Preserving Integrity in Middle Eastern Studies
Michael Rubin 2015-09-20
David Silverstein, executive director of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), has written to object to my post from last week, “Educators, Don’t Let Yourselves Be Used by Middle Eastern Autocrats.” Silverstein’s letter is below, followed by a brief rejoinder:
I am writing in response to Michael Rubin’s recent article about ASMEA that grossly mischaracterized the efforts of the Association, and to request either a correction of the record or the right to rebut some of the assertions made in the article.
His article makes three major points: 1) ASMEA was created by Bernard Lewis and the late Fouad Ajami as an antidote to the politicized bias in Middle East studies perpetuated by the Middle East Studies Association; 2) The Kurdistan Regional Government and it’s incumbent ruling party suffer from corruption, and; 3) ASMEA has abandoned its principals and is no better than MESA for having invited a group of Kurdish scholars and politicians affiliated with the ruling party in the Kurdistan Regional Government to participate in our forthcoming annual conference.
On the first and second assertions I agree. However, the assertion that ASMEA is “heading down the path hewn by MESA, rather than steering clear of its predecessor’s mistakes” because we invited the aforementioned individuals to participate in our event is irresponsible and mistaken.
You should know that this last assertion was made without the benefit of contacting ASMEA, its officials, or (as far as I can tell) any of its members. Further, Rubin has never been a member of ASMEA, attended any ASMEA event, or subscribed to our peer-reviewed Journal of the Middle East and Africa. Apparently, he sourced his article exclusively by consulting our website where he failed to find other examples of offensive conference participants that would lead us down MESA’s path.
In the article he states that “Kurdistan is very relevant to discourse today and that ASMEA is wise to address its rise” and then goes on to excoriate AMSEA for failing to include Kurdish voices he finds palatable. Had he bothered to check with us first he would have learned of our attempts (some ongoing) to secure the participation of Kurds representing the Kurdistan National Congress (an umbrella group for all Kurds), PYD (Syria), PKK, HDP (the Kurdish party in Turkey), and PJAK (Iran). Ensuring their participation is no easy task: some of these people are subject to visa restrictions while others are too engaged in local political and military affairs to break away.
In addition, he would have learned about our conference panels on Kurdistan consisting of scholars and graduate students from around the globe, as well as ASMEA’s tradition of inviting members of the diplomatic corps (including ambassadors from post-Qaddafi Libya, Bahrain, and Iraq, as well as the Deputy Foreign Minister of Morocco) to provide opening remarks at the conference. Their political views may or may not reflect the views of the majority of ASMEA’s members, but they provide a useful window into current events for our group of scholars that seldom enjoys access to such practitioners. He can say what he wants about the KRG Representative but she isn’t anti-America, anti-Israel, or anti-West, and she is an articulate promoter of the Kurdistan region of Iraq. She fits our needs perfectly.
Rubin should know that, unlike MESA, we do not impose political litmus tests on our members, refuse to participate in the academic boycott of Israel, and set high standards for our journal and event participants. In reviewing past conferences, he should have found that our crowd doesn’t include scholars ranting about American colonialism, expostulating on homo-nationalism, flacking critical theories of gender apartheid, or justifying Islamist terror. That’s because ASMEA’s scholars, many of whom are refugees from MESA, come to the annual conference expecting to debate the broad range of issues that impact our regions of study in a serious and respectful manner. Activism masquerading as trendy scholarship has no place at ASMEA.
In sum, Rubin has a history of good writing on Kurdistan and, in my opinion, understands the region well. But his article on ASMEA is unfair and ill-informed, and his implication that ASMEA suffers the same deficiencies he sees in the Kurdistan Democratic Party (which he likens to Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority) are insulting and plain wrong. He may know Kurdistan, but he doesn’t know ASMEA at all.
My rejoinder:
I thank David Silverstein for his thoughtful response. We both agree that ASMEA can provide a useful counterbalance to MESA, which has allowed itself to be hijacked by activists which subordinate academic integrity to political agenda. And I recognize that my criticism struck a nerve. Attendance at ASMEA is neither here nor there. Certainly, a lack of participation in MESA does not undercut Silverstein’s nor the ASMEA’s board’s criticisms of that body.
But, let’s cut to the chase: MESA’s credibility began to erode when it ceased promoting scholarly debate and instead became a forum for groupthink. Silverstein is correct that ASMEA does a better job promoting scholarship relevant to the real world. And I applaud ASMEA’s willingness to consider the Kurdish question, as the announcement for its forthcoming conference makes clear. It is unfortunate, however, that it does not uphold principles of scholarly tension and debate to do so. Against the backdrop of constitutional crisis and political chaos, it is regrettable that ASMEA now doubles down on the idea that it is appropriate to host a marquee panel with representatives from a single political faction (and an outside scholar sympathetic to that faction). The idea that visa restrictions prevented a balanced panel ignores the fact that other Kurdish parties have representatives in Washington, DC, and that there are many scholars — Denise Natali at the National Defense University, the World Bank’s Aliza Marcus, or Michael Gunter at Tennessee Technological University, to name a few — who have broad experience in the region and are well-connected across Kurdish political trends.
As for the Special Remarks by Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)’s representative in Washington, DC, ASMEA is right to seek to facilitate discussion between the policy community and academics. I knew Bayan’s father well, and Bayan is widely understood to be Iraqi Kurdistan’s most talented diplomat. Herein lies the problem: One of Rahman’s tasks has been to restrict academic debate in Washington, by seeking to tie KRG money and access to high-profile leadership to assurances that KRG officials will not face critical questions. Silverstein might object to a comparison between Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and KRG President Masoud Barzani, but the salient point is both refused to step down at the conclusion of their legal terms. To host a speech — without respondents — effectively allows the KRG to imply ASMEA legitimacy and endorsement where none exists.
Silverstein suggests I implied, “ASMEA has abandoned its principals and is no better than MESA.” That is inaccurate. What I wrote was: “ASMEA appears to be heading down the path hewn by MESA, rather than steering clear of its predecessor’s mistakes.” ASMEA is no MESA, but it is not immune from that body’s mistakes. If ASMEA believes one-sided panels and obsequiousness to the concerns of any Middle Eastern party is appropriate, then the problem the group faces is deeper than I thought. Let us hope, however, the examples about which I wrote remains the exception rather than the rule.
Everyone worth reading avidly reads COMMENTARY. Can you afford not to?
