Karl Keating on the Decline of the National Review and Other Matters

Karl Keating's E-Letter via e-mail ^ | July 5, 2005 | Karl Keating

[annalex]

THE NEEDLE, PLEASE

I think I was in college when I first subscribed to "National Review" magazine. I kept renewing faithfully for more than three decades. Some years ago a youngish editor was brought in, and after a while I no longer saw any of the familiar names.

Of course, some long-time writers had moved into a well-deserved retirement, and some had died. It was natural for the roster to change, but other things also changed, including the magazine's intellectual level and commitment to principle.

This year I ignored the pleas to renew and let my subscription lapse. Occasionally I visit the magazine's web site, National Review Online, but the same new writers are there, producing much juvenilia and showing themselves to be more loyal to a political party than to traditional ideas.

Let me give one example. John Derbyshire, a transplanted Englishman, wrote this at the web site:

"At the Atlanta bash last month, an audience member asked the panel whether the [Terri] Schiavo case had caused us to change our minds about the underlying issues. I piped up and said, yes, the case had changed my mind in one respect. It had made me realise--a thing I never realised before--that I do favor euthanasia.

"Ramesh [Ponnuru, another writer for "National Review"] asked me at some point why, if I were willing to see Mrs. Schiavo have her feeding withdrawn so that she dehydrated to death over several days, I wasn't willing to just have her [be] given a lethal injection. I couldn't think of any satisfactory answer to this, and haven't been able to since; so in all honesty, I am bound to say I favor the lethal injection, in at least some cases.

"Since I have never had a strict anti-abortion position, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to find that I don't have a strict anti-euthanasia position, either. I just hadn't thought it through before."

Apparently not.

LITMUS TESTS

Sandra Day O'Connor has tendered her resignation, and President Bush is making preparations to nominate a replacement. We will know soon enough who that will be.

Liberals on the Senate judiciary committee are making the usual demands for a "centrist" nominee, which is to say someone who passes the pro-abortion litmus test. Unlike many others, I have no problems with litmus tests. I think the President should use one in making his choice.

The one he should use was given in our "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." The nominee should be someone who conforms to Catholic teaching on all five non-negotiables, even if the nominee is not a Catholic. Other considerations should be secondary: male vs. female, this ethnic group or that, long-time confidant of the President or not.

Just as a litmus test should be used in selecting a new member of the Supreme Court, so one should be used in selecting writers for a magazine that claims to articulate the conservative political position. While I hope that the President will have the courage to impose a litmus test (I have my doubts, but we shall see), I have no real hope that "National Review" will undertake an internal reform. I think the magazine is too far gone.

"National Review" has been reliably, if not ideally, pro-life, but why is a man such as John Derbyshire still associated with it?

I had not been aware that he "never had a strict anti-abortion position"--I do not recall his having written about abortion--but now he has admitted it, and he has gone further than most of the people who sided with Terri Schiavo's husband. Derbyshire says it would have been fine if she had been put to death the way inmates on death row are put to death (and the way pets are "put to sleep"), with an injection.

No matter what his skills as a writer--and he has produced nicely crafted columns--Derbyshire has shown himself to be a bad thinker. He may be expert at mathematics (I have enjoyed his frequent mathematical interludes), but he is hopeless at morals. That he remains at the magazine tells us much about its editors and their principles.

There was a time when "National Review" really did "stand athwart History, yelling 'Stop!'" (a line from its first issue). But that was a long time ago. Accommodation with the secular mind-set started several decades back, but with the almost complete changeover in staff the accommodation accelerated, and the result is a party magazine that increasingly follows the "big tent" strategy.

This is not a strategy based on firm principle but on the exigencies of political maneuvering. If today the magazine has no qualms running articles by someone who favors euthanasia, is there any certainty that in a few years it won't favor euthanasia as an editorial policy?

POPE PETER II

Yes, this is a look at another anti-pope. I ask you to read these few paragraphs because there will be a follow-up in next week's E-Letter. The follow-up will not be about the man who styles himself "Pope Peter II" but about a prominent American apologist who, it seems, has a connection with this anti-pope.

For now let me tell you about Maurice Archieri. He says he became the real pope in 1995 through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Archieri was then 70, so he would be 80 now. Prior to his retirement he worked as an automotive mechanic. I have been unable to find at his site anything to suggest any sort of theological training. What I did find was a touching video. You can find it and his position papers at http://custodi.club.fr/Indexangl.htm

The video shows the 2002 episcopal ordination of Jean-Marie Archieri. The ordinand seems to be nearly as old as "Pope Peter II," so perhaps he is his brother. Be that as it may, the video shows a ceremony that takes place in a tiny chapel, cluttered the way most "independent Traditionalist" chapels are cluttered. The room may have been used previously as a bedroom. It is that small.

The two Archieris are assisted by a much younger man, dressed in a surplice. He looks a bit bored. He frequently turns his head to look around the room, and at one point he rubs his finger in his ear. I wonder what he really thought about these two elderly men playing bishop.

