Saturday, May 21, 2005
FAREWELL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST PART 2
Continuing from last week’s posting I would just pick up by saying that it is more rewarding to look at neoconservatism’s domestic policy heritage. I find that it’s mostly worth reading the people themselves, and this collection by Irving Kristol is definitely worth reading.
Also I would point to an appreciation in the Weekly Standard by David Skinner, and of course you can have a read of the reminisciences by Kristol and the more critical one by Nathan Glazer, who criticises the narrowing down of political views in the magazine.
Of course if you have a little time on your hand, have a good browse through part of the journal’s archive here. Unfortuntaley, the older editions are not generally accessible; you need an academic server log in (I think at least). There’s some articles which are so well written that they are still worthy of consideration decades later. In the newer editions from about the mid 1990s onwards the emphasis became clearer on issues such as sexuality and bio ethics, and the ideological slant became more pronounced. Nonetheless they have been consistently thought provoking to people like me who are broadly in disagreement.
To wrap it up I’ll just make one specific readiong recommendation. Personally I agree with Skinner‘s comment about this Leon Kass article on courtship. It is one of the few texts which have ever managed to challenge me about the way I lead my personal life. For sure there are some bits in it that are clearly a bit strong, but its drive is so persuasive that I did find myself asking whether I was being a good man for my woman.
Continuing from last week’s posting I would just pick up by saying that it is more rewarding to look at neoconservatism’s domestic policy heritage. I find that it’s mostly worth reading the people themselves, and this collection by Irving Kristol is definitely worth reading.
Also I would point to an appreciation in the Weekly Standard by David Skinner, and of course you can have a read of the reminisciences by Kristol and the more critical one by Nathan Glazer, who criticises the narrowing down of political views in the magazine.
Of course if you have a little time on your hand, have a good browse through part of the journal’s archive here. Unfortuntaley, the older editions are not generally accessible; you need an academic server log in (I think at least). There’s some articles which are so well written that they are still worthy of consideration decades later. In the newer editions from about the mid 1990s onwards the emphasis became clearer on issues such as sexuality and bio ethics, and the ideological slant became more pronounced. Nonetheless they have been consistently thought provoking to people like me who are broadly in disagreement.
To wrap it up I’ll just make one specific readiong recommendation. Personally I agree with Skinner‘s comment about this Leon Kass article on courtship. It is one of the few texts which have ever managed to challenge me about the way I lead my personal life. For sure there are some bits in it that are clearly a bit strong, but its drive is so persuasive that I did find myself asking whether I was being a good man for my woman.
