January 18, 2012

Noah Millman

One of the wise men of part-time punditry, Noah Millman is moving from The American Scene to The American Conservative to join Rod Dreher and Daniel Larison.

By Steve Sailer on 1/18/2012

31 comments:

not a hacker said...

I support gay marriage. I’m not an immigration restrictionist. I think the Affordable Care Act was largely a good piece of legislation, should not be repealed, and is plainly constitutional.

Well, I can't wait to start spending some of my time reading this guy.

1/18/12, 1:43 PM
some clownhead said...

Steve, you're not taking part in the SOPA blackout? Let me help!

■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■


-- solidarity, yo!

1/18/12, 2:52 PM
no name said...

For now, Proph has probably the best reactionary blog going:
http://collapsetheblog.typepad.com/blog/2012/01/more-on-unasked-questions.html
(...)
Is it simply a "civil" right? Well, why should I care about those? Societies cannot licitly recognize a "right" to do that which is evil, that is, that which contradicts the natural law. A society that does is deficient. At any rate, as I've said previously, a "civil right" is simply a convention or a concession made by the state, ones which can be changed -- ones, indeed, which I want to be changed. They certainly do not carry the force of moral obligation.

Certainly not a divine right, in the sense that God revealed Himself and declared that we must legalize and in some cases subsidize homosexuality. In this respect, revelation is quite clear. Manhood and womanhood and the sexual complementarity they entail are gifts to be cherished, not prisons to be broken out of. (Not that I'm suggesting leftists would recognize a right on the grounds that it is God-given; just covering all the bases here).

What remains? One of the vague and nebulous and ever-shifting "human rights" that leftists make up every five minutes as they continue to work through the logical implications of their poisonous ideology? How can there be such a thing as a "human right" if there is no such thing as "human nature" (which, being positivists and nominalists, they reject)? How can a right to dynamism arise from a nature that is static? Does it arise from the equally vague concept of "human dignity"? Again, how can a person be dignified by nature if he has no nature? And if he does have a nature, why does dignity consist in rebellion against it? How can "human dignity" simultaneously arise from his nature and entail its destruction (and thus the "dignity" which arises from it)? If anything, shouldn't "human dignity" require that man live according to his nature, with all the unfree obligations that such entails?
(...)

1/18/12, 3:09 PM
Grizzly Adams said...

Rod Dreher

Uhh, isn't he the granola dude who got mixed up in Constantinoplean popery???

1/18/12, 3:22 PM
Mac said...

Well, I can't wait to start spending some of my time reading this guy.

Heh. Yeah. I like Millman. Seems like a nice, intelligent, thoughtful man. But he belongs at The American Moderate, not The American Conservative.

1/18/12, 3:56 PM
milam command said...

Followed the link; read some of Millman's essays.

I always appreciate those times when a trusted online source enlightens you about another great source you were previously unaware of.

This is not one of those times.

1/18/12, 4:45 PM
Matt said...

Oh, thank goodness!

Finally somebody to speak for the "wealthy young jew who abandons the unpopular positions of his youth" demographic. It's about time. They're tragically under-represented.

Often, when I pick up TAC, I find myself thinking "I wish they'd make this more like The New Republic. Somebody upstairs is making my wishes come true!

1/18/12, 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...

"One of the wise men of part-time punditry, Noah Millman is moving from The American Scene to The American Conservative"
_________________________
"I support gay marriage. I’m not an immigration restrictionist. I think the Affordable Care Act was largely a good piece of legislation, should not be repealed, and is plainly constitutional."

A conservative? What, an Obama/Clinton conservative?

1/18/12, 4:50 PM
Matt said...

But he belongs at The American Moderate, not The American Conservative.

On the contrary; he'll fit right in.

1/18/12, 6:25 PM
Anonymous said...

Those who say Millman is a moderate forget that conservatism is an approach to thinking and process, and is not as much tied to the conclusions you accept.

However, the inability to disagree honestly and amicably without sourcing such disagreement in evil is as common amongst so-called "conservatives" as it is amongst those on the Right.

1/18/12, 7:23 PM
Anonymous said...