“ In 1975 the Economist said of COMMENTARY: “The world's best magazine?” Take away the question mark and that statement still stands, thirty-eight years later. It's still the magazine America's liberals dread most, and the one America's enemies can't afford to ignore. It's the point of the conservative spear in the never-ending fight against the insanity of the left, whether it's in foreign policy or economic policy, social and cultural issues, or the arts—and no one does a better job standing up for Western culture and America's interests and those of its allies, including Israel. In fact, surviving the next three years—the Obama administration home stretch—and building the foundations for an American resurgence afterward will be impossible without reading COMMENTARY in print and online. „
Arthur Herman
“ There’s an enormous amount of shouting in the wild west of conservative media. That has its place, and is often a sign of the energy on the right. But amidst the cacophony there’s a special need for serious, considered, and compelling argument, presented in the hope of persuading, not just punishing. This is where COMMENTARY has always shined, perhaps more now than ever before. It aims to tackle the best arguments of its intellectual opponents, not just the easiest targets. It’s a journal I’ve read for nearly 30 years and I can’t think of a time when I’ve valued it more. „
Jonah Goldberg
“ For decades, COMMENTARY has opened its pages to the most serious uncompromising defense of the American creed—exemplar of ordered liberty at home, pillar of the free world abroad—in an era when it has been most under attack. From the exceptionally influential manifestoes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick to today's counterattack against the empowered advocates of the entitlement state and of American decline, COMMENTARY remains what it has been for more than a generation: fearless, informative, indispensable. „
Charles Krauthammer
“ COMMENTARY isn’t just an important magazine. It’s an indispensable one. It’s been indispensable for half a century, and it is today. It’s indispensable for understanding the moment we live in, and it’s indispensable for laying out a path forward. The challenges we confront are great, but COMMENTARY is used to facing grave challenges without fearful cowering or wishful thinking. So we need COMMENTARY today as much as we ever have, and we need it to be as strong as it’s ever been. „
William Kristol
“ COMMENTARY’s writing is predictably engaging and edgy, but its content is anything but homogeneous. Center-right perspectives characterize contributions, but not predictably so. Jewish affairs are thematic, but not always. Controversies of the day are the usual subjects, yet offered only with reflection well apart from the frenzied 24/7 news cycle. Intellectual honesty and analytical rigor characterize COMMENTARY and that is why even its political critics concede that they are still enlightened by the very arguments they often oppose. „
Victor Davis Hanson
“ COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it’s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys—the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell—are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about “Moon River” that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts’n’culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I’m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson’s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That’s COMMENTARY for you—provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as “Moon River” teaches us, there’s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can’t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. „
Mark Steyn
“ COMMENTARY has played an invaluable role in American political discourse for decades, offering thoughtful analysis on issues rather than sound bites or bumper stickers. Especially when it comes to U.S. foreign and defense policy, COMMENTARY has time and time again been ahead of the crowd, anticipating trends and developments that others react to only after the fact. I can't imagine not being a COMMENTARY subscriber. „
John Bolton
“ In the midst of today’s political rancor, COMMENTARY Magazine provides a rare venue for thoughtful discussion. COMMENTARY’s talented writers provide insightful analysis of foreign affairs, domestic policy, and the politics of the day. COMMENTARY is a treasure not only for conservatives, but for anyone looking for in-depth exploration of the issues that influence America’s public dialogue and shape the nation’s future. „
Karl Rove
“ It's notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct. They've lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis—and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. „
Elliott Abrams
“ For more than 60 years, COMMENTARY has been a go-to source on matters of the greatest importance to our nation and our civilization. Today, its full-throated defense of the United States and freedom is as eloquent as it was a half-century ago, and no less urgent. Issues of the day will change, news cycles come and go, but COMMENTARY remains an indispensable authority in the battle of ideas that help to shape our world. Its continued success is both an indication, and source, of the country’s intellectual health. „
Donald Rumsfeld
“ COMMENTARY is America's most important monthly journal of ideas, period. For nearly seven decades it has published the best and most exciting writing from the most important thinkers: Saul Bellow and Lionel Trilling; Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Paul Johnson and Ruth Wisse; Cynthia Ozick and—of course—Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. Is there anything remotely like it? No. It is the lamp by which America, and Israel, and the Jewish people, may find their way to safety. I'm proud to be published in its pages. „
Bret Stephens
“ Irving Kristol once called COMMENTARY the most influential magazine in Jewish history. Certainly, no publication had a greater influence on me as I evolved from adolescent reader (arguing over its articles with my father and older brother) into a “frequent contributor” who made it my intellectual home. The magazine did not exploit American freedom to escape from civilizing duty but rather activated the intertwined responsibilities of citizens and members of a group. American Jewry can boast of many contributions to the welfare of this country and the Jewish people, but few as fortifying as COMMENTARY. „
Ruth R. Wisse
“ Edward Shils noted that there are four means of education in the modern world: the classroom, bookstores (especially used-bookstores), the conversation of intelligent friends, and intellectual magazines. For me intellectual magazines were more important than any of the other three, and no magazine among them more so than COMMENTARY. I first happened on COMMENTARY as a student browsing in the University of Chicago Bookstore in 1957. I have not missed an issue since. The magazine spoke to my intellectual interests and passions, and still does. As a reader and as a writer, I should be lost without it. „
Joseph Epstein
“ Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. „
Matthew Continetti
“ COMMENTARY has long been an unmissable landmark on the American intellectual landscape. These days it shapes debate, propels argument, and explains society with renewed vigor and force. It is one of the small group of essential reads for anybody engaged in politics, Judaism, foreign policy, national manners, and morals. „
David Brooks
“ Anyone looking for a definitive exposition of a significant historical moment—whether UC Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, say, or the battles over "general education" at Harvard—has at his fingertips an inestimable gift: COMMENTARY's archives, which contain countless gems of reporting and analysis. Today's generation of COMMENTARY writers is building an equally invaluable store of knowledge for future researchers and scholars. „
Heather Mac Donald
“ I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P’s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my “idealistic” ’60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life’s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation’s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn’t alone. „
Michael Medved
“ Just as one begins to despair of hearing the strong voice of sanity and courage, leavened with charm and good humor, in our modern polity, COMMENTARY arrives, and once a month one can be reminded that there are indeed some clear-sighted and articulate people who seem actively to enjoy the battle for truth. „
Andrew Roberts
“ Every month in print, and every day online, COMMENTARY somehow manages to pull off a dazzling balancing act: intellectual but unpretentious, serious but never boring, timely but not fleeting. On the leading questions of the day, it offers fresh and unfamiliar insights. And on the emerging questions that will dominate the years to come, it often sees things first and clearest. It is simply indispensable. „
Yuval Levin
“ In a time of passion, COMMENTARY champions reason. Against lies, COMMENTARY speaks for truth. Confronting those who would doom to death the Jewish people, COMMENTARY is a magnificent continuing achievement of American Jewish life. „
David Frum
“ COMMENTARY has become my new go-to website for news analysis because it is measured, substantive, thoughtful, and written for news consumers of all shapes and sizes. When juggling all the issues of the day and thinking them through, I find myself going back to COMMENTARY again and again to see if there’s anything more that can help me add the ingredients needed to finalize an argument. I like the mix of foreign policy and national political news, as well as the discussions about America’s place in the world and what it should be. I’m a print subscriber and a frequent website visitor, and I follow all of the writers on Twitter. Thank you, COMMENTARY, for providing such consistently helpful content. „
Dana Perino
“ There is more commentary in the world than ever before—whether in print, on the air, or on the Internet. But there is still a dearth of serious, informed commentary that reports, analyzes, and argues without ever stooping to name-calling or vitriol. If you further narrow down the segment of the commentariat that looks at the world from a conservative and Jewish perspective—well, you’re left with only one choice. The magazine you are now reading. COMMENTARY has changed over the years—for instance, it now publishes this blog—but one thing that has not changed is its steadfast commitment to providing the best analysis from the most informed writers of the most important ideas in the world, all written in clear prose that appeals to a general audience. There is nothing else like it. Never has been, never will be. „
Max Boot
Never again miss another issue or article. Not a subscriber yet? Join the intellectual club, today.
