David "Remnick Is No Longer The Editor Of The New Yorker. Twitter Is"
Bret Stephens is right on in The New York Times, regarding how New Yorker editor David Remnick folded like a sheet of typing paper when met with pushback over his decision to invite former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon to be interviewed by him on stage:
In the meantime, it's worth considering what Remnick's disinvitation has actually achieved. Here's my list:It has kept Bannon's name prominently in the news, no doubt to his considerable delight. It has turned a nativist bigot into a victim of liberal censorship. It has lent credence to the belief that journalists are, as Bannon said of Remnick, "gutless." It has corroborated the view that the news media is a collection of left-wing group thinkers who, if they aren't quite peddling "fake news," are mainly interested in advancing only their own truths. It has kept readers of The New Yorker locked in their usual echo chamber. It has strengthened the belief that vulnerable institutions can be hounded into submitting to the irascible (and unappeasable) demands of social media mobs. Above all, it has foreclosed an opportunity to submit Bannon to the kind of probing examination that Remnick had initially promised, and that is journalism at its best.
Here's researcher Jerry Coyne on the Bannon disinvitation:
As you know, a faculty member has invited Steve Bannon to speak at the university of Chicago this fall. Despite students, alumni, and faculty raising objections to this, and asking Bannon to be banned (see here and here), President Robert Zimmer, adhering to the University of Chicago's "Statement of Principles of Free Expression," affirmed that Bannon will not be disinvited. And that's the right thing to do, and something I wrote about in an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune. For many reasons given in my editorial, and in Mill's book On Liberty, we should be allowed and even encouraged to hear even the most odious or offensive speech. Inviting someone like Bannon to speak at The University of Chicago is not an endorsement of his views. That much should be obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together. Sadly, many Social Justice types lack the requisite neurons.And it wasn't obvious to the many people who objected to Bannon being invited to this fall's New Yorker Festival to have a one-on-one interview with the editor David Remnick. I am not a fan of Remnick for many reasons, including his insouciant arrogance (in his demeanor he reminds me of David Berlinski), his anti-science attitudes, and his turning the magazine into a Social Justice venue whose writing has become increasingly purple and increasingly insubstantial.
I hasten to add that I agree with Remnick's politics except for what I said in the preceding sentence, but I don't care for people like him who are so obviously full of themselves and so impressed with their own power. But I thought it was fine for Remnick to interview Bannon onstage to argue. It would have been a good show!
...Remnick could have drawn out Bannon, criticized him, and clarified both of their views in an instructive way, for Remnick is a smart man. Sadly, he's also a cowardly man.
When my subscription to The New Yorker runs out, I'm going to let it lapse.
An exchange I had with an alt weekly editor (details on honorarium, etc., here):
I think having Bannon on the hot seat with someone like Remnick in the other seat would have been a positive thing. The fact that they pay for travel/hotel/per diem and the appearance -- do you think that in any way changes what they say?
— Amy Alkon (@amyalkon) September 4, 2018
I'm sure that Bannon will go away if we really, really ignore him.
Snoopy at September 5, 2018 3:47 AM
Bannon just "owned the libs." He was willing to walk friendless into the most hostile conceivable environment--the New Yorker Ideas Festival--and make his case. They threw a tantrum and refused to hear and engage him, thus handing him victory on a silver platter.
https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1037001619714580486
Snoopy at September 5, 2018 3:52 AM
Huh. Call me old-fashioned. But I would have thought that the point of a festival of ideas was to expose the audience to ideas. If you only invite your friends over, it’s called a dinner party.
https://twitter.com/Gladwell/status/1036814261190909953
Snoopy at September 5, 2018 4:07 AM
nativist bigot
That's pretty much anyone who isn't in favor of open borders. No, I take that back. That's anyone who isn't enthusiastically in favor of open borders.
You can have a welfare state. You can have open borders. You can not have both.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 5, 2018 6:30 AM
I've noticed today that people are not interested in having actual debates, but in using their arguments as cudgels with which to bludgeon anyone within reach. Civil disagreement is no longer possible.
