![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbWhoever, from now on, Googles me, is apt to see my name in the letters page of a magazine called The American Spectator. The letter, which is long and not unfriendly about the article it comments, might give a misleading impression; I am not in the least sympathetic towards the attitudes and positions of that magazine and what it stands for.
In the last several months, I have been using the Internet to familiarize myself with the comparatively unadvertised world of orthodox Catholicism. By and at large, it has been a pleasure, although of course not one I would recommend to Bruno or Hijja. The leading publications tend to a very high level of intellectual dignity; they try to understand opponents before they condemn them; with few exceptions, they do not lower themselves to insult; and, when they use satire, is is usually funny. (Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine, has one of the most formidable talents for epigrams I ever saw; if anyone ever sees me at the computer screen and suddenly hears me laugh, I have probably stumbled upon one of his passing remarks.) Even the most aggressive of the orthodox magazines, Paul Likoudis' The Wanderer, (which has, I regret to say, the worst website, technically speaking, I ever saw) is notable for not resorting to personal abuse and cheap polemic, and for sticking strictly to the facts. Likoudis is a growling, snapping, ungentle hound of God, always on the watch for defections and heresies; but he is never a cur.
Of course, most of these publications take a definite side in what the Americans have taken to calling the culture wars; and it is a side with which I largely agree. The positions which the Church takes on abortion, on gay marriage and gay rights, on euthanasia, are positions with which I agree. And this leads them to take a certain political position; and here is where the trouble begins. As might be expected, Likoudis is the least guilty: his aggressive independence of mind will not let him join any party of any of whose programs he disagrees, and as a result paeans to Bush are not to be found in his magazine. But other magazines have an unfortunate tendency to Bushism. Some of you will remember what I said about both Bush and Kerry (August 2, 2004), and Antosha may recall a debate we had, in which I took the position that, where both main candidates are despicable, the position of a good citizen is not to select the least bad, but to abstain and denounce both.
Even so, the Bushism of a First Things magazine is a thing so civilized, well presented, and well argued (when it comes to the more popular Crisis magazine, argument may sometimes be less subtle), that one tends to take them on board. It is not until I moved - in the last couple of weeks - from Catholic websites to "conservative" non-religious ones, that I was reminded why the New Right is really so odious a phenomenon, and why I have always detested it. For decades, the mainstream has demonized the "religious Right"; believe me, the danger is not the religious Right, but the irreligious one. The American Spectator is a perfect instance of what I mean, give or take a few decent articles (such as the one I replied to, or some of their movie reviews). The majority of their articles are simply despicable: their arguments begin with finding what they think is a fitting insult for their opponents, and go on from there. Every criticism of Bush (such as Ted Kennedy's recent onslaught on his foreign policy, which was quite justified and rather less aggressive than their response) is treated as manipulation and political eunuchism. And The American Spectator has the cheek of complaining when the likes of Michael Moore or The Yes Men use their own tactics against them, when in fact they have been the first to brutalize political discourse and re-introduce the tactics of hatred and contempt, long forgotten among leading parties, in the political mainstream.
I hated this sort of thing since long before I ever took an interest in American political publications; because I saw them happen at home. They are the original sin of the Italian right, of Bossi and Berlusconi, and the reason why I will never forgive Berlusconi is that he was directly responsible for introducing the tactics of lie, insult and threat in the mainstream of Italian politics and use them to win an election. The poisoning of Italian political life has been caused directly by the Italian New Right, and it is something whose mirror image I recognize in America. Britain has so far escaped the worst of it, although I strongly suspect the detestable Michael Howard of panting after it.
It is not the religious opposition to what now passes for the left, that really threatens you; it is the frothing, know-nothing demagoguery of the non-religious New Right. It is perhaps less than surprising that The American Spectator just ran a typically vicious account of the downfall of Crisis magazine's editor Deal Hudson, guilty, in their eyes, of being a successful Catholic power broker in the New Right's own preserve. The real danger is this power bloc with no ideals and no manners, whose only belief is in the value of force, which does not recognize any dignity in their opponents and does nothing to understand them, which regards the media as instruments to stir the rabble, which believes itself divinely anointed to rule the Earth and regards with genuine hatred anyone who stands in the way of their diving right.