Steve,
What happened to Joe Guzzardi? Tell VDARE to post something about this. Also, why haven't you pounded out a Sunday column recently?

1/18/12, 7:49 PM
edgy gurl said...

Since Am Con is a magazine that mostly doesn't want to be read, at least not by the general public, I'm assuming the American Scene has an even smaller readership.

1/18/12, 8:47 PM
even more anonymous said...

"Also, why haven't you pounded out a Sunday column recently?"

You could probably answer this question for yourself. What's even more intriguing is why the only blog posts recently are from iSteve. Used to be several blog sources accessible from Vdare's homepage.

1/18/12, 8:49 PM
Brooksie Frumdreher III said...

"Those who say Millman is a moderate forget that conservatism is an approach to thinking and process, and is not as much tied to the conclusions you accept."

yes and no. to the extent you ever see liberalism distinct from the official Democratic Party platform today it's generally that Obama is somehow a crypto-conservative cuz he isn't left-wing enough. i don't notice the kind of "liberal case for [conservative cause]" philosophical masturbation that goes on with "temperamental" conservatives seemingly eager to validate every liberal idea from a conservative angle.

my thinking is that there is a conservative ideology that exists now, and that while healthy criticism is always good if someone's conservatism is only a vague, "let's take it slow baby" stance on everything, we might as well call it liberalism on time delay.

Douthat is probably the only mainstream conservative columnist who simultaneously dissents from GOP messaging/critiques their mistakes without obsessively tearing down average conservative positions.

1/18/12, 11:52 PM
no name said...

However, the inability to disagree honestly and amicably without sourcing such disagreement in evil is as common amongst so-called "conservatives" as it is amongst those on the Right.

It seems a lot more common on the left. They may not normally use the precise term "evil", but they're constantly witch-hunting for "racists", "sexists" "homophobes" and other heretics. Scruton has written of "the revolutionary spirit, which searches the world for things to hate."

1/19/12, 12:34 AM
no name said...

As many have pointed out, the main problem with the whole "conservative" shtick in these days of the Kali Yuga is that there is so little left to conserve.

Long before Harvard conquered the world, R.L Dabney wrote the following:
"It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position."

1/19/12, 12:48 AM
Brooksie Frumdreher III said...

to add, Sailer had what i thought was a good post in response to a Douthat column on Herman Cain and the bounds of "acceptable" conservative discourse today.

basically, anything racial/cultural = can't talk about it. us conservatives are "colorblind" after all, and didn't you know that the Southern governors in favor of Jim Crow were Democrats so like wise man Glenn Beck says they're the real racists. (just ignore Nixon/the Southern realignment and the McGovernization of the national Democratic Party.) so if you're gonna critique the level of immigration for instance, make sure to only talk about economic effects. nothing about difficulty of assimilation, the potential for an ethnically polarized country -- that's nativist Buchananite talk sir, and besides didn't people used to think the same way about certain European immigrants?

so conservatives today get the worst of all worlds -- their leaders take select symbolic culturally conservative positions that get them tagged as far-right extremists by the media, but when push comes to shove the only thing they'll really go hard for are...marginal tax cuts. it worked when the top rate went from 70 to 50 to 28% so clearly they're the only engine of economic growth and we shouldn't concern ourselves with anything else.

1/19/12, 1:57 AM
Dutch Boy said...

"so conservatives today get the worst of all worlds -- their leaders take select symbolic culturally conservative positions that get them tagged as far-right extremists by the media, but when push comes to shove the only thing they'll really go hard for are...marginal tax cuts."

The cultural stuff is to draw in the suckers. The real agenda is increasing the swag for big business and the wealthy.

1/19/12, 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...

Those who say Millman is a moderate forget that conservatism is an approach to thinking and process, and is not as much tied to the conclusions you accept.


But the "approach to thinking and process" inevitably leads to certain conclusions. There is no conservative approach to thinking and process which leads to support for gay marriage, support for open borders, and the belief that Obamacare is "plainly constitutional".

1/19/12, 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...

Those who say Millman is a moderate ..