Unlock the rest of this article and all other COMMENTARY articles, including our entire archive dating back to 1945, and featuring so many classic, epoch-defining articles by some of the very best minds of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Enjoy every new issue—either in print, on our responsive website, or on our beautiful, hand-crafted iPad edition, enriched with multimedia and other web-exclusive content.
Already a subscriber? Sign in to unlock this article.
Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles:
Preserving Integrity in Middle Eastern Studies
Must-Reads from Magazine
What if Trump Loses in Cleveland?
Noah Rothman 2016-04-12
Ted Cruz is headed to Pittsburgh this week where he will focus on shoring up support ahead of the Keystone State’s April 26 primary. It’s a smart play from a campaign that has demonstrated remarkable strategic competence. Cruz’s maneuver will keep the nation’s focus on his skillful outmaneuvering of Donald Trump in the process of amassing loyal delegates to the Republican nominating convention.
This offense to Trump’s considerable ego is such that he appears utterly incapable of moving on and forcing the press to shift its focus to the April 19 contest in New York. The Empire State’s primary is a delegate-rich contest that will yield Trump a slew of newly committed delegates and will inevitably shift the national political narrative back to Trump’s inevitability. Indeed, following Cruz’s sweeping victory in Wisconsin, the GOP’s anti-Trump forces appear to have succumbed to a bit of irrational exuberance. Yes, the prospect of a contested convention is more likely than ever, but not inevitable. Even in the best of circumstances for this cohort of Republicans – that is, a series of ballots that eventually produce a nominee who is not Donald Trump – their foe will not have been entirely vanquished. In such a scenario, he might, in fact, become stronger than ever.
The very notion that the GOP has an energized and organized anti-Trump wing speaks to the celebrity candidate’s dominance. The party is now bifurcated along sectarian lines defined by either antipathy toward or the embrace of the one-time reality television star. If, however, Donald Trump heads to the convention without the requisite 1,237 delegates, it appears increasingly likely that he will be unable to make up the difference – even if that difference is only modest. As many have noted, the convention delegates are local party loyalists with as much or more invested in November’s down ballot races as the White House. They can read a poll, and they know that a Trump nomination would yield a rout for the Republican column, from the U.S. Senate to county commissioner. If Trump fails to win the nomination on the first ballot, it is reasonable to assume now that the forces arrayed against him on the convention floor will likely be insurmountable. For Trump, it’s ballot one or bust.
Such an outcome would probably suit the real estate mogul just fine. The celebrity candidate is never more comfortable than when he can project a sense of victimhood. If you believe such things, the account of former Trump strategist and prominent defector Stephanie Cegielski suggests that the unlikely presidential candidate never had any intention of becoming the Republican Party’s nominee. Instead, his campaign was a lark designed to enhance his personal and business brands, and their most optimistic initial projection was that Trump would come in second in the delegate count. From the candidate’s perspective, the opportunity to feign great injury at the hands of ill-defined forces within the “establishment” GOP is as good an outcome as they could have hoped for at the campaign’s outset.
For many of Trump’s core supporters, the virtue conferred by their perceived victimization at the hands of vague but omnipresent forces invested in their failure is an intoxicating conception. As studies have revealed, many Trump supporters do not believe they have a voice in the political system. From free trade agreements to tax code-based incentives for producers, Trump’s core supporters see themselves as pawns in a system designed to secure the privileges of the already privileged. Their sense of victimization is acute, and Trump being “robbed” of the nomination he failed to win outright would legitimize, vindicate, and harden this self-perception. More portentously, the idea that Trump was cheated out of that which was his due will be aggressively promoted in the press.
In the event he fails to win the party’s nomination, there are those who foresee Trump making an effort to scuttle the GOP’s political prospects by mounting a quixotic third-party bid, but that is highly unlikely. The obstacles before Trump in his effort to get on the ballot, which may be successful in just a handful of states and only after vast sums of Trump’s personal wealth are spent, are prohibitive enough to preclude such an outcome. If Trump wanted the nomination, he would have invested in a campaign apparatus designed to secure it. He did not. His campaign has always been a ploy for earned media, and he has been curiously successful in that objective. If Trump were to fail to win the nomination, he would become not merely a celebrity and a political phenomenon, but a celebrity and a political phenomenon with a righteous grievance to litigate. That’s heady stuff, and the political press would cover Trump the Pretender with the same vigor they applied to Trump the Usurper. If he emerges from the convention without the nomination, the Manhattan real estate heir will become a fixture in the press, perhaps even more so than he is today. And he’ll be a useful tool, too, because his mission will be to undermine the GOP’s political position.
In the immediate wake of a convention loss for Trump, nothing will so preoccupy the GOP as the prospect of reconciliation and reunification. That might seem a daunting, unpalatable, or even undesirable project in the heat of a primary campaign, but the party will need at least nine of every ten registered Republican voters to back the party’s nominee if they are to win the White House. That reconciliation process will be frustrated by Trump, but also by the Democratic Party. Their efforts to brand the GOP “The Party of Trump” will not end merely because the celebrity candidate’s name will not grace the top of the ticket. They will seek to tar the GOP as the party of towering and unrealizable border walls, mass deportations, a ban on Muslims, and punishments for women who seek abortions. They will brand the Republican Party an institution dedicated to misogyny and racial resentment.
Hillary Clinton and her allies will complicate the process of reintegrating Trump-curious GOP voters by seeking to label their one-time affinity for this candidate evidence of their toxicity. Democrats will not merely try to make the party’s eventual nominee in 2016 a radioactive entity, but they will also label any affiliation with a certain segment of the GOP voting base a toxic association. Even if unity between the pro and anti-Trump factions of the party is largely unsuccessful, the Democratic campaign will seek to instill in the general electorate a fear of Trump’s voters and what they stand for. For his part, the ubiquitous Trump will aid Democrats in their effort to nurture in his supporters an irreconcilable bitterness toward the GOP.
Of course, Trump may still end up the Republican nominee, even if he fails to win the nomination outright. In that eventuality, none of this will come to pass. For the Republican Party, that’s arguably an even more unattractive outcome than a rupture of the sort envisioned above. If, however, the party rescues its identity from the jaws of Trump, their struggles are only just beginning. From the minute the curtain closes on Cleveland to the second that the polls close on November 8, the party will be engaged in a bitter struggle. Not until 2017 can there be a genuine reckoning with Trump, his supporters in the grassroots and in the entertainment complex, and the issues his candidacy elevated to prominence. The GOP will be truly fortunate to emerge whole from this schismatic moment. Neither Trump, nor the Democrats, nor the press will make that outcome an easy one.
Everyone worth reading avidly reads COMMENTARY. Can you afford not to?
“ In 1975 the Economist said of COMMENTARY: “The world's best magazine?” Take away the question mark and that statement still stands, thirty-eight years later. It's still the magazine America's liberals dread most, and the one America's enemies can't afford to ignore. It's the point of the conservative spear in the never-ending fight against the insanity of the left, whether it's in foreign policy or economic policy, social and cultural issues, or the arts—and no one does a better job standing up for Western culture and America's interests and those of its allies, including Israel. In fact, surviving the next three years—the Obama administration home stretch—and building the foundations for an American resurgence afterward will be impossible without reading COMMENTARY in print and online. „
Arthur Herman
“ There’s an enormous amount of shouting in the wild west of conservative media. That has its place, and is often a sign of the energy on the right. But amidst the cacophony there’s a special need for serious, considered, and compelling argument, presented in the hope of persuading, not just punishing. This is where COMMENTARY has always shined, perhaps more now than ever before. It aims to tackle the best arguments of its intellectual opponents, not just the easiest targets. It’s a journal I’ve read for nearly 30 years and I can’t think of a time when I’ve valued it more. „
Jonah Goldberg
“ For decades, COMMENTARY has opened its pages to the most serious uncompromising defense of the American creed—exemplar of ordered liberty at home, pillar of the free world abroad—in an era when it has been most under attack. From the exceptionally influential manifestoes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick to today's counterattack against the empowered advocates of the entitlement state and of American decline, COMMENTARY remains what it has been for more than a generation: fearless, informative, indispensable. „
Charles Krauthammer
“ COMMENTARY isn’t just an important magazine. It’s an indispensable one. It’s been indispensable for half a century, and it is today. It’s indispensable for understanding the moment we live in, and it’s indispensable for laying out a path forward. The challenges we confront are great, but COMMENTARY is used to facing grave challenges without fearful cowering or wishful thinking. So we need COMMENTARY today as much as we ever have, and we need it to be as strong as it’s ever been. „
William Kristol
“ COMMENTARY’s writing is predictably engaging and edgy, but its content is anything but homogeneous. Center-right perspectives characterize contributions, but not predictably so. Jewish affairs are thematic, but not always. Controversies of the day are the usual subjects, yet offered only with reflection well apart from the frenzied 24/7 news cycle. Intellectual honesty and analytical rigor characterize COMMENTARY and that is why even its political critics concede that they are still enlightened by the very arguments they often oppose. „
Victor Davis Hanson
“ COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it’s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys—the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell—are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about “Moon River” that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts’n’culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I’m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson’s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That’s COMMENTARY for you—provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as “Moon River” teaches us, there’s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can’t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. „
Mark Steyn
“ COMMENTARY has played an invaluable role in American political discourse for decades, offering thoughtful analysis on issues rather than sound bites or bumper stickers. Especially when it comes to U.S. foreign and defense policy, COMMENTARY has time and time again been ahead of the crowd, anticipating trends and developments that others react to only after the fact. I can't imagine not being a COMMENTARY subscriber. „
John Bolton
“ In the midst of today’s political rancor, COMMENTARY Magazine provides a rare venue for thoughtful discussion. COMMENTARY’s talented writers provide insightful analysis of foreign affairs, domestic policy, and the politics of the day. COMMENTARY is a treasure not only for conservatives, but for anyone looking for in-depth exploration of the issues that influence America’s public dialogue and shape the nation’s future. „
Karl Rove
“ It's notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct. They've lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis—and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. „
Elliott Abrams
“ For more than 60 years, COMMENTARY has been a go-to source on matters of the greatest importance to our nation and our civilization. Today, its full-throated defense of the United States and freedom is as eloquent as it was a half-century ago, and no less urgent. Issues of the day will change, news cycles come and go, but COMMENTARY remains an indispensable authority in the battle of ideas that help to shape our world. Its continued success is both an indication, and source, of the country’s intellectual health. „
Donald Rumsfeld
“ COMMENTARY is America's most important monthly journal of ideas, period. For nearly seven decades it has published the best and most exciting writing from the most important thinkers: Saul Bellow and Lionel Trilling; Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Paul Johnson and Ruth Wisse; Cynthia Ozick and—of course—Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. Is there anything remotely like it? No. It is the lamp by which America, and Israel, and the Jewish people, may find their way to safety. I'm proud to be published in its pages. „
Bret Stephens
“ Irving Kristol once called COMMENTARY the most influential magazine in Jewish history. Certainly, no publication had a greater influence on me as I evolved from adolescent reader (arguing over its articles with my father and older brother) into a “frequent contributor” who made it my intellectual home. The magazine did not exploit American freedom to escape from civilizing duty but rather activated the intertwined responsibilities of citizens and members of a group. American Jewry can boast of many contributions to the welfare of this country and the Jewish people, but few as fortifying as COMMENTARY. „
Ruth R. Wisse
