3 thoughts on “The New G-File”

  1. I read just about everything posted on this site, I have really broadened my horizons in doing so, and I am grateful. I have to say Jonah is very difficult to read, though. The first third of his essay is so disjointed and confusing, and his attempts to weave in all of those Dennis Miller-esque cultural subreferences are just sad.

    He wrote: “The means of procedural liberalism were intended to protect the purpose of the republic they established: Liberty. Because Reno & co. reject this purpose…” and later adds “The technocrats of the Progressive Era and the New Deal believed it (which explains why Reno gets so offended when people criticize Wilson and FDR). ” I am not sure how he connects those dots, when I am thinking that if Reno & co. are defending Wilson and FDR, their claim to be editors of conservative magazines is worthy of challenge. Perhaps Reno & co. seek to redefine conservatism, and perhaps that is the point Jonah is trying to make.

    At any rate, maybe all Jonah needs is an editor. I read his “Liberal Fascism” and it was quite good, he definitely had an editor for that one. Maybe I am spoiled by Lileks. If anyone has advice on how to better appreciate Mr. Goldberg, I would be grateful.

  2. After this election cycle just what does Beto think he’ll be doing politically in Texas? Running for Austin city council?

  3. This seems to shoot down the theory of Goldberg I had set forth when he wrote for National Review, to wit: they still paid writers by the word (as they did back in the 1970s). Jonah, according to this postulate, was at the ready with dictionaries, thesauri, and brainy quotes in dead and on-life-support languages, determined to cram as few concepts into as many words as humanly possible.

    Since this is his media venture, I’ll have to rethink that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *