. Unconscious bias against Italians wasn’t their issue.
        Another commenter to whom you replied did use the word “mob,” but they were clearly using the traditional definition of the word to describe the political nature of the “late (Roman) Republic.” Their comments had nothing to do with an issue with Jonah’s discussion of the mafia.
        I can’t speak with any certainty about Jonah’s unconscious biases. I believe that one can objectively state that amongst the The Dispatch commenters, accusations of unconscious bias towards Italians or offense being taken at Jonah’s referencing the mafia are unique to you.

        Collapse
        1. Guycatelli1

          David Shoemaker: "However, their grievance was that this comparison was unfair to the Romans."

          It's my grievance too.

          Another of the comments to that Remnant: "As much as Jonah Goldberg *would like to* [emphasis added] compare Rome to the Sopranos, it just is not so. The political ideas that he seems to think are cover for criminality were quite important to Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. "Commonwealth" is not a sysnoym for cosa nostra; it is the name Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York [nb: Virginia and Kentucky are also called "Commonwealth"; New York is not] (led by people with more sophistication than Goldberg) gave to their new polities to express their affinity with the Roman notion of res publica."

          QED

          Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    California by vote ended affirmative action. Where was the sac cloth and ashes then? Affirmative action is racism—and it’s time has past.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Daniel Jett

      Believe me, as someone who lived through and starting practicing law at that time, there was a TON of it. As Jonah likes to say--ours are not new thoughts. A very brave man of mixed race (Black, Anglo, Native American) named Ward Connerly was the chief booster and promoter of Proposition 209 in 1996. After succeeding in California, he sponsored a similar initiative in Michigan, and then other states. Mr. Connerly took a ton of grief for all his work, a lot of harassment. He is a man of high character whom I greatly admired for his steadfast commitment the the principle of racial equality.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        What I find fascinating is how "affirmative action" back in the day was supposedly NOT just about imposing simple racial quotas, but marketed as a holistic approach that also involved admissions departments making conscious efforts to reach out to historically underserved communities, etc.

        But at this point, I get the impression "affirmative action = racial quotas" for most of the people expressing support for AA. Although it seems the term "quota" isn't used anymore. Not sure what the equivalent is now.

        However, support for AA is still consistently higher than support for even "considering race as a factor in college admissions", indicating many people still see value in the more holistical definition of AA.

        And although increasing diversity in a general sense, can theoretically be done without using racial quotas. But it seems pretty obvious that if the goal is a college student body that is totally proportionally representative of the racial composition of the whole country, with anything other than that being unacceptable "underrepresentation" of certain races and "overrepresentation" of others.... I don't see any way to actually achieve that, except by using racial quotas, even if you don't call them that.

        Collapse
  8. Sam19952005

    While I really never understand the need to defend yourself very often, I learned a lot in your defense. I may reconsider adding comments about why you feel the need to so passionately defend on the next one... thanks always.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Charley Warns

    Russell Kirk describes the "new" right in this passage from "The Conservative Mind": "The mass of mankind, Burke implies, reason hardly at all, in the higher sense, nor ever can: deprived of folk-wisdom and folk-law, which are prejudice and prescription, they can do no more than cheer the demagogue, enrich the charlatan, and submit to the despot. " It's to the advantage of the demagogue, charlatan, and despot that there is no grounding to the public's beliefs. For example, Amerigo Bonasera gave up his faith (belief) in the American system to become the godfather's friend.

    As Jonah was pointing out, it's racist to argue that it's only because of quotas that we have any African American doctors and lawyers. Those who earned their occupation by merit should be the first to call for an end to affirmative action as it's got to be hurting their business if people feel they didn't earn their titles. There is a genius to the simplicity of John Roberts' argument. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

    Collapse
  10. Guycatelli1

    I've listened to NPR a part of every day since the late 70s/early 80s. I've heard them make reference countless times to Americans, whites, men, corporations, religious conservatives (of whatever stripe), heteros. Every single reference to any of these groups (esp Southern whites) has been negative. Sometimes mildly so; sometimes angrily so (what's worse than "racist"?). Every.single.time.

    And yet, based upon my experience of human nature lo these many years, I'm convinced almost no one who has ever worked there, right up to the present, is conscious of any bias on their part.

    Collapse
Load More