Comments on: Hendrick Hertzberg: writer

By: FreeDem

FreeDem — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

It is not about Bush. It is about freedom, and the greatest threat to it since the events of 4/7.

The key weakness of a free society is that it grants freedom to those who would eliminate that freedom and install their totalitarian view.

This was true of Nazis, Communists, and now the "real" NeoCons. If you do not know the founding thinking of the ideological father of NeoCons, a man named Leo Strausse, than you are no different than the folk who believed Communist propaganda without knowing about Stalin.

At the heart of Neocon thinking is a black nihilism that "Insiders" can enjoy while they enslave everyone else with totalitarian economics and religion, (backed up with bigotry as needed) with no values beyond winning the situation at the moment.

There are a wide range of policy possibilities that can be, and are properly argued in a free society (and my own do not fit most schemes), but without a free society all other arguments are pointless.

To measure one's liberalness or conservativeness by how much they love/hate Bush is just like the Communists who labled anyone who criticised them as reactionary royalists.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I’m becoming your own personal dittohead. I’d also noted both Hertzberg’s reflexive anti-Bush stance and his elegant writing, albeit not with the depth you gave to the subject.

By: N. O'Brain

N. O'Brain — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Some words of wisdom from a great American writer:

“Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.”
-Robert Heinlein

By: cakreiz

cakreiz — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I enjoyed watching him especially after reading your post. He’s certainly not a demonic character- quite the contrary. Handsome, glib, self-confident- I can see why he has a following. I didn’t sense much introspection- but that’s very common in public figures.

It was novel to hear someone questioning the federalist system itself. I understood his critique but wanted to hear more.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

cakreiz: Just remember, even though he was a government major, his obsession with the Crimson caused him to go on academic probation for a semester. So maybe he missed some of the parts about the FFs :-).

Hertzberg does seem, however to evidence a certain amount of humility, at least in his public utterances about himself. Whether it’s sincere or not is anyone’s guess–certainly I’m in no position to know.

By: cakreiz

cakreiz — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Hertzerg is on Cspan 2 right now, lecturing on the inhe ent and contradictory inadequacies of US democracy. Guess the Founding Fathers didn’t do that great of a job, IHHO. Knocking the FFs show a bit of confidence on his part.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

It seems that far too many people value style over substance. I have never been impressed by Hendrick Hertzberg. As matter of fact, I am also underwhelmed by the other mentioned Harvard University second raters. These individuals are so incredibly silly. Hertzberg was right to admit “My whole career has been so marked by advantages gained from Harvard’s old-boy network …” Truer words were rarely ever spoken. Do I have a right to describe him as a liberal slut? No, but I do suspect Hetzberg placed his wet finger into the air and saw which way the wind was blowing.

By: Promethea

Promethea — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

A lot of fine writers for magazines like the New Yorker and the Atlantic can be described in the immortal words of Spiro Agnew . . .

“Pointy-headed intellectuals who can’t park their bicycles straight.”

By: cakreiz

cakreiz — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I know you’ve written about this before but what’s so interesting is the group-think surrounding Hertzberg and his ilk. I’m sure they fancy themselves as free-thinkers yet they isolate themselves in packs of like-thinkers. This is a common phenomenon; it’s almost a cliche. But I’m confident they see themselves as being quite apart from others. Even elitists run in packs.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I doubt that you will do so, but check out the “Oxford American” which has excellent writing on some normal and exotic subjects.

By: roman

roman — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Words can be powerful. Skillful use of language can sway readers. But unless the veracity of the message stands the test of time, the sway, like a brief seduction, is tenuous at best. No amount of smooth commentary and fluid prose
will produce “hardwired” converts
if the message is devoid of basic logic, common sense and truth.

By: fred

fred — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

We continue to subscribe to the New Yorker. Why? Habit; an occasional interesting article; the cartoons. Even with the cartoons — which, on the whole, are not nearly as funny as they were, I have detected a somewhat smarmy “political” trend (am I wrong in this, or do others see it, too?) As for the political commentary, I haven’t read it in many years — Hertzberg is writing for an audience that doesn’t any more need convincing. I prefer reading writers who don’t need to convince me.

By: Dr. Sanity

Dr. Sanity — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Neo,
I subscribed to the New Yorker from age 12 (a gift from a teacher) until just a few years ago when I simply could not stand it anymore. Hertzberg was on of the reasons. I now get the Atlantic Monthly which has a better balance of writers from my perspective. Keeping the New Yorker for the cartoons and the (maybe) one unpoliticized article a week wasn’t worth it.

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

The association of the Left with words results in self-deception: A “debate” takes place in the abstract, which is the realm of the Left, and smart people who can dominate a debate become convinced of their worldview. They can then spend decades writing for a magazine or newspaper or preaching politics at a state-funded university and never have their perspectives challenged, because they never leave the abstract world. This yields tom grey’s “…the issue of the Left being good with words, but not actions.” It also results in a sort of comical situation: People who “do” provide the modern world with roads, buildings, food, washing machines, etc; i.e., all the things that make for a society in which the people of words can live peacefully and write nasty things about the people who “do.”

By: colagirl

colagirl — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

More good points, neo-neocon. Actually I enjoyed your post on the writing of reporters quite a bit and this one too. I’ll be honest and say that I have a bit of a tendency, the more smoothly and well a piece is written, to distrust it, particularly if the story looks like it’s a lot of “style” but when you pick it apart there aren’t really that many ideas there. Maybe it comes from college–all too often in academia, slick and smooth writing styles are used to inflate the importance of ideas that are pretty banal and even ridiculous when you take the pretty style away.

By: dloye

dloye — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Once again you get close the bees that buzz in my head. The worst part of the PR disaster that is the WOT and OIF is not having names. What you call a thing is terribly important. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but Viagra by any other name… well my point is that the pharmaceuticals realize the importance of a name. Sloppy words lead to sloppy thinking. A War on Terrorism? Inexcusable wording.

By: Tom Grey

Tom Grey — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

On Michael's Darfur post, I point out the issue of the Left being good with words, but not actions. There's some diversion on guys liking liberal, easy babes, who can use abortion as a mistake cleaner upper.

I claim too much image. What do you think?