| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| National Review steps in it, big time |
| 2013-12-24 |
| By Chris Covert Rantburg.com A young editor at one of the oldest and most respected conservative publications takes to task conservative writer Mark Steyn for the insulting tone of his last article concerning the Phil Robertson affair. Mark Steyn replies and the invective from the editor who started the fight begins. Where matters stand is anyone's guess at the moment. Readers at the National Review want him gone. Writers and readers at other conservative publications are laughing their asses off at National Review. There is a hint from Steyn himself that the editor in question is already gone. It is unclear what the National Review management response will be in time. Mr. Steyn's article last week was his usual work: direct, passionate and merciless against liberals. Steyn does this sort of thing week in and week out. He doesn't get a pass if he turns in shoddy work, but he has never needed one that I have seen. If you follow Mark Steyn, you will know that the man has been a staunch advocate of free speech for a long, long time, even placing himself in legal jeopardy in Canada and Great Britain, winning in all cases against those who would prefer some things not get talked about. The article in question makes fun of the pro gay group and the larger pro gay political lobby that wound up getting Phil Robertson suspended, but does so by addressing their totalitarian tendencies such as the suppression of free speech, not the act that defines their very lives. The tone of the article was erudite, direct, classy and smooth: everything every writer would want to be even if you disagreed with Steyn. The response of the editor, identified as Jason Lee Steorts, was to complain about a "slur" against gay folks, as he put it, in the original article Steyn wrote. In his response, he made a cleverly disguised threat that he has say so on whether Steyn continues to write for the National Review, because in his response he separates criticizing speech from state coercion and cultural coercion, what A&E did. To wit: By way of criticizing speech, I'll say that I found the derogatory language in this column, and especially the slur in its borrowed concluding joke, both puerile in its own right and disappointing coming from a writer of such talent. I have seen this sort of thing before. A non conservative based on his talents gets a gig at a conservative publication and dutifully does his work until one day he comes "out", and his real agenda is revealed to all. David Horowitz had a similar problem with a young gay writer about four years ago. The man was brilliant, fresh out of school, gay, and a good writer. The man had insinuated himself in a number of online publications, Breitbart et seq, and was writing at a furious rate. The problem that arose was because the writer had a thing for illegal male flesh, my words. So when the man was relieved of his duties not only did Horowitz's editor write about it, he conducted an online campaign against the kid that stretched on for weeks. Other publications quietly removed him, or quietly let him go, but not Horowitz. The problem for Horowitz was that they obviously wanted to burnish their pro-gay bonifides and press the laughable case that he and his editor were traditional conservatives, except when to comes to gay marriage. I wrote at the time that Horowitz had a personnel problem that if allowed to fester could destroy the whole organization. Personnel problems are not dealt with by publicly dressing down offenders, but by introducing the problem to the door with good wishes for the future. The problem with removing Jason Lee Steorts is that Steorts has been walking down this road for a long, long time, and the management at NRO has not even blinked at his views. One writer characterized liberals as making a mess of things, and conservatives refusing to fix them because now those mistakes are part of the past. Cute, but wrong. What does the National Review do at this point? Do you allow a loose cannon on your deck on the fear that releasing him will make you look less than enlightened, or do you do to him what A&E did to Phil Robertson: chuck him out the window. Admittedly, I am not enlightened, nor as smart as the folks at National Review. But I do know that as a writer, I would not want to be associated with National Review by having this liberal at the controls of my organization. Call it a firing, or a drumhead, or even call it cultural coercion, as Steorts so famously put it. Call me a bigot, or call me a redneck. I'll take the hit. I'm brave that way. Chris Covert writes Mexican Drug War and national political news for Rantburg.com and Borderlandbeat.com He can be reached at grurkka@gmail.com |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #15 What Mike K said |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-12-24 19:40 |
| #14 The Robertson statements on both homosexuality and race have relevance because they rattle the grievance industry at its very core. Not in terms of judgment but of definition. Hate the sin but love the sinner is the essence of tolerance. Witness to perseverance in the face of injustice is counter to privilege. The secular progressive understands those traditional beliefs nullify their agenda. That is why they have to silence dissenting views with claims of bigotry. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2013-12-24 18:31 |