“ Edward Shils noted that there are four means of education in the modern world: the classroom, bookstores (especially used-bookstores), the conversation of intelligent friends, and intellectual magazines. For me intellectual magazines were more important than any of the other three, and no magazine among them more so than COMMENTARY. I first happened on COMMENTARY as a student browsing in the University of Chicago Bookstore in 1957. I have not missed an issue since. The magazine spoke to my intellectual interests and passions, and still does. As a reader and as a writer, I should be lost without it. „
Joseph Epstein
“ Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. „
Matthew Continetti
“ COMMENTARY has long been an unmissable landmark on the American intellectual landscape. These days it shapes debate, propels argument, and explains society with renewed vigor and force. It is one of the small group of essential reads for anybody engaged in politics, Judaism, foreign policy, national manners, and morals. „
David Brooks
“ Anyone looking for a definitive exposition of a significant historical moment—whether UC Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, say, or the battles over "general education" at Harvard—has at his fingertips an inestimable gift: COMMENTARY's archives, which contain countless gems of reporting and analysis. Today's generation of COMMENTARY writers is building an equally invaluable store of knowledge for future researchers and scholars. „
Heather Mac Donald
“ I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P’s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my “idealistic” ’60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life’s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation’s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn’t alone. „
Michael Medved
“ Just as one begins to despair of hearing the strong voice of sanity and courage, leavened with charm and good humor, in our modern polity, COMMENTARY arrives, and once a month one can be reminded that there are indeed some clear-sighted and articulate people who seem actively to enjoy the battle for truth. „
Andrew Roberts
“ Every month in print, and every day online, COMMENTARY somehow manages to pull off a dazzling balancing act: intellectual but unpretentious, serious but never boring, timely but not fleeting. On the leading questions of the day, it offers fresh and unfamiliar insights. And on the emerging questions that will dominate the years to come, it often sees things first and clearest. It is simply indispensable. „
Yuval Levin
“ In a time of passion, COMMENTARY champions reason. Against lies, COMMENTARY speaks for truth. Confronting those who would doom to death the Jewish people, COMMENTARY is a magnificent continuing achievement of American Jewish life. „
David Frum
“ COMMENTARY has become my new go-to website for news analysis because it is measured, substantive, thoughtful, and written for news consumers of all shapes and sizes. When juggling all the issues of the day and thinking them through, I find myself going back to COMMENTARY again and again to see if there’s anything more that can help me add the ingredients needed to finalize an argument. I like the mix of foreign policy and national political news, as well as the discussions about America’s place in the world and what it should be. I’m a print subscriber and a frequent website visitor, and I follow all of the writers on Twitter. Thank you, COMMENTARY, for providing such consistently helpful content. „
Dana Perino
“ There is more commentary in the world than ever before—whether in print, on the air, or on the Internet. But there is still a dearth of serious, informed commentary that reports, analyzes, and argues without ever stooping to name-calling or vitriol. If you further narrow down the segment of the commentariat that looks at the world from a conservative and Jewish perspective—well, you’re left with only one choice. The magazine you are now reading. COMMENTARY has changed over the years—for instance, it now publishes this blog—but one thing that has not changed is its steadfast commitment to providing the best analysis from the most informed writers of the most important ideas in the world, all written in clear prose that appeals to a general audience. There is nothing else like it. Never has been, never will be. „
Max Boot
Never again miss another issue or article. Not a subscriber yet? Join the intellectual club, today.
Unlock the rest of this article and all other COMMENTARY articles, including our entire archive dating back to 1945, and featuring so many classic, epoch-defining articles by some of the very best minds of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Enjoy every new issue—either in print, on our responsive website, or on our beautiful, hand-crafted iPad edition, enriched with multimedia and other web-exclusive content.
Already a subscriber? Sign in to unlock this article.
Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles:
Trump’s Competence Gap Shows
Jonathan S. Tobin 2016-04-12
Once again Donald Trump is crying foul. As he does anytime he loses, the Republican frontrunner is claiming that the selection process used in Colorado is “a crooked deal.” Trump spent Monday ranting about the way he got skunked at the state’s Republican convention where Colorado’s convention delegates were selected. Last summer the state party chose not to have a primary or a caucus taking the decision out of the hands of grass-roots voters and leaving political activists in charge. But Trump’s campaign was as unprepared to compete in convention settings as they have been elsewhere so the billionaire wound up being beaten badly by the much more organized Ted Cruz campaign that would up securing all 34 delegates at stake in the contest.
Contrary to Trump’s claims, that tells us more about him and the competence gap inherent in his presidential quest than it does about the GOP establishment.
Trump responded to defeat in Colorado with his usual grace, damning the system and declaring the whole affair to be party of a “corrupt system.” Yet while he needs every delegate he can get in order to get closer to the 1,237 he needs to secure the nomination, the setback is still useful to Trump. It allows him to flay Cruz as the candidate of “insiders” and a tool of the dreaded “establishment” who wins only by dirty tricks. More than that, it feeds the basic conspiracy theory at the heart of his candidacy that politicians — and in particular, the Republican leadership — are thwarting the will of the people. The idea that politicians decide and the people get no vote is the sort of thing that has created the tide of voter anger that he has ridden to the top of the standings n the GOP race.
Let’s concede that the decision of the Colorado Republican Party to take the voters out of the delegate selection process doesn’t pass the smell test. The Colorado GOP went this route because rules instituted before this cycle would have required them to have their delegates be bound by the results of a caucus. Like the Democrats more ubiquitous and equally egregious practice of packing their convention with unelected superdelegates, having so many unbound delegates undermines faith in the party as a vehicle for voter activism as opposed to a private group more interested in protecting their power and leverage.
But until the day that the parties institute what would be, in effect, a national primary, the results of which will dictate the nomination process, we are stuck with different rules in each party in each state. Complaining about the system now is pointless since all these rules, in Colorado and in every other state where a caucus or convention delegate selection process has stymied Trump because of his lack of a ground game, were known in advance of the race.
Yet while Trump might have a point about the method employed by the Colorado GOP to select delegates being particularly undemocratic, the idea that he is the unique target of the rules falls flat. In most cases, he has benefited from the system designed by the Republican National Committee after 2012. Just as important, the flaws in his campaign undermine the basic argument put forward for his qualifications for the presidency.
The first point to be made about the complaint from Trump and his apologists and followers about the system being rigged against him is utter nonsense. In fact, the nomination process designed after Mitt Romney’s long and difficult fight fending off Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich during the 2012 primaries. The Republican National Committee’s response to that was to create a process that would be less onerous to a frontrunner that would enable the party’s leading candidate to maximize any advantage and avoid a long drawn out race.