"Pope Peter II" heads a group called Catholici Semper Idem (Catholics Always the Same). Its web site is in French with an execrable translation into English. The translation apparently was generated automatically by a computer program--in this case a program that needs a more skilled programmer.

Despite the mock-English, you can make out well enough the group's arguments, the chief one being that John Paul II was not a real pope. In the mind of "Peter II," the late pontiff actually was a "prophet of the Antichrist" who merely dressed up as pope. This is ironic, coming from a man who dresses up as pope.

There are many anti-popes in today's world, perhaps more than at any time in history. In some cases--and perhaps this is one--it is hard not to feel empathy for the pretender because the man does not realize that he is pretending. For whatever reason, he really thinks that he is the head of the Church.

It is hard to be angry with someone whose actions may be the result of mental imbalance, senility, or grossly misguided idealism. (Some anti-popes are quite clearly con men, but most appear to be convinced of the authenticity of their papal status.)

As I said, these paragraphs about yet another anti-pope have a connection with something that will appear in next week's E-Letter. Stay tuned.

Until next time,

Karl

[dsc]

"That's the hair-brained, godless ramblings of J.J. Rousseau."

The expression is "hare-brained," not "hair brained."

And yes, Rousseau was hare-brained.

The notion of members of a society having responsibilities to that society, however, is not.

[Gerard.P]

we might ask what right the state has to demand that kids go to school.

We should be asking that question. It's the corrupt public school system that is brainwashing children en masse to subscribe to looney ideas of "community" and "conflict resolution" and "environmental love" etc. All junk. Parents are the custodians of their children and their education should be determined soley by them.

All invalid analogies.

How so? In each case the government is forcing someone to do something disregarding the free will of the victim. Tossing them a few dirty coins doesn't make something right.

[TradicalRC]

The state does not have rights. That includes the right to indoctrinate children in government schools and forcing Christians to pay taxes for blatantly anti-Christian institutions.

[dsc]

"The state does not have rights."

That is correct. The state rightfully has only the powers that we give it constitutionally.

If we want to give it the power to require community service, we can do that.

[TradicalRC]

If we say it does, it does. We are the state.

And if the state becomes a communist oligarchy and demands our allegiance or a lifetime of "community service"? L'etat C'est moi?

[dsc]

"How so?"

Because each of the things you propose requiring people to do is malum in se.

Military or community service is not.

There is a difference in pushing a little old lady into the path of a speeding bus, and pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding bus.

[TradicalRC]

One human right God gives us, per the Declaration of Independence, is the right to establish government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.

As well as the right to alter or abolish government. That is if you regard the D of I as definitive. It's nice, but it's not Scripture.

[dsc]

"And if the state becomes a communist oligarchy"

How odd it is that several people have decided to attribute extreme positions to me, that go far beyond anything I have proposed.

Shouldn't it be obvious that arguments predicated on the Declaration of Indpendence presume that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed?

[dsc]

"It's nice, but it's not Scripture."

Neither is the Constitution. What's your point?

[annalex]

There is a difference in pushing a little old lady into the path of a speeding bus, and pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding bus

In his #15 Romulus made the same disctinction in application tot he draft: "not in cases of emergency, but in the normal course of business".

Draft is morally permissible to defend the homeland. That is your lady on the path of a bus. Routine national service under any other pretext is temporary enslavement of the conscripts and is malum in se. Perhaps you forgot what the original argument was?

[GipperGal]

Hi, we're from the government, and we're here to help you.

LOL! Classic Gipper punch line. That's what he called the most frightening words in the English language.

[x]

That's clever -- maybe too clever. The US did require up to four years paid service from people in the years 1941 to 1945. Was that slavery? It gave them up to four years paid food, shelter, and medical care. Was that welfare or socialized medicine?

I'm not saying that mandatory community service is a good thing, just that not all forms of required service can fairly be called slavery. If the country is in trouble, and that service is necessary to prevent real slavery it's justified.

[Romulus]

How odd it is that several people have decided to attribute extreme positions to me, that go far beyond anything I have proposed.

Oh, I beg your pardon. You've argued that government compel its citizens only for good purposes. Silly me.

You really seem not to get the fact that to justify a dubious principle with the proviso that it not be abused is ipso facto utilitarian.

Shouldn't it be obvious that arguments predicated on the Declaration of Indpendence presume that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed?

No. These days the governed consent to a great many depraved things. You will not find a majority in this country prepared to vote for human life protections in line with those demanded by the Catholic Church. You have got to face the fact that some political theories implicit in the Declaration -- specifically, the notion that all power derives from the popular will -- are radically inconsistent with a Christian view.

[Romulus]

Classic Gipper punch line.

Considering what the Gipper did to jolly along conservative while massively expanding government and giving nothing but lip service to conservative social concerns, I'd call it a Classic Gipper sucker punch line.