| #13 Haven't read NR for years. Nothing that has happened since then has changed my mind. Endorsing Romney certainly didn't boost their conservative bona fides. It is no loner the magazine which WFB founded - not by a long shot. |
| Posted by: Cheager Smiter of the Huns2124 2013-12-24 17:19 |
| #12 When it comes to the legal restriction of speech, or the legal coercion of dissenters, IÂ’ll storm the barricade with Mark. It amazes me that any soi-disant free people tolerate that sort of thing. You fart, that is what Mr. Steyn is doing. I'd fire him for being an editor who contradicts himself in his own opinion piece, and proving his opponents point to boot. I don't know what is going on here, or who Stoerts is. Ever watch a sports broadcast and it becomes painfully obvious that one of the announcers doesn't know a damn thing about the game? Perhaps Stoerts had a bad outing, but that is the first thought which popped into my head after reading his piece. Boring indeed, but as an editor a person is expected the ability of judgement, which his article also lacks. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-12-24 15:42 |
| #11 Fire him. I bet Daily Beast is hiring |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-12-24 12:06 |
| #10 Birds of a feather are to flock together. Water and oil does not mix. So on and so on. |
| Posted by: Threreling Munster6125 2013-12-24 10:24 |
| #9 NR is the same publication that fired John Derbyshire An action that Jason Lee Steorts vociferously defended. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-12-24 09:46 |
| #8 Very well written. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2013-12-24 09:13 |
| #7 ...I like NRO, but if it comes down to a choice I will unreservedly stand next to Mark Steyn. He may be of a different tribe, but in his heart, he is an American...in the finest possible sense of what that used to mean. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2013-12-24 07:47 |
| #6 The Gramscian termite can appear at any time. One great example: Andrew Sullivan. As a young man he wrote great speeches for Ronald Reagan, for whom his attraction was, as he later admitted, sexual and not ideological. After ingratiating himself to conservatives during the post 9/11 period, he attempted to use his large audience share to advocate for the radical gay agenda. Sleeper cell all along? You be the judge. Charles Johnson at Little Greeen Footballs? I'd have to say that the same dynamic is at work. Remember Heidi Cullen, high priestess of global warming at the Weather Channel, who started out as a regular weather babe only to parlay her position into advocating that anyone who disagreed with her views should lose their licensure and their means to make a living? Similar dynamic. Insinuate yourself into place and go off like a human time bomb when the time is right. Look, in any organization you are going to have people who differ on some issue. But it becomes obvious at some point when somebody has insinuated themselves into a situation to, ah, not let a crisis go to waste. This guy is a recent college grad (by my standards, anyways, I'm no spring chicken). His thought process is marinated in the methodology of the academy as it exists in the high water mark of the politically correct movement; shouting down, speech codes, grading people upon their politics and not their inherent skill, and hiring/promoting based upon the same. None of us can tell NR what to do. The best thing for them to do going forward is proper vetting to prevent any other Manchurian cadidate types from coming on board in the first place. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2013-12-24 06:00 |
| #5 Word SteveS. I stopped reading them after they fired Derb. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-12-24 04:14 |
| #4 Quite a while back it had become obvious to all but the unread that NR has slipped its moorings and gone adrift from Conservatism, into "establishment-ism", and kowtowing to the northeastern big-city cocktail party set. Now we know part of the reason why. To alter a phrase from Forrest Gump: Quisling is as Quisling does. Fire him. Period. And get back to standing athwart history and shouting STOP, as founder Wm. F. Buckley recommended. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2013-12-24 03:03 |
| #3 I guess Gramsci can apply even to ostensibly conservative organizations. |
| Posted by: charger 2013-12-24 01:35 |
| #2 National Review Steps In It, Big Time. Again. NR is the same publication that fired John Derbyshire for a piece he wrote for Taki's Magazine entitled The Talk: Nonblack Version. Derbyshire had the bad manners to make some politically incorrect, but demonstrably true statements regarding certain ethnic populations. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2013-12-24 01:00 |
| #1 Thanks for explaining this. I was wondering what in the heck was going on. I think I'll go with Steyn -- he's proven himself. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2013-12-24 00:15 |