No one takes the time to listen to the opposition or to learn the finer points of the opposing argument, even if only to rebut it. However, the simplest mistake in another's argument is pointed out as a reason to dismiss the entire argument. And if you try to point out a simple error in another's argument without dismissing the entire argument, you're accused of [insert]-splaining and of being condescending.
I was re-reading Hayek's The Road to Serfdom the other day and came across an interesting passage. Hayek pointed out that the latest generation (then) did not want its life plans derailed. A young person had a vision for what his life was going to be and reacted angrily when those plans went awry. Instead of adjusting to downward economic cycles by changing careers or learning new skills, this latest generation stomped its feet and demanded things go the way it wanted them to. I felt like he was writing about today's Millennials, even though the book was published in 1944.
The parallels of our lack of ability to civilly debate each other and rising levels of violence when both sides meet with the polarized violence of Weimar Germany is disconcerting, and a bit alarming.
Maybe the sheer scale of two outsized generations clashing (Baby Boom and Millennials) has polarized our society, leaving both sides unwilling to compromise, debate, or give the benefit of the doubt. Anyone opposing your viewpoint is a fascist by default.
Perhaps it's the fact that we're in the process of tailoring everything in our culture to an still-immature Millennial generation - politicians pander for their votes, corporations grovel for their custom, Hollywood stopped making movies that appeal to anyone over 30. Add to that Millennials don't have a mentor generation to help them gain perspective.
After all, the same thing happened to the Baby Boom, so that generation is resentful of no longer being the apple of everyone's eye. And Gen-X, caught between two giant generational cohorts, was too small to have a significant impact, like Odysseus being bounced between Scylla and Charybdis.
When the entire culture was adjusted to cater to you, anyone who opposes you simply must be wrong, right?
Conan the Grammarian at September 5, 2018 6:50 AM
"Hayek pointed out that the latest generation (then) did not want its life plans derailed."
That describes my sister fairly well. We are in our 30s and she has a plan for exactly when she is going to retire. Apparently the people at work are going after her group for retirement planning. I've done quite well with my savings so when she brought up retirement planning with me I casually remarked that I could retire at any time but I didn't know exactly when. She freaked out. And has kept freaking out for almost a year. The idea that I don't have a specific date and a list of retirement activities set up bothers her. What is funny is I'm the more organized one and I tend to plan more. But my plans are flexible. If things change then I change the plan, no big deal. She is controlling. So when things don't go according to plan she tries to force things back on the plan at all costs.
And you are right about it not being exclusive to one generation or another. I guess this is something that increases and decreases over the years.
"Maybe the sheer scale of two outsized generations clashing (Baby Boom and Millennials) has polarized our society, leaving both sides unwilling to compromise, debate, or give the benefit of the doubt. Anyone opposing your viewpoint is a fascist by default."
You are dead wrong here Conan. And after as well. This isn't an intergenerational fight. You see the same thing happening between boomers and between millenials. The issue is how schools are run. They've become so ideologically pure that any differing view point is punished. Teachers who express non-left views will be forced out. Students will have their grades docked. After 12+ years of that anyone with non-approved views has learned to shutup. You just can't fight the system. So the only millenials who are outspoken are far left. Many millenials actually aren't leftwing. But they don't say anything. 12 years of training ensures it. Hence the stage is handed over to one side. And they are continuing the tactics they were taught in school. Force dissenting views to shutup, deny they exist, and if that fails use violence.
This is why many of us consider school choice so vital. Breaking the unified school system is critical to freeing the culture at large.
Ben at September 5, 2018 7:13 AM
I never said it was a strictly inter-generational fight.
I said that when you grow up in a generation to which your entire society caters, you get a sense of entitlement. Now, with another entitled generation stealing the spotlight, the Boomers may be feeling resentful. So, whatever their viewpoint, they brook little to no dissent, especially from Millennials.
We're becoming polarized, not on generational lines, but on ideological ones. And a generational shift is aggravating that, perhaps driving it.
Conan the Grammarian at September 5, 2018 7:19 AM
Any inter-generational animosity is not helped by statements like David Hogg's "old-ass parent" rant:
Even if you agree with him about gun control, the condescension in that has gotta annoy you.
By the way, David, the fact that your parents could not enact the gun control policy you wish they had enacted does not mean they can't use a democracy. It means there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Democracy means that the other side gets a chance to air its view, too.
