If we confine ourselves to realistic expectations, this piece is about the most favorable account of RH that can be imagined.
To repeat: I can imagine lots of unrealistic outcomes involving a journalistic sketch of RH. But if we keep the incentives and conventions of journalism in mind, this is a very happy outcome for him.
“During our two-hour lunch, the conversation almost never strayed from his favorite topics, which are Richard Hanania, Richard Hanania’s analysis of politics, and Richard Hanania’s place in the firmament of public intellectuals.”
Contra another recent comment on this post, I found this to be a bizarre thing to include in a profile. I agree that the author was likely trying to score points with his audience by saying this. In a way, reading of his apparent personal disregard for you may help give those readers permission to take his piece (and thus, your ideas) more seriously.
> Yes, I talked about myself a lot … in the context of meeting a guy for the specific purpose of him writing a profile of me. He would ask questions, I would respond, sometimes he would write those responses down, and I would elaborate because that’s what we were there for. Did he want me to show more of an interest in his personal life?
No, you do this a lot even when blogging about things that aren't especially related to you personally. I assumed this was a self-aware deliberate choice (or at least a thing you know and accept about your style). I doubt you're interested in changing it but you should at least be aware that you have this tendency.
It is not Richard's job to entertain anything at all .. in whatever direction the conversation was steered, however it was conducted .. whatever length of time was spent on ANY particular topic or subtopic, whatever was cherrypicked or emphasized from the resulting raw notes, is the complete responsibility of the publisher and interviewer. I was astonished to see that bit of quite unprofessional sausage-making reveal from behind the curtain. Even as a long ago amateur interviewer of an actual rock star, I had NO problem flat out stating time was up on that question, and here is a new one.
>”I could certainly be a more effective messenger for this project if I didn’t do stuff like hang out with Michael Tracey and join him in showing contempt for the parade of basketcases who politicians and the media insist on referring to as “Epstein survivors.””
I tend to be obsessive about grammar, but I vote with Richard on The who/whom issue. The use of whom, when it doesn't follow a preposition, often seems unidiomatic and pedantic. For example, would you ever ask someone "Whom did you invite to dinner?" or "Whom are you going to vote for?"
Actually, there is a preposition. It is "to". Only in the colloquial English, preposition and "who" can be split and prepositions like " to" moved almost to the end of the sentence. In the old usage, it would have been "...basketcases TO WHOM politicians and the media insist on referring as “Epstein survivors.”
It's true there is a preposition, and I admit that "whom" in Richard's sentence wouldn't sound as weird as it does in my examples. But I still find his "who" more natural. I would follow the rule that "whom" should be requited only where the immediately preceding word is a preposition. This to me is a rare case in which a colloquial, theoretically erroneous, usage is so well established that it is pedantry not to accept it. Another one is "someone else's." "Someone's else" is theoretically correct, but no one would say it.
You are to a large extent right about the MSM, but The Atlantic isn't typical. I doubt a piece equally favorable to you could have been published in the NYT or WaPo. You say too many things their audiences would find unacceptable. The Atlantic and the Economist are among the few non-right wing publications that will give politically incorrect views fair coverage.
The problem with the people you define as elites is that their supposed virtue of truthfulness is only one which they can claim relative to literally Alex Jones.
It is in absolute terms that this alleged virtue matters for the credibility of elites. Being better than Alex Jones isn’t necessarily good. The public isn’t grading on a curve. And this is why the revolt against the elite has occurred.
They have lied and misrepresented base reality to such an obscene extent that this truthfulness is no longer a virtue they can credibly claim for themselves.
The legacy media is full of liars. Academia is full of liars. NGO’s and charities are full of liars. Full stop.
People do not hold Trump or Alex Jones to those standards because, ironically, Trump and Alex Jones are more honest and transparent about who they are.
And absent that virtue of truthfulness, these elites have no redeeming value for the voters of the democracy they claim to care so much about.
I stand behind no one, including Richard, in my criticisms of today's academia (as my long-suffering spouse could testify at length).
That said: this comment is just an example of the neurotic desparation for both-sides equivalence that is now the only genuine feeling left for a whole lot of Americans. It's sad.
More importantly it's a huge help to a couple generations of liberal elites who richly deserve more thoughtful and effective public censure...sigh. Like Trump in electoral politics, the wokists in the national culture are frustratingly lucky in their choices of enemies.
It has nothing to do with “both-sides equivalence.” You completely missed the point.
The point is where these so called elites draw their credibility. Their credibility is mustered directly from their truthfulness and thoughtfulness.
Populist credibility is not. Populist credibility is derived from pointing out the failings of elites. These groups do not play the same game with the same dynamics, and so a transgression by elites in the realm of truthfulness is not equal to one done by populists.
