Isn’t it remarkable how much attention Heather Mac Donald’s TAC piece is getting all over the place? It’s also rather remarkable that almost every person who has cited it has managed to talk about it without once mentioning where it was published and only once did anyone mention the symposium of which it was a part (according to Ponnuru it is part of “a symposium,” with no other details required). It takes real diligence to ignore a publication with this kind of consistency.
What may be more remarkable is that the one article from the symposium to receive the widest coverage is the one that I found least compelling and least relevant to the actual topic of discusson, which was on what the opposed terms liberal/conservative and Left/Right mean today.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 16th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
gabriel
Ponnuru says all the articles in the symposium can be found at amconmag.com. But point well taken nonetheless.
August 16th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Daniel Larison
Thanks for your comment. You’re quite right. He does mention the URL, and I should have acknowledged that. However, in mentioning the URL he does seem to go out of his way to not mention the name of the magazine.
I can understand that folks at NRO don’t like The American Conservative or what it stands for–the feeling, I suspect, is mutual–but the focus on this one article to the exclusion of the conversation of which it was a part and to the exclusion of even mentioning the magazine providing the forum seems very unusual. They are not typically so reticent in describing where articles come from, especially when they find them interesting.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
tedschan
It was also mentioned at the First Things blog by Michael Novak, with no mention of American Conservative there either.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=401
August 16th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Daniel Larison
Thanks for the extra link. I had found Novak talking about it on his own site, but I hadn’t looked at FT in a while.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
tedschan
Amy Welborn posted a link to the piece and mentions the source:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/08/atheists_agnost_1.html
Most Catholics participating in blogs don’t really seem interested in the other articles. Pity.
August 18th, 2006 at 4:14 am
Daniel Larison
Thanks for the link. I’m glad someone is acknowledging where it’s from. It isn’t so terribly important, I suppose, but usually I have found that it is simply good blogging form to recognise where you are getting your material.
Our friend at The Western Confucian has been paying some attention to the other TAC articles. I don’t recall if he has any commentary on the pieces or not, but he has shown an interest. Rod Dreher, of course, cited several of the articles, but he was also a contributor. But, on the whole, yes, there has not been a lot of attention to the symposium on many of the Catholic blogs I have seen. Then again, many of them, like CetT, are not as interested in conventional political debates and are looking to talk about other things. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes I think my allegedly reactionary blog is rather too conventional in focusing on the Punch and Judy show that is modern politics.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:06 am
tedschan
It amazes me that Catholics are so confident talking about Israel and Lebanon and how we should support Israel’s actions 100% without questioning their principles for such a judgment. While they are undoubtedly orthodox with respect to basic Catholic beliefs, that is not in itself sufficient for the acquisition of political prudence, and a better understanding of those principles that would help develop pol. prudence, whether taken from Catholic social doctrine or an authentic political theory would be very much beneficial and necessary. (At the very least it would lead people to pause before offering their opinion–I agree with Dr. Fleming, too many people think they’re qualified to speak on various matters, when they are not.)
Though the articles of the symposium may seem to be inconsequential, I see them as a way to challenge us to think about what sort of goods we wish to achieve through political action, both with regards to ourselves and with other nations, and what ways of achieving them are acceptable. Basic questions. Perhaps that is the source of the problem for the articles not gaining a wider audience–because they are so concerned with the particular, it turns people off. If it were a more abstract discussion, people would be willing to read them.
I think your blog is very good, as you articulate the reasons behind your approval or disapproval of what is happening in modern politics, and this is helpful for those taking a new look at their own principles.