This is an excellent reflection on the nature of contemporary reactionary thought or conservative discourse. How much of it is sincere intolerance/bigotry or some sort of supremacism? How much of it is performative contrarianism or saying outrageous things for the sake of saying outrageous things? You also chose perhaps one of the best examples in Helen Andrews. Does she just really hate black people? Or, does she just really love saying controversial things and pushing rhetorical boundaries? The answer to the first question is somewhat murky, the answer to the second question seems fairly easy to answer. Your decision to refer back to an essay she wrote over a decade ago "The Smoker's Code" in a collection of essays by youngish conservatives called "Proud to Be Right" was also good and does in fact reveal a lot about Ms. Andrews (both the quality and energy of her writing which I agree with you is pretty good, and her particular outlook on how conservatives should appeal to non-conservatives). A very different kind of conservative than Ms. Andrews (Jonah Goldberg) writes in the introduction: "Helen Rittelmeyer (her last name before she became Andrews) offers perhaps my favorite essay in this book, in no small part because the line between Nockianism (a kind of fatalistic and austere conservatism) and Buckleyism (a more optimistic and pragmatic conservatism) runs strait through her heart. She's a feisty scrapper who loves a good argument but rejects the argument that one should make good arguments. That's just great stuff." A very Maistre like attitude, and you point that out to some extent. But the most important part of Ms. Andrew's essay is the cameo by the inimitable Ross Douthat at the end (right before he joined that great newspaper in New York). Ms. Andrews recounts her embarrassing encounter with Douthat at a Yale conference about the future of conservatism in which he spoke. You know the details having read the essay. But the encounter itself reveals a path not taken for the Right, as well as the path that ultimately was. The path not taken was a boring reformicon agenda led by a boring Burkean like Yuval Levin (whom I actually like a lot, and I was a subscriber to National Affairs for many years) and perhaps the people at The Bulwark (whom I also like a lot). Whatever the merits of this path I believe now it would never have succeeded in American electoral politics and suffered the same fate as Mitt Romney. The mass man wants something else. "We don't need little baby-steps. We need grand, unapologetic theatricality" writes Ms. Andrews in her essay. She could not have been more right. The counter-revolution has come. Somewhere Maistre is grinning.
This is an excellent reflection on the nature of contemporary reactionary thought or conservative discourse. How much of it is sincere intolerance/bigotry or some sort of supremacism? How much of it is performative contrarianism or saying outrageous things for the sake of saying outrageous things? You also chose perhaps one of the best examples in Helen Andrews. Does she just really hate black people? Or, does she just really love saying controversial things and pushing rhetorical boundaries? The answer to the first question is somewhat murky, the answer to the second question seems fairly easy to answer. Your decision to refer back to an essay she wrote over a decade ago "The Smoker's Code" in a collection of essays by youngish conservatives called "Proud to Be Right" was also good and does in fact reveal a lot about Ms. Andrews (both the quality and energy of her writing which I agree with you is pretty good, and her particular outlook on how conservatives should appeal to non-conservatives). A very different kind of conservative than Ms. Andrews (Jonah Goldberg) writes in the introduction: "Helen Rittelmeyer (her last name before she became Andrews) offers perhaps my favorite essay in this book, in no small part because the line between Nockianism (a kind of fatalistic and austere conservatism) and Buckleyism (a more optimistic and pragmatic conservatism) runs strait through her heart. She's a feisty scrapper who loves a good argument but rejects the argument that one should make good arguments. That's just great stuff." A very Maistre like attitude, and you point that out to some extent. But the most important part of Ms. Andrew's essay is the cameo by the inimitable Ross Douthat at the end (right before he joined that great newspaper in New York). Ms. Andrews recounts her embarrassing encounter with Douthat at a Yale conference about the future of conservatism in which he spoke. You know the details having read the essay. But the encounter itself reveals a path not taken for the Right, as well as the path that ultimately was. The path not taken was a boring reformicon agenda led by a boring Burkean like Yuval Levin (whom I actually like a lot, and I was a subscriber to National Affairs for many years) and perhaps the people at The Bulwark (whom I also like a lot). Whatever the merits of this path I believe now it would never have succeeded in American electoral politics and suffered the same fate as Mitt Romney. The mass man wants something else. "We don't need little baby-steps. We need grand, unapologetic theatricality" writes Ms. Andrews in her essay. She could not have been more right. The counter-revolution has come. Somewhere Maistre is grinning.
Thanks, Christopher. I hadn't heard from you in a while!
To live is to maneuver, no?
At some point she became Orthodox, by the way.
The heart wants what it wants.