However, in today's political and cultural environment, it's not allowable to accept that there is any validity in viewpoints set in opposition to your own - whether you're eighteen or eighty.
Conan the Grammarian at September 5, 2018 7:31 AM
> the most hostile conceivable
> environment--the New Yorker
> Ideas Festival
Yeah?
Again...
> the most hostile conceivable
> environment--the New Yorker
> Ideas Festival
Crid at September 5, 2018 7:38 AM
@Conan:
I too reacted to David Hogg's statement. That he has this attitude isn't too surprising, the kid is still wet behind the ears, and has little real comprehension of the world beyond the safe little cocoon he grew up in. The scary part is the ones behind the scenes pushing him to the fore. The message I imagine they really want to send: "All you old white males need to just go away. But you don't get to take your money with you."
bkmale at September 5, 2018 8:33 AM
"Don't trust anyone over 30" -Jack Weinberg, 1964
The Hogg statement is hardly a new viewpoint. And just like Weinberg Mr Hogg is going to be quickly forgotten and powerless. He was a useful prop and now he has been used up. What groups does David Hogg lead? Who can he mobilize? In reality next to no one. Hogg is insignificant.
There is next to no inter-generational fighting going on. In fact there is far more inter-generational cooperation and co-opting going on instead. Hogg is actually the perfect example of that. An ideological group of boomers picked Hogg to be the face of the politics they were pushing. So I completely disagree with you that a generational change is driving an ideological fight. It isn't even aggravating it.
What you are seeing is leftwing groups that think they've won. Every single time leftwing groups get dominant they do the same thing. They try to hide any sort of disagreement. And when they can't hide those disagreements they label them as evil. How are a number of Democrats reacting to Trump's election, deny it happened, cut off contact with Trump supporters, and then start name calling. How did they react to Obama's election? Much the same. Call anyone who disagrees names, cut off contact, and tell them to shutup and submit. The same as happened in Venezuela, or the USSR, or Germany.
For a couple of decades leftwing groups have written books and held talks about their inevitable ascendancy. The 'arch of history' and all that. Demographics and time made it inevitable that they would take over. It was supposed to have happened by now. That it didn't happen is actually irrelevant. Most leftwing ideology is feeling based and not rational. So reality isn't a significant input. They feel like they've won. So they are acting like they've won. Hence the increasing suppression of differing viewpoints and the increasing infighting in leftwing groups.
Ben at September 5, 2018 9:29 AM
I still think some subconscious animosity and resentment from a generation that was the apple of everyone's eye but was then quickly replaced by a new precocious generation is fueling some of the anger in the older generation, especially the left side of it. In their time in power, they didn't get done all the things they wanted to do, so any opposition, even from their own generation must be swept aside. I could be wrong.
Yep.
Left wing groups have always thought the "arch of history" bends their way. They think they're the ones bending it.
From Hayek, we learn that the German Left intellectuals thought that even though Germany lost the Great War (1914-1918), it won the philosophical war. They held that the "organized" German economic model would outlast and overtake the bourgeoisie Enlightenment capitalist model of the English and French. German intellectual schools of thought never embraced individualism the way French and English intellectual schools did.
It didn't help that many in Germany blamed capitalists for the lost war. "Capitalist" would later be made to equate to "Jew." That Jews were seen as rich but with no visible purpose in society would breed resentment (see Arendt, Hannah - The Origins of Totalitarianism).
Fractures within that German left would eventually give us Hitler. Both the National Socialist German Workers' Party and the Social Democratic Party (USPD and MSPD) advocated the end of capitalism. Although Hitler would later completely abandon any pretext of National Socialism in an effort to hang onto power (see Night of the Long Knives).
The later collapse of the struggling Weimar capitalist economy in the Great Depression and resulting hyper-inflation would go a long way toward moving a majority of German voters toward supporting a planned economy model, even if it mean an authoritarian government.
As for Hogg, he'll be rolled out with the next school shooting with an "I told you so" message.
He's only 17, so his political organizing days are ahead of him. We'll hear from him again. And it won't be pretty. That much anger being stoked by the adults around him for their own use will unleash a monster.