In the last several months, I have been using the Internet to familiarize myself with the comparatively unadvertised world of orthodox Catholicism. By and at large, it has been a pleasure, although of course not one I would recommend to Bruno or Hijja. The leading publications tend to a very high level of intellectual dignity; they try to understand opponents before they condemn them; with few exceptions, they do not lower themselves to insult; and, when they use satire, is is usually funny. (Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine, has one of the most formidable talents for epigrams I ever saw; if anyone ever sees me at the computer screen and suddenly hears me laugh, I have probably stumbled upon one of his passing remarks.) Even the most aggressive of the orthodox magazines, Paul Likoudis' The Wanderer, (which has, I regret to say, the worst website, technically speaking, I ever saw) is notable for not resorting to personal abuse and cheap polemic, and for sticking strictly to the facts. Likoudis is a growling, snapping, ungentle hound of God, always on the watch for defections and heresies; but he is never a cur.
Of course, most of these publications take a definite side in what the Americans have taken to calling the culture wars; and it is a side with which I largely agree. The positions which the Church takes on abortion, on gay marriage and gay rights, on euthanasia, are positions with which I agree. And this leads them to take a certain political position; and here is where the trouble begins. As might be expected, Likoudis is the least guilty: his aggressive independence of mind will not let him join any party of any of whose programs he disagrees, and as a result paeans to Bush are not to be found in his magazine. But other magazines have an unfortunate tendency to Bushism. Some of you will remember what I said about both Bush and Kerry (August 2, 2004), and Antosha may recall a debate we had, in which I took the position that, where both main candidates are despicable, the position of a good citizen is not to select the least bad, but to abstain and denounce both.
Even so, the Bushism of a First Things magazine is a thing so civilized, well presented, and well argued (when it comes to the more popular Crisis magazine, argument may sometimes be less subtle), that one tends to take them on board. It is not until I moved - in the last couple of weeks - from Catholic websites to "conservative" non-religious ones, that I was reminded why the New Right is really so odious a phenomenon, and why I have always detested it. For decades, the mainstream has demonized the "religious Right"; believe me, the danger is not the religious Right, but the irreligious one. The American Spectator is a perfect instance of what I mean, give or take a few decent articles (such as the one I replied to, or some of their movie reviews). The majority of their articles are simply despicable: their arguments begin with finding what they think is a fitting insult for their opponents, and go on from there. Every criticism of Bush (such as Ted Kennedy's recent onslaught on his foreign policy, which was quite justified and rather less aggressive than their response) is treated as manipulation and political eunuchism. And The American Spectator has the cheek of complaining when the likes of Michael Moore or The Yes Men use their own tactics against them, when in fact they have been the first to brutalize political discourse and re-introduce the tactics of hatred and contempt, long forgotten among leading parties, in the political mainstream.
I hated this sort of thing since long before I ever took an interest in American political publications; because I saw them happen at home. They are the original sin of the Italian right, of Bossi and Berlusconi, and the reason why I will never forgive Berlusconi is that he was directly responsible for introducing the tactics of lie, insult and threat in the mainstream of Italian politics and use them to win an election. The poisoning of Italian political life has been caused directly by the Italian New Right, and it is something whose mirror image I recognize in America. Britain has so far escaped the worst of it, although I strongly suspect the detestable Michael Howard of panting after it.
It is not the religious opposition to what now passes for the left, that really threatens you; it is the frothing, know-nothing demagoguery of the non-religious New Right. It is perhaps less than surprising that The American Spectator just ran a typically vicious account of the downfall of Crisis magazine's editor Deal Hudson, guilty, in their eyes, of being a successful Catholic power broker in the New Right's own preserve. The real danger is this power bloc with no ideals and no manners, whose only belief is in the value of force, which does not recognize any dignity in their opponents and does nothing to understand them, which regards the media as instruments to stir the rabble, which believes itself divinely anointed to rule the Earth and regards with genuine hatred anyone who stands in the way of their diving right.