[Gerard.P]

No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

From the Declaration.....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

If you believe in God, then you know that rights are only half of an equation, with responsibilities on the other side.

And those nations will answer to God when they usurp the rights he has bestowed for social agendas at variance with his rule. God has endowed man with free will. To usurp that free will from someone who has not forfeited it with an injustice is to declare war on God.

From the Declaration..... But when a long train of abuses and USURPATIONS, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes.....

What is the current composition of the U.S. militia? You seriously want to force the "militia" to be redefined into some sort of barracks oriented "commune"?

The Constitution says the government shall provide for the common defense and merely promote the general welfare.

[x]

In a way National Review has come full circle. In the 1950s and 1960s they were a quirky small circulation periodical. Most Americans probably didn't share the concerns of the clique who put out the magazine. In the 1970s and 1980s National Review reflected the way very many American voters thought. The country came around in the Eighties to some of the positions the magazine had represented earlier. Earlier liberal hopes came to be seen as mistaken and misplaced. The magazine modified its stands to reflect the current situation, and became a major voice in the Reagan years.

Lately, though, the magazine seems to be more a product of a small clique with its own particular interests and preoccupations. The circulation is larger than it was in the Fifties or Sixties, but it doesn't seem as essential as it did in the Seventies or Eighties. The difference is that the deeper cultural concerns of the early magazine aren't there. NR wants to be a "player" on the political and policy scenes and doesn't bother as much with the philosophical framework.

With the end of the Cold War it was back to the drawing board for NR. They've had a hard time getting things to gel. They downplayed some of their earlier cultural conservatism and their post-Cold War positions didn't have as wide an appeal. 9/11 gave the magazine a new focus and won plenty of new readers concerned with homeland security, but they haven't quite convinced me that they're on the right track about a lot of things.

[dsc]

"not in cases of emergency, but in the normal course of business"...Draft is morally permissible to defend the homeland."

Defense of the homeland is not something that can be put away in a closet until we are attacked. For instance, highways and bridges figure in to national defense.

It is foolhardy to wait for emergency before thinking of defense.

"Routine national service under any other pretext is temporary enslavement of the conscripts and is malum in se."

Nonsense. It is not only moral but Constitutional to require a certain amount of service from members of society. To propose otherwise leads inexorably to the position that every requirement laid on us is slavery, from military service in time of war to taxation and child support.

You propose "defense of the homeland" as your requirement for conscription, but that's as arbitrary as any other position. Someone could easily say, okay, our country is in a state of emergency due to the failure of parents and our social institutions to turn young people into civilized human beings. Draft'em, send them to boot camp, and civilize them. They get their discharge when they pass the GED.

There is no question here that we want the country to have the power to require some things of us under some circumstances; we're just quibbling over how much and when.

[Gerard.P]

You automatically assume that enforced community service will be for "the common good".

Wars can be just or unjust, which is why we have conscientious objectors.

And "community service" is actually one of the most destructive government programs ever devised. The community is not established and maintained by the government. The community establishes and maintains the government.

Giving clean needles out, distributing condoms, midnight basketball, and whatever other whimsy some elite group of corrupt powerbrokers have decided for your children to do may be fine for you but I would not allow my children to be corrupted by their filth.

If the French Army could supply mobile brothels for their soldiers, why is it such a far cry for U.S. women (and men)to be eventually conscripted for the "morale of the people" to bend over and 'take it like a man'? I mean, they will be paid of course. We could even start encouraging people to breed the right types of people suited for that thing. Ah...Eugenics, where have you been?

After that, we'll be euthanizing people. Oh wait, we're already doing that.

[Gerard.P]

He's probably going to go after Gerry Matatics. He's been hounding the man trying to destroy him after Gerry stopped working for him years ago. They had a disagreement over finances. (basically one didn't want to pay the other what he'd agreed to)

Gerry has since become a traditionalist Catholic and that spells trouble for the other guy.

[dsc]

"Silly me."

Yes, silly you. Not only for "good purposes," but to a limited extent, with the consent of the governed, and within Constitutional constraints.

It is silly indeed to have a problem with that.

"You really seem not to get the fact that to justify a dubious principle with the proviso that it not be abused is ipso facto utilitarian."

Been a long time since philosophy 101, eh? Utilitarianism is the political philosophy that justifies measures by their utility. There is no necessary connection whatsoever with their "dubiousness" or any requirement that they not be abused.

"No."

Or rather, to any sensible and fair-minded person, "Yes."

"specifically, the notion that all power derives from the popular will -- are radically inconsistent with a Christian view."

It was specifically stated by the Founding Fathers that the popular will would necessarily be informed by Christian principles, else the system would not work.

The Declaration implicitly holds that the power that derives from the popular will has its source in God. Rights derive from God, and people can exercise power in line with those rights. It's not a license to do anything our sinful natures can conceive.