"The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil." ~ Hannah Arendt
Conan the Grammarian at September 5, 2018 10:01 AM
I'm betting this was Hogg's 15 minutes of fame. When the next shooting comes around he will pop up and be ignored. The left is generally enamored with new things. Hogg is no longer new. Someone else will be used as a front man.
As for boomer's mental issues, I won't deny there are a lot of boomers with those feelings. But that doesn't have anything to do with anyone else. Boomer's culture had a lot to do with youth and the unknown. But now boomers are old. The never trust anyone over 30 generation is now in their 60s. They were also one of the more godless generations. So now that death is approaching many of them don't know how to handle that. But once again that isn't intergenerational. It is just the fallout from that culture getting old.
Ben at September 5, 2018 11:21 AM
What I find so puzzling is the complete inability of people (esp the Left) to debate. My friends and I debate each other all the time. Will we all have self-driving cars soon? Tesla is great: debate. etc. If you are as smart as you think you are, debate should be fun. I think Ben Shapiro has a blast debating because he has mastery of it.
The other side of it is the completely wimpy response to the mere existence of a contrary view--that such views exist causes the vapors. In 99% of cases, the people involved (college students for example) don't even have to go to the talk in question, they just are losing their minds that such topics (which they totally misconstrue of course) are even being discussed. Perhaps this results for "everyone I disagree with is Hitler" logic. My view is this: everyone is an idiot, even myself, and people lie. Everyone is misinformed about almost everything. Idiotic things are said everywhere all the time. It is more miraculous when something sensible is said (which is why I love Sowell and Feynman and Popper). Evil and crazy people exist and it is quite useful to find out exactly what idiocy they are promoting. Better to know. Likewise, there is so much idiocy out there that it is a miracle that companies make money and people don't lose track of their kids.
cc at September 5, 2018 12:14 PM
That's the essence of South Africa's land grab. "We'll take your assets, you go away." However, the powers that be don't seem to understand that knowing how to use the asset is the biggest asset of all. That's why when you hand a ne'er do well a winning lottery check, more often than not, he ends up broke after a wild ride.
You can see what just the threat of land seizures has done to the South African economy. Was nobody paying attention to the lessons of Venezuela?
South Africa also offers a modern-day illustration of Arendt's theory that groups who once had position of power and wealth, then lose their power but hold onto their wealth, become objects of social prejudice and targets of attacks (i.e., Jews in Germany after World War I).
Resentment is based on the retained wealth more than the lost power. Nazis wanted the Jews' money to fund social programs used to keep a restless population placated. Using widespread resentment against the Jews (and ginning up even more), they had popular go-ahead to seize the wealth.
The ANC wants whites' farms for the same reasons. Their stated reasoning my have some ancient legitimacy, but it's little more than a pretext.
Conan the Grammarian at September 5, 2018 12:29 PM
"What I find so puzzling is the complete inability of people (esp the Left) to debate."
Once again I come back to the schools. Debate isn't really permitted in US schools anymore. A few teachers allow it. But the very vast majority take any sort of disagreement or even questioning as a person attack and respond by cutting grades (even unrelated ones), public ridicule, and other forms of harassment. In math you may be safe. After all math has actual answers. But in english or history you are doomed if you don't parrot back what the teacher wanted to hear. Subjects with subjective grading are rife with corruption. So after 12+ years where debate isn't permitted it shouldn't be surprising people don't know how to respectfully debate.
And I'm not talking about one or two schools here. US public schools are pretty uniform across the entire nation. There are minor differences such as New Orleans having more jazz and Denver having more hiking. But on the whole there is relatively little to differentiate one school from any other.
Ben at September 5, 2018 1:17 PM
Conan: No one takes the time to listen to the opposition or to learn the finer points of the opposing argument, even if only to rebut it.
You'd think the Left would be eager to get white, Nazi, racist, bigot, homophobes like Bannon, Shapiro, Milo, Trump or any other conservative into a public debate just so they could once and for all destroy their ideas and credibility in front of the whole world. How hard would it be to defeat fascism, racism and bigotry in a debate? You wouldn't even have to debate against those things; they've already been refuted, and everyone already hates them. Just let the fascists, racists and bigots have their say and reveal who they are, and they'll defeat themselves.