But I’m glad the point flew completely over your head and you can ignore it. It is quite apropos.
Yes, there is no secret that Alex Jones is an entertainer and a lunatic, and everyone knows that anyone who takes him seriously is a clown. However, highly intelligent, well-educated elites who fall to sin can hide their deception in a shroud of intellectualism, which makes them dangerous for different reasons.
It is time to reject the labels. Completely. We need to start fresh with very simple and basic concepts that most (all) can agree upon. Are there any such topics? How do you feel about clean water? where is the common ground? Honesty is a good start, but difficult for many to accept.
I'm about 1/3 of the way thru _Kakistocracy_ so maybe this is premature. Everything you've said there is basically reasonable and correct. Yet I can't help but think over my own reaction to every Presidential election since Obama I. I found myself utterly unable to vote for either of the major party candidates. Yes, populists (incl. Trump) are just as you say they are - but we must also consider the alternatives on offer. Populist political success seems to be as much as anything a failure of elites to offer anything better on the ballot. IMHO (classical liberal here) many of Trump's policies are improvements on what we had before - even if implemented for wrong and stupid reasons. (Of course many of his policies are worse.)
It seems to me there has been a massive failure of centrist elites to (a) exist and (b) to get their act together enough to put forward sane candidates to oppose populists.
As long as the choice is between what South Park called "Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich", power is going to alternate between the two, with the electorate hoping that each will reverse the worst of the prior administration's damages.
Maybe the core problem is the overwhelming dominance of progressive views in universities, journalism, and institutions. With no centrists or liberals to balance them, elites push polices both deeply unwise and unacceptable to ordinary citizens, creating an opportunity for populists to offer a "remedy" (which may often be worse than the disease).
Look at Thomas Edsal's recent recommendations to the Democrats on moderating on critical issues. Edsal agrees with you, and nobody serious would claim that he is a conservative.
If we confine ourselves to realistic expectations, this piece is about the most favorable account of RH that can be imagined.
To repeat: I can imagine lots of unrealistic outcomes involving a journalistic sketch of RH. But if we keep the incentives and conventions of journalism in mind, this is a very happy outcome for him.
“During our two-hour lunch, the conversation almost never strayed from his favorite topics, which are Richard Hanania, Richard Hanania’s analysis of politics, and Richard Hanania’s place in the firmament of public intellectuals.”
Contra another recent comment on this post, I found this to be a bizarre thing to include in a profile. I agree that the author was likely trying to score points with his audience by saying this. In a way, reading of his apparent personal disregard for you may help give those readers permission to take his piece (and thus, your ideas) more seriously.
For someone who disrespects emotional reactions, I find this part of Hanania's response defensive and self pitying. Ironic.
> Yes, I talked about myself a lot … in the context of meeting a guy for the specific purpose of him writing a profile of me. He would ask questions, I would respond, sometimes he would write those responses down, and I would elaborate because that’s what we were there for. Did he want me to show more of an interest in his personal life?
No, you do this a lot even when blogging about things that aren't especially related to you personally. I assumed this was a self-aware deliberate choice (or at least a thing you know and accept about your style). I doubt you're interested in changing it but you should at least be aware that you have this tendency.
It's a fair criticism in other contexts but in this one it's what I should be talking about.
Can you entertain the idea that the interview was not entirely about you??
It is not Richard's job to entertain anything at all .. in whatever direction the conversation was steered, however it was conducted .. whatever length of time was spent on ANY particular topic or subtopic, whatever was cherrypicked or emphasized from the resulting raw notes, is the complete responsibility of the publisher and interviewer. I was astonished to see that bit of quite unprofessional sausage-making reveal from behind the curtain. Even as a long ago amateur interviewer of an actual rock star, I had NO problem flat out stating time was up on that question, and here is a new one.
In the spirit of elitism:
>”I could certainly be a more effective messenger for this project if I didn’t do stuff like hang out with Michael Tracey and join him in showing contempt for the parade of basketcases who politicians and the media insist on referring to as “Epstein survivors.””
That “who” should be “whom.”
I tend to be obsessive about grammar, but I vote with Richard on The who/whom issue. The use of whom, when it doesn't follow a preposition, often seems unidiomatic and pedantic. For example, would you ever ask someone "Whom did you invite to dinner?" or "Whom are you going to vote for?"
Actually, there is a preposition. It is "to". Only in the colloquial English, preposition and "who" can be split and prepositions like " to" moved almost to the end of the sentence. In the old usage, it would have been "...basketcases TO WHOM politicians and the media insist on referring as “Epstein survivors.”