Of course, they had someone like Jeb Bush in mind when they cooked up the schedule and included so many winner-take-all primary contests after the early states voted. But the beneficiary in 2016 has been Donald J. Trump and not any of the mainstream candidates the RNC might have been more comfortable with. For all of his whining about being cheated by the system and “we the people” being disenfranchised by the shenanigans of the #stopTrump movement, the opposite is the case. To date, Trump has won 37percent of the votes cast in Republican primaries and caucuses but has received 45 percent of the delegates. So while it’s true that, at least in Colorado, the desires of Trump supporters (who appear outnumbered by the Cruz backers there anyway) will be ignored by their convention delegates, how is that any more unfair than the fact that the votes of the majority in states, like Florida and Arizona, where Trump won winner-take-all primaries with pluralities, also wind up counting for nothing? Put in that perspective, Trump’s grievances are seen for what they are: pure bunk.
But there’s an even bigger point to be gleaned from all this talk about Trump being cheated by an arcane delegate selection process.
Trump’s main argument for the presidency is that he is a uniquely talented and successful businessman. He is the guy who tells audiences everywhere that American doesn’t win anymore but that if he is put in charge of things, the losing will stop. We are told he is an administrative genius who amassed a great fortune by his ability understand the game, plan and hire the best people to get great results. Leaving aside the fact that his narrative is undermined by some inconvenient facts like the fact that he started out with vast inherited wealth and that his businesses have had more than their share of reverses, it’s still a compelling argument to many Americans who are impressed by Trump’s wealth and believe it’s time to replace incompetent politicians with a successful businessman.
But think about it. The delegate selection process, including the states with the more complicated systems involving county and state conventions like Colorado was put in place before the race began leaving all the candidates with many months, if not years, to prepare. As arcane as multi-layered caucuses and conventions might be, is it really any more complicated than the negotiations over trade and nuclear weapons that his camp claims would be won easily by a President Trump? Not really. Politics is hard work and involves research and a particular skill set, but it’s not rocket science. Yet Trump the genius and his hired sycophants find it impenetrable.
Trump is a genius at marketing and media manipulation. But once you get into the weeds on anything else, let alone complicated policy questions, he’s at sea. His vow to hire the best people who will solve any problem rings hollow when you realize that he was unable to put together a staff that could figure out how to work Colorado or other states where delegates are selected by anything other than a primary process. Yet Ted Cruz, who, as Trump likes to point out, hasn’t run a business in his life, managed to create a fearsome ground game in virtually every state in the Union.
Seen in that light, maybe Trump isn’t such a whiz at running things after all.
That brings us to an obvious conclusion that contradicts a myth that is widely believed by the voters: running a business can prepare you to run a government.
If my critique of Trump’s problems in navigating the difficulties of the delegate selection system seems harsh, it’s because it is unfair to expect a novice to understand things that a pro would take for granted. And for all of his bravado, Trump is a rookie in politics who is making rookie mistakes even as he has demonstrated a rare talented for bullying and exploiting the fears of the voters.
But if Trump thinks running an election campaign is hard, I’ve got news for him. Running a government is a lot harder and nothing that he has learned in real estate, casinos or reality television is an adequate preparation for it. Nor is paying off politicians with contributions and favors — something he has done a lot of and which shows that he embodies government corruption more than anyone not named Clinton — the same thing as making a government work. A lot of being president is about knowing how to operate in Washington and it is not an entry-level position. Barack Obama’s thin resume was obvious in his many mistakes over the past eight years and compared to Trump, the former community organizer and freshman senator had a lot of experience in government.
All of which shows that Trump’s claims to be able to run the government successfully like the way he ran his businesses are false. Colorado isn’t proof of corruption. But it is evidence of Trump’s competence gap and that he is clearly unqualified for the presidency.
Everyone worth reading avidly reads COMMENTARY. Can you afford not to?
“ In 1975 the Economist said of COMMENTARY: “The world's best magazine?” Take away the question mark and that statement still stands, thirty-eight years later. It's still the magazine America's liberals dread most, and the one America's enemies can't afford to ignore. It's the point of the conservative spear in the never-ending fight against the insanity of the left, whether it's in foreign policy or economic policy, social and cultural issues, or the arts—and no one does a better job standing up for Western culture and America's interests and those of its allies, including Israel. In fact, surviving the next three years—the Obama administration home stretch—and building the foundations for an American resurgence afterward will be impossible without reading COMMENTARY in print and online. „
Arthur Herman
“ There’s an enormous amount of shouting in the wild west of conservative media. That has its place, and is often a sign of the energy on the right. But amidst the cacophony there’s a special need for serious, considered, and compelling argument, presented in the hope of persuading, not just punishing. This is where COMMENTARY has always shined, perhaps more now than ever before. It aims to tackle the best arguments of its intellectual opponents, not just the easiest targets. It’s a journal I’ve read for nearly 30 years and I can’t think of a time when I’ve valued it more. „
Jonah Goldberg
“ For decades, COMMENTARY has opened its pages to the most serious uncompromising defense of the American creed—exemplar of ordered liberty at home, pillar of the free world abroad—in an era when it has been most under attack. From the exceptionally influential manifestoes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick to today's counterattack against the empowered advocates of the entitlement state and of American decline, COMMENTARY remains what it has been for more than a generation: fearless, informative, indispensable. „
Charles Krauthammer
“ COMMENTARY isn’t just an important magazine. It’s an indispensable one. It’s been indispensable for half a century, and it is today. It’s indispensable for understanding the moment we live in, and it’s indispensable for laying out a path forward. The challenges we confront are great, but COMMENTARY is used to facing grave challenges without fearful cowering or wishful thinking. So we need COMMENTARY today as much as we ever have, and we need it to be as strong as it’s ever been. „
William Kristol
“ COMMENTARY’s writing is predictably engaging and edgy, but its content is anything but homogeneous. Center-right perspectives characterize contributions, but not predictably so. Jewish affairs are thematic, but not always. Controversies of the day are the usual subjects, yet offered only with reflection well apart from the frenzied 24/7 news cycle. Intellectual honesty and analytical rigor characterize COMMENTARY and that is why even its political critics concede that they are still enlightened by the very arguments they often oppose. „
Victor Davis Hanson
“ COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it’s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys—the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell—are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about “Moon River” that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts’n’culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I’m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson’s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That’s COMMENTARY for you—provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as “Moon River” teaches us, there’s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can’t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. „
Mark Steyn