But the Left absolutely must not let conservatives be heard, in colleges, in schools, in the media, or anywhere, because if conservatives are allowed to speak the world will find out that they are not the evil things the Left accuses them of being. If that happens then the Left will actually have to debate issues; and they already know where that will get them.
Ken R at September 5, 2018 1:48 PM
"They were also one of the more godless generations. So now that death is approaching many of them don't know how to handle that. "
Fortunately, Jesus is waiting in heaven for the true believers with a big slice of Sky Cake and a cold glass of milk. Mmm tasty!
Sky cake!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 5, 2018 2:29 PM
It didn't used to be that way; which is what brought on my theory that generational issues are possibly a driver of the anger behind this.
Well, to be honest, it has been that way before - over the slavery debate. One senator beat another into a coma in the Senate chamber. But that was a real issue, with serious import in people's lives. Whatever we're mad at each other about today does not rise to that level of import. We're just mad to be mad.
Certainly the Internet has contributed - with people being able to silo their news and information sources, but that by itself doesn't drive the level anger we're seeing. Does it?
We've got people ready to rumble in the streets - over whether someone should be allowed to speak in an auditorium? We've lost our minds. If you don't want them to speak, deny them an audience. Convince people not to go or to go to an alternative event.
Debates used to be welcome. Politicians understood that to get anything done they'd need to compromise. There used to be friendships across the aisle in the Scalia-RBG mold. No longer. Now, if you don't loathe the politician across the aisle, you don't get reelected.
Try having a debate on politics with a coworker who votes the other side of the ballot. He'll lose it or freeze you out if you disagree with his viewpoint. He can't debate without getting worked up. Maybe Ben's got a point with his schools theory.
We certainly don't know how to present a viewpoint, much less rebut one, these days. We are proudly displaying ignorance. Check social media; we can't spell or put coherent sentences together. In addition to being illiterate, we're innumerate, too. Ignorance is not bliss, it's dangerous.
I don't know what has happened to us, but the end-result won't be pretty, or healthy. It led to a Civil War with 620,000 dead the last time. Do we really want to go to war with each other over whatever it is that's driving this conflict?
Conan the Grammarian at September 5, 2018 2:55 PM
Sort of tough to accuse Remnick of cowardice in disinviting Bannon when the alternative was to keep him, but lose all the celebrities who were *also* supposed to appear and declared their intention to stay away if Bannon showed up. You end up with an event consisting of Remnick, Bannon, and no paying attendees/audience.
Robert Evans at September 5, 2018 5:00 PM
This isn't a generational thing Conan. It is a victory thing. In the US the left didn't think it was completely victorious earlier. But if you look in other nations where they became overwhelmingly dominant then you see this exact same thing happening. Even in the US in specific fields where the left is dominant you see the exact same thing you are now seeing in the general culture. Obama's victory while taking both sides of congress was supposed to be a permanent thing. Civility was no longer needed. They had won. But reality proved otherwise. Belief in that inevitable and unending victory is why corrupting the IRS, FBI, CIA, DOJ and others was so easy. There wasn't going to be anyone checking up again in the future. Without checks and balances they were free to do as they wished. Or so far too many thought.
Gog, the godless thing isn't pushing a specific viewpoint. But there is a difference in how people act as they get older depending on what they expect to happen. More churchgoing people start acting more serious about their religion when they think it won't be long before they have to be judged. Even pirates and murderers start paying off priests to get them into heaven. But people who think this is it and there is nothing coming next react very differently. Some start to go wild thinking there are no longer consequences for their actions. Some go into denial and act like kids. Some get really angry at the world. The point is there is a difference, irrespective of what actually happens next. Consequently old atheists tend to be socially destabilizing. Not all obviously but a large chunk.
Ben at September 5, 2018 5:53 PM
Robert Evans: Sort of tough to accuse Remnick of cowardice in disinviting Bannon when the alternative was to keep him, but lose all the celebrities who were *also* supposed to appear and declared their intention to stay away if Bannon showed up.
You have a point there. Remnick has a lot materially at stake. And it very well could have ended up being nothing more than a platform for Bannon.
Ken R at September 5, 2018 7:40 PM
Leave a comment