Posted on 12/27/2004 9:50:05 PM PST by neverdem
On Saturday I handed out the first batch of Hookie Awards. These prizes, determined by a rigorously subjective scientific formula, go to some of the important political essays of 2004, and celebrate the legacy of great public intellectuals like Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell and Irving Howe.
So here's the second batch. A warning: if you read these pieces you will be so intimidatingly well informed it may cramp your social life.
"Holland Daze" by Christopher Caldwell; The Weekly Standard. Many of the most important essays this year dealt with the confrontation between radical Islam and the West. Caldwell published a series of pieces on Europe's efforts to cope with its Muslim immigrants. In his latest, on the Dutch reaction to the murder of Theo van Gogh, Caldwell describes a nation that realizes its multicultural policies have failed. For example, what should a country do with a radical Islamist who produces a well-crafted video calling for the beheading of a major politician? A Dutch court sentenced one such fellow to 120 hours of community service.
"World War IV" by Norman Podhoretz; Commentary. No concept has been as mangled this year as neoconservatism. Yet out of this muck, a few fine essays have emerged. In this epic piece, Podhoretz argues that the struggle against radical Islam is essentially like the struggle against communism. It will lead to similar domestic debates and will require the same U.S. leadership and resolve.
The Fukuyama-Krauthammer exchange; The National Interest. The most vibrant debate of the year occurred within neoconservatism. Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer went at each other with pick and shovel, disagreeing on everything from whether the struggle with radical Islam really is the organizing conflict of our time to whether the U.S. is capable of nation-building.
Fukuyama accused Krauthammer of being disconnected from reality and not even giving the "slightest nod" to the failures in Iraq. Krauthammer shot back that Fukuyama has no real alternative to democratic nation-building and that his argument is carping without a point.
"A Fighting Faith: An Argument for a New Liberalism" by Peter Beinart; The New Republic. This is the most discussed essay of the postelection period. Beinart agrees that the war against radical Islam is parallel to the cold war. He argues that Democrats lost this election because they have not developed a modern version of liberal anti-Communism. They have no strategy to defeat Islamic totalitarianism: "When liberals talk about America's new era, the discussion is largely negative - against the Iraq war, against restrictions on civil liberties, against America's worsening reputation in the world."
Beinart says that Democratic "hards" must reclaim their party from the MoveOn-type "softs." He's started a debate on the left that mirrors the one Fukuyama and Krauthammer are having on the right.
"Victory in Defeat" by Neal Ascherson; The London Review of Books. Who cares about Leon Trotsky now? That's the point. This review essay describes Trotsky's remarkable career, but also the revolutionary mentality that animated him. It is hard to believe now, but just a few decades ago Marxism was the dominant creed in the intellectual world.
Ascherson argues that the revolutionary mentality - faith in a utopian future, willingness to tolerate mass murder in its name - will return, and may already be returning: "All that can be said is that when the unimaginable climate of revolution returns, as in some shape it will, young men and women will read and understand Trotsky ... as we no longer can."
"High Prices: How to Think About Prescription Drugs" by Malcolm Gladwell; The New Yorker. Gladwell wrote a piece that neatly upends everything most of us thought we knew about prescription drugs.
Most of us believe drugs are more expensive in the U.S. In fact, new drugs are more expensive, but generic drugs much cheaper. Moreover, Gladwell argues, drug prices are rising not because we're being charged more but because consumers and doctors want new drugs even when older and much cheaper ones are more cost-effective. The problem is not just the drug companies; it's us.
That's the curriculum for the holiday break. To everyone who is now angry with me for not listing their essays, all I can say is: go suck eggs - and have a happy new year.
Can I nominate the Eagles for playing "hookie" on the Monday Nigth Football game? Grrr.
ping
bttt
"A Fighting Faith: An Argument for a New Liberalism" by Peter Beinart is an excellent read IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.