Yep, who in accusative and dative case changes to whom (with to, it is a dative case).
It's true there is a preposition, and I admit that "whom" in Richard's sentence wouldn't sound as weird as it does in my examples. But I still find his "who" more natural. I would follow the rule that "whom" should be requited only where the immediately preceding word is a preposition. This to me is a rare case in which a colloquial, theoretically erroneous, usage is so well established that it is pedantry not to accept it. Another one is "someone else's." "Someone's else" is theoretically correct, but no one would say it.
Someone else's is grammatically correct because the pseudopronoun is the whole "someone else" and apostrophe doesn't break it in parts.
And, in the spirit of obsessiveness, "The" should be "the.""
I think this piece in The Atlantic is a coup for you.
You are to a large extent right about the MSM, but The Atlantic isn't typical. I doubt a piece equally favorable to you could have been published in the NYT or WaPo. You say too many things their audiences would find unacceptable. The Atlantic and the Economist are among the few non-right wing publications that will give politically incorrect views fair coverage.
"Fair" is an exaggeration. "Some" coverage would be right.
The problem with the people you define as elites is that their supposed virtue of truthfulness is only one which they can claim relative to literally Alex Jones.
It is in absolute terms that this alleged virtue matters for the credibility of elites. Being better than Alex Jones isn’t necessarily good. The public isn’t grading on a curve. And this is why the revolt against the elite has occurred.
They have lied and misrepresented base reality to such an obscene extent that this truthfulness is no longer a virtue they can credibly claim for themselves.
The legacy media is full of liars. Academia is full of liars. NGO’s and charities are full of liars. Full stop.
People do not hold Trump or Alex Jones to those standards because, ironically, Trump and Alex Jones are more honest and transparent about who they are.
And absent that virtue of truthfulness, these elites have no redeeming value for the voters of the democracy they claim to care so much about.
I stand behind no one, including Richard, in my criticisms of today's academia (as my long-suffering spouse could testify at length).
That said: this comment is just an example of the neurotic desparation for both-sides equivalence that is now the only genuine feeling left for a whole lot of Americans. It's sad.
More importantly it's a huge help to a couple generations of liberal elites who richly deserve more thoughtful and effective public censure...sigh. Like Trump in electoral politics, the wokists in the national culture are frustratingly lucky in their choices of enemies.
At ieast Substack does have a mute-user function
It has nothing to do with “both-sides equivalence.” You completely missed the point.
The point is where these so called elites draw their credibility. Their credibility is mustered directly from their truthfulness and thoughtfulness.
Populist credibility is not. Populist credibility is derived from pointing out the failings of elites. These groups do not play the same game with the same dynamics, and so a transgression by elites in the realm of truthfulness is not equal to one done by populists.
But I’m glad the point flew completely over your head and you can ignore it. It is quite apropos.
Yes, there is no secret that Alex Jones is an entertainer and a lunatic, and everyone knows that anyone who takes him seriously is a clown. However, highly intelligent, well-educated elites who fall to sin can hide their deception in a shroud of intellectualism, which makes them dangerous for different reasons.
It is time to reject the labels. Completely. We need to start fresh with very simple and basic concepts that most (all) can agree upon. Are there any such topics? How do you feel about clean water? where is the common ground? Honesty is a good start, but difficult for many to accept.
I'm about 1/3 of the way thru _Kakistocracy_ so maybe this is premature. Everything you've said there is basically reasonable and correct. Yet I can't help but think over my own reaction to every Presidential election since Obama I. I found myself utterly unable to vote for either of the major party candidates. Yes, populists (incl. Trump) are just as you say they are - but we must also consider the alternatives on offer. Populist political success seems to be as much as anything a failure of elites to offer anything better on the ballot. IMHO (classical liberal here) many of Trump's policies are improvements on what we had before - even if implemented for wrong and stupid reasons. (Of course many of his policies are worse.)
It seems to me there has been a massive failure of centrist elites to (a) exist and (b) to get their act together enough to put forward sane candidates to oppose populists.
As long as the choice is between what South Park called "Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich", power is going to alternate between the two, with the electorate hoping that each will reverse the worst of the prior administration's damages.
Maybe the core problem is the overwhelming dominance of progressive views in universities, journalism, and institutions. With no centrists or liberals to balance them, elites push polices both deeply unwise and unacceptable to ordinary citizens, creating an opportunity for populists to offer a "remedy" (which may often be worse than the disease).
Look at Thomas Edsal's recent recommendations to the Democrats on moderating on critical issues. Edsal agrees with you, and nobody serious would claim that he is a conservative.
Honestly can’t blame you for being a Zionist if it got you a soft ball problem in the Atlantic