“ COMMENTARY has played an invaluable role in American political discourse for decades, offering thoughtful analysis on issues rather than sound bites or bumper stickers. Especially when it comes to U.S. foreign and defense policy, COMMENTARY has time and time again been ahead of the crowd, anticipating trends and developments that others react to only after the fact. I can't imagine not being a COMMENTARY subscriber. „
John Bolton
“ In the midst of today’s political rancor, COMMENTARY Magazine provides a rare venue for thoughtful discussion. COMMENTARY’s talented writers provide insightful analysis of foreign affairs, domestic policy, and the politics of the day. COMMENTARY is a treasure not only for conservatives, but for anyone looking for in-depth exploration of the issues that influence America’s public dialogue and shape the nation’s future. „
Karl Rove
“ It's notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct. They've lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis—and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. „
Elliott Abrams
“ For more than 60 years, COMMENTARY has been a go-to source on matters of the greatest importance to our nation and our civilization. Today, its full-throated defense of the United States and freedom is as eloquent as it was a half-century ago, and no less urgent. Issues of the day will change, news cycles come and go, but COMMENTARY remains an indispensable authority in the battle of ideas that help to shape our world. Its continued success is both an indication, and source, of the country’s intellectual health. „
Donald Rumsfeld
“ COMMENTARY is America's most important monthly journal of ideas, period. For nearly seven decades it has published the best and most exciting writing from the most important thinkers: Saul Bellow and Lionel Trilling; Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Paul Johnson and Ruth Wisse; Cynthia Ozick and—of course—Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. Is there anything remotely like it? No. It is the lamp by which America, and Israel, and the Jewish people, may find their way to safety. I'm proud to be published in its pages. „
Bret Stephens
“ Irving Kristol once called COMMENTARY the most influential magazine in Jewish history. Certainly, no publication had a greater influence on me as I evolved from adolescent reader (arguing over its articles with my father and older brother) into a “frequent contributor” who made it my intellectual home. The magazine did not exploit American freedom to escape from civilizing duty but rather activated the intertwined responsibilities of citizens and members of a group. American Jewry can boast of many contributions to the welfare of this country and the Jewish people, but few as fortifying as COMMENTARY. „
Ruth R. Wisse
“ Edward Shils noted that there are four means of education in the modern world: the classroom, bookstores (especially used-bookstores), the conversation of intelligent friends, and intellectual magazines. For me intellectual magazines were more important than any of the other three, and no magazine among them more so than COMMENTARY. I first happened on COMMENTARY as a student browsing in the University of Chicago Bookstore in 1957. I have not missed an issue since. The magazine spoke to my intellectual interests and passions, and still does. As a reader and as a writer, I should be lost without it. „
Joseph Epstein
“ Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. „
Matthew Continetti
“ COMMENTARY has long been an unmissable landmark on the American intellectual landscape. These days it shapes debate, propels argument, and explains society with renewed vigor and force. It is one of the small group of essential reads for anybody engaged in politics, Judaism, foreign policy, national manners, and morals. „
David Brooks
“ Anyone looking for a definitive exposition of a significant historical moment—whether UC Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, say, or the battles over "general education" at Harvard—has at his fingertips an inestimable gift: COMMENTARY's archives, which contain countless gems of reporting and analysis. Today's generation of COMMENTARY writers is building an equally invaluable store of knowledge for future researchers and scholars. „
Heather Mac Donald
“ I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P’s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my “idealistic” ’60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life’s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation’s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn’t alone. „
Michael Medved
“ Just as one begins to despair of hearing the strong voice of sanity and courage, leavened with charm and good humor, in our modern polity, COMMENTARY arrives, and once a month one can be reminded that there are indeed some clear-sighted and articulate people who seem actively to enjoy the battle for truth. „
Andrew Roberts
“ Every month in print, and every day online, COMMENTARY somehow manages to pull off a dazzling balancing act: intellectual but unpretentious, serious but never boring, timely but not fleeting. On the leading questions of the day, it offers fresh and unfamiliar insights. And on the emerging questions that will dominate the years to come, it often sees things first and clearest. It is simply indispensable. „
Yuval Levin
“ In a time of passion, COMMENTARY champions reason. Against lies, COMMENTARY speaks for truth. Confronting those who would doom to death the Jewish people, COMMENTARY is a magnificent continuing achievement of American Jewish life. „
David Frum
“ COMMENTARY has become my new go-to website for news analysis because it is measured, substantive, thoughtful, and written for news consumers of all shapes and sizes. When juggling all the issues of the day and thinking them through, I find myself going back to COMMENTARY again and again to see if there’s anything more that can help me add the ingredients needed to finalize an argument. I like the mix of foreign policy and national political news, as well as the discussions about America’s place in the world and what it should be. I’m a print subscriber and a frequent website visitor, and I follow all of the writers on Twitter. Thank you, COMMENTARY, for providing such consistently helpful content. „
Dana Perino
“ There is more commentary in the world than ever before—whether in print, on the air, or on the Internet. But there is still a dearth of serious, informed commentary that reports, analyzes, and argues without ever stooping to name-calling or vitriol. If you further narrow down the segment of the commentariat that looks at the world from a conservative and Jewish perspective—well, you’re left with only one choice. The magazine you are now reading. COMMENTARY has changed over the years—for instance, it now publishes this blog—but one thing that has not changed is its steadfast commitment to providing the best analysis from the most informed writers of the most important ideas in the world, all written in clear prose that appeals to a general audience. There is nothing else like it. Never has been, never will be. „
Max Boot
Never again miss another issue or article. Not a subscriber yet? Join the intellectual club, today.
Unlock the rest of this article and all other COMMENTARY articles, including our entire archive dating back to 1945, and featuring so many classic, epoch-defining articles by some of the very best minds of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Enjoy every new issue—either in print, on our responsive website, or on our beautiful, hand-crafted iPad edition, enriched with multimedia and other web-exclusive content.
Already a subscriber? Sign in to unlock this article.
Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles:
The Green Inquisition
Noah Rothman 2016-04-11
It’s not entirely clear what Bernie Sanders was trying to say on Monday, but he was obviously angry. For cheering partisans these days, that’s all that seems to matter.
In fact, displays of emotion in lieu of substance have become a universally accepted currency. For presidential aspirants on both sides of the aisle, the longer the primary process extends, the more tenuous the candidates’ relationships with the truth become. It seems there is almost an inverse relationship between a length of a primary process and the objective validity of the issues that come to dominate it. On the Democratic side of the aisle, the dissemination of fictions pleasing to the average liberal voter goes not only unpunished but rewarded with cheers and intensified support.
“The state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in [New York] come from Vermont,” Hillary Clinton told an audience on Monday. The political value of this shocking statistic is obvious. Perhaps the only public policy area in which Sanders embraces liberal heterodoxy is on the matter of stricter gun laws. Clinton sought to cast Sanders as part of the problem when it comes to gun crime. There’s just one problem: the statistic she cited is categorically false.