A moderate? A "moderate" seems to be the current term for a liberal Republican. And even the "Republican" part of that is suspect. I'd be surprised if Millman failed to vote for Obama in this years election, or if he failed to vote for him last time around.

1/19/12, 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...

In 2008, I supported Barack Obama. I expect to support him again.

Why doesn't Unz just take the next logical step and rename TAC to something a little more descriptive, like The American Liberal?

1/19/12, 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...

To paraphrase a college pal speaking of asparagus, it's a good thing I don't like liberals since if I did I would have to read Noah Millman, and I hate liberals!

1/19/12, 12:05 PM
Anonymous said...

Pat Buchanan's magazine, in favor of open borders, gay marriage and Obamacare?

Overton window on steroids.

1/19/12, 12:38 PM
Dutch Boy said...

"Pat Buchanan's magazine, in favor of open borders, gay marriage and Obamacare?

Overton window on steroids."

Buchanan doesn't run it anymore. It's Ron Unz's baby now.

1/19/12, 12:45 PM
NOTA said...

Dutch Boy:

That's true of both parties, just in different areas. The ruling class consensus is followed by both parties, and it mandates that only peripheral issues will ever really be in play in elections. Goldman will still get bailouts and Halliburton will still get no-bid contracts and foreigners will still get blown up for murky purposes and labor costs will continue to be kept down via allowing a certain amount of illegal immigration and Americans will still get spied on and we'll keep filling the prisons up with drug users and small-time dealers, and so on, because that's the ruling class consensus. Similarly, crimes by the powerful will be forgivable missteps (as long as they don't cause trouble for other powerful people), things that would be fraud if I did them will continue to out to be legal when done by large companies with big legal departments and lots of lobbyists, we'll keep militarizing our police forces, affirmative action will continue, economically ridiculous subsidies will continue, etc.

Republicans and Democrats each motivate their voters on abortion and gay marriage and gun control, where there are some differences between the parties, and also on foreign policy and deficits and affirmative action and immigration, where there really isn't much difference except in rhetoric. But the core stuff isn't up for a vote, really. Your input is not welcome. Even if you pass a state law banning affirmative action or imposing strict enforcement of immigration law or leglaizing marijuana, even if there is a big popular movement to end the wars or stop foreign aid, the people at the top will do all they can to avoid having that happen, even to the point of outright smears, omitting candidates from network reporting or debates, not covering some demonstrations or rallies, etc.

1/19/12, 12:59 PM
no name said...

The cultural stuff is to draw in the suckers. The real agenda is increasing the swag for big business and the wealthy.

"The cultural stuff" is often taken seriously when PR is used instead of Anglo-American plurality voting. See Wilders, Swiss Peoples Party, True Finns, Lega Nord, etc. Then again, come to think of it, the US cultural right has done comparatively well in the areas of gun rights and homeschooling.

1/19/12, 1:12 PM
Scotsman said...

Am I the only one who stopped reading TAC even before it Unz'd itself off a cliff?

I knew it was all over when John Lukacs, the self described anti-anti communist, attacked Buchanan in a nasty, bitter tone for his book on World War II.

1/19/12, 1:25 PM
Matt said...

To be fair to Millman, he isn't 'open-borders'. He just claims not to be a restrictionist. I have no idea what exactly that means, but it doesn't necessarily mean open-borders.

1/19/12, 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...

To be fair to Millman, he isn't 'open-borders'. He just claims not to be a restrictionist. I have no idea what exactly that means, but it doesn't necessarily mean open-borders.


Yes, I think it pretty much does. Very few open borders people these days will admit "I'm for open borders". Even the WSJ, which used to call for a constitutional amendment reading "There shall be open borders", has learned to be a bit more circumspect.

What the open borders person says in this post 9/11 world is: "Of course I'm against open borders, but I'm for essentially unlimited legal immigration of everyone who is not a proven Al Queda terrorist".

1/20/12, 9:50 AM
Rob said...

Time to change the name of the magazine to American Marshmallow.

1/20/12, 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...

I saw MIllman on bloggingheads. He came off as an utter PC bore (i thought he was a liberal). He loves mass immigration, and apperently thinks MLK is god (from reading his blog just now).

1/21/12, 9:36 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)