IF, LIKE ME, you’re a voracious reader–someone who maintains a steady diet of not only novels and biographies and important new works on current affairs, but also good journalism–then you’re probably familiar with a particular kind of despair: knowing that you don’t have enough hours in the day to read all the things that look like essential reading. This problem has worsened since September 11, as the new world we find ourselves inhabiting has inspired many journalists to strive for higher levels of excellence in writing about subjects that are, literally, matters of life and death.
If you’ll allow me to display a little institutional vanity, I’ve been particularly proud of our own magazine in this respect, as we’ve been on a hot streak lately. To cite just a few examples: David Brooks’s article on “Bourgeiosophobia” as an explanation for elite Europeans’ disdain for America and Israel; Christopher Caldwell’s brilliant reporting and analysis on anti-Semitism in France; David Tell’s definitive look at how the FBI is bungling the anthrax investigation; Stephen Schwartz’s tireless unveiling of the ties between the Saudi royals and the virulent Wahhabi strain of Islam that fuels the efforts of al Qaeda; and of course, practically everything written by Reuel Marc Gerecht. And to top things off, this week’s issue features Mary Eberstadt’s “The Elephant in the Sacristy,” which I suspect will prove to be one of the definitive treatments of the priest-sex crisis in the Catholic church.
All this, just in our magazine. Now add to that all the great stuff being published everywhere else, and it’s easy to go nuts trying to devour it all. (At least as an editor I get paid to read the stuff in our magazine.) One of the blessings of blogs is the service they provide in tracking down good things to read and helpfully summarizing them, allowing a reader to choose which ones he wants to set aside time for. In that spirit, I’d like to play blogger-for-a-day and draw your attention to some great reading from sources that the blogosphere sometimes overlooks.
First, for those dense enough (perhaps our Joint Chiefs of Staff, for starters) to need a reminder of just how tyrannical, dangerous, and bizarre Saddam Hussein is Mark Bowden’s terrific cover story on Saddam in the May issue of the Atlantic is a must-read. It’s long, but well worth the effort, and yet another example of what a terrific reporter Bowden is. (As if we needed any more evidence after “Black Hawk Down.”)
My only qualm about Bowden’s article is that there’s always something a little dangerous about revealing the “human side” (if one can call it that) of a tyrant. After all, a few idiots will inevitably ask: How truly menacing can a man be who enjoys a quiet evening watching “The Godfather”? (Speaking of which–isn’t it fascinating how even the most maniacal “Death to America” types can’t seem to get enough of our popular culture?) Fortunately, Bowden provides enough chilling details to prevent all but the most deranged from feeling any sense of sympathy for Saddam. Combined with the much-touted piece on Iraq by Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker not too long ago, this profile ought to be more than enough to refute those who still insist that merely keeping Saddam “in his box” somehow leads to greater “stability” in the Middle East.
Speaking of foreign policy, you should also take a look at Power and Weakness, the lead article in the new issue of Policy Review. Written by Weekly Standard contributing editor Robert Kagan, it’s an elegant examination of why the United States and Europe see the world so differently now–and particularly how we each define the appropriate use of power in international affairs. The issue also includes what looks to be a wonderful article by Stanley Kurtz on Francis Fukuyama (i.e., “The End of History”) vs. Samuel P. Huntington (“The Clash of Civilizations”) in the post-September 11 world. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but if it’s up to Kurtz’s usual standards, it will be well worth your attention.
Another important journal that often escapes the blogosphere’s attention is First Things. I’d like to draw your attention to two of the many excellent articles they’ve recently published. The first is Wilfred McClay’s meditation in the February issue on Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and The Continuing Irony of American History. It offers some profound insights via Niebuhr on how Christians should think about the war on terror–specifically, how to be resolute in our defense of America, while not jettisoning the “grave, profound, and well-founded misgivings about the moral direction of our country” that we had on September 10.
In a similar vein is George Weigel’s essay in the March issue on A Better Concept of Freedom. Hopping from Isaiah Berlin to Thomas Acquinas to William of Ockham, this essay provides a useful starting point for conservatives thinking about how to win the battle of ideas with liberals at home–which is to say, how we should define the meaning of the freedoms we are defending against the Islamist threat. As Weigel puts it, there are two competing concepts of freedom–one that embraces freedom defined as relativism and mere willfulness, and another, “freedom for excellence,” which offers a nobler concept of the good based on the assertion and defense of truths about the human condition. “Both ideas have consequences,” he concludes. “One of them is worthy of this nation. One of them will see us through to a future worthy of a free people.”
Another website you should visit is the new site for the Claremont Review of Books, a relatively new publication from the indispensable folks at the Claremont Institute. (In the way of full disclosure, I should mention that I’m one of the Institute’s Lincoln Fellows.) You can read more about the purpose of the Claremont Review (and find subscription information) here; the table of contents for the current issue, which looks excellent, is here. I particularly recommend the piece by CRB editor Charles Kesler on Big-Government Conservatism post-September 11. I wish Kesler would write more often, since he’s one of the sharpest conservative thinkers around today. His article is an intelligent rebuke to conservatives who believe that just because we’ve (wisely) moved beyond the era of a narrow, libertarian style of “leave us alone” conservatism, we should embrace a defeatist attitude that makes peace with a bloated federal government. There is, in fact, a better alternative for conservatives, and Kesler sketches it here.
As you’ll see, you shouldn’t just speed-read your way through these articles in five minutes on the computer. First of all, they’re too long. But more important, they exemplify the type of journalism that rewards not only careful reading but multiple readings. So I’d suggest you print them and take them with you on the subway during your commute. Or even better, as you take your summer vacation, read them in line at the airport while you endure Norman Mineta’s version of airport security, as Grandma Ethel from Des Moines gets frisked and has her nail-clippers confiscated, while Ahkmed the “student” from Riyadh breezes through the checkpoints.
Of course, since it is summer, not all your reading should be so earnest. So, in closing, let me suggest a couple of articles on lighter topics. If you haven’t read Jonathan Last’s ingenious take on the deeper truth behind the Star Wars series–namely, that upon closer inspection the “dastardly” Empire is more admirable than the “virtuous” Rebel Alliance and Jedis–do so now, you un-hip person, you.
And finally, if you’re still trying to figure out just what the hell is so important about Ozzy Osbourne and his show on MTV (and particularly, why he was so feted by the Beltway elite at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last month) read Bloomberg News columnist (and Weekly Standard contributing editor) Andrew Ferguson’s first-rate column explaining the Ozzy phenomenon. In typical Fergusonian style, it’s a terrific combination of razor-sharp insight and laugh-out-loud humor.
Happy reading!
Lee Bockhorn is associate editor at The Weekly Standard.