The New York Times performed an extensive investigation into the origin of firearms used in violent crime in states with strict gun laws and found the vast majority of those weapons fired in New York are purchased in the South. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives found that, in 2014, Vermont ranked behind 13 states – including, at the top of the list, the Empire State – on the list of states where the guns used in crime in New York originated.
Not to be outdone, Bernie Sanders is dialing the deceptions up to 11. The socialist senator from Vermont has chosen the catechisms of totalitarian environmentalism as the cudgel with which he bludgeons his opponent in the Democratic race. In a Monday appearance before 5,000 fans in Binghamton, New York, Sanders unleashed a volley of bizarre pronouncements regarding the latest left-wing boogieman to occupy the nightmares of the environmentalist left: hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”
“The growing body of evidence tells us that fracking is a danger to our water supply,” Sanders insisted, “our most precious resource.”
“It is a danger to the air we breathe,” the self-described socialist senator continued. “It has resulted in more earthquakes. It is highly explosive. And it is contributing to climate change.”
Where to begin? The most defensible of Sanders’ allegations is the idea that fracking contaminates groundwater and aquifers. This conclusion is undermined even by those studies that purport to prove it. The rare instances in which water tested near a fracking site contained higher than average rates of methane or heavy metals are just as likely the result of natural processes, mechanical failures, or human error. The number of such incidents is minor compared to the volume of valuable natural gas extracted as a result of this novel process. The left’s failure to perform a rational cost/benefit analysis when it comes to fracking technology exposes the movement’s emotional investment in the idea that it is a process without redeeming qualities.
As if you hadn’t already guessed that from Sanders’ bizarre accusation that fracking is “explosive.” Well, yes, natural gas is explosive. That’s kind of the point of natural gas. Perhaps – and this is a total shot in the dark – Sanders was referring to the myth-laden 2010 “documentary” GasLand, the iconic image of which is tap water that is so contaminated with methane byproduct that the fluid is literally flammable. Subsequent investigation into this episode revealed that the Colorado homeowner’s well around which this film was based was drilled into a naturally occurring pocket of methane – the phenomenon had nothing to do with gas drilling occurring nearby.
Sanders’ contention that fracking causes earthquakes betrays a staggering ignorance about the nature of plate tectonics, not to mention the depth at which the earth’s crust glides over the surface of the mantle. The United States Geological Survey notes that “extremely small” tremors can be triggered by the massive infusion of pressurized water into a drilling site, but they are rarely large enough to be even felt let alone to cause any damage to surface structures.
Finally, the notion that this process is contributing to climate change suggests that Sanders – and the rest of the environmental left – has made the perfect the enemy of the good. The combustion of natural gas emits far less carbon than does a similar process utilizing petroleum products. The most that climate activists can claim is that, as cheap natural gas supplants oil, carbon emissions will remain relatively static. In that admission, the environmental activist’s veil is dropped. It exposes the fact that revolutionary technologies like “fracking” and horizontal drilling resulted in an energy boom – albeit a tragically short-lived one for some of the Rustbelt regions where it initially hit – and that has dramatically increased the volume of these hydrocarbon products that were said just last decade to be disappearing entirely. Even despite a recent contraction in the domestic natural gas extraction market, the revival of the American hydrocarbon industry is one of the more remarkable economic stories of this decade.
As is so often the case for a movement in which its central ethos is premised on a myth, environmental liberalism is devolving to a cult-like faith. The questioning of which is judged heretical and is soundly punished. If you’re so inclined to believe you’re lying eyes over environmental orthodoxy, the left is no longer content to mock and ostracize you. To the extent that they control it, liberals in positions of power are keen to use the force of law and the irresistible coercive nature of the state to impose on the public its decrepit belief structures.
A variety of Democratic attorneys general in liberal-dominated states and territories like New York, California, and Massachusetts, among 14 others, have reportedly opened investigations into ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy over alleged misrepresentations of how those firms disclose climate change risks to their investors. Specifically, these “AGs United for Clean Power,” as they’ve dubbed themselves, are threatening investigations into organizations that fund research conducted by groups or individuals who believe climate change is a hoax. There is no justice here. The aim is quite transparently to foist a cost on corporations for associating with individuals or groups who engage in speech and thought judged insufficiently committed to the center-left consensus.
“It is traditional, when a crime has actually been committed, to first establish that a crime has occurred, and then identify a perpetrator,” observed Bloomberg’s Megan McArdle. “When prosecutors start running that process backwards, it’s a pretty good sign that you’re looking at prosecutorial power run amok.” USA Today’s Glenn Reynolds concurred. He added that these career prosecutors have essentially violated their oath by pursuing such a charged course designed clearly to silence through intimidation their political opposition. Progressive silence on the issue is telling. For some, the law and norms of constitutional governance are expendable so long as the cause is just. If Bernie Sanders’ representation of it is any guide, the cause is not a worthy one. It’s not even coherent.
These and other articles of liberal faith have come to dominate the Democratic primary process. While the left sits back and enjoys a hearty chortle over chaos on the right, they might consider spending a moment looking to the disarray in their own house. The “Party of Science” ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.
Everyone worth reading avidly reads COMMENTARY. Can you afford not to?
“ In 1975 the Economist said of COMMENTARY: “The world's best magazine?” Take away the question mark and that statement still stands, thirty-eight years later. It's still the magazine America's liberals dread most, and the one America's enemies can't afford to ignore. It's the point of the conservative spear in the never-ending fight against the insanity of the left, whether it's in foreign policy or economic policy, social and cultural issues, or the arts—and no one does a better job standing up for Western culture and America's interests and those of its allies, including Israel. In fact, surviving the next three years—the Obama administration home stretch—and building the foundations for an American resurgence afterward will be impossible without reading COMMENTARY in print and online. „
Arthur Herman
“ There’s an enormous amount of shouting in the wild west of conservative media. That has its place, and is often a sign of the energy on the right. But amidst the cacophony there’s a special need for serious, considered, and compelling argument, presented in the hope of persuading, not just punishing. This is where COMMENTARY has always shined, perhaps more now than ever before. It aims to tackle the best arguments of its intellectual opponents, not just the easiest targets. It’s a journal I’ve read for nearly 30 years and I can’t think of a time when I’ve valued it more. „
Jonah Goldberg
“ For decades, COMMENTARY has opened its pages to the most serious uncompromising defense of the American creed—exemplar of ordered liberty at home, pillar of the free world abroad—in an era when it has been most under attack. From the exceptionally influential manifestoes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick to today's counterattack against the empowered advocates of the entitlement state and of American decline, COMMENTARY remains what it has been for more than a generation: fearless, informative, indispensable. „
Charles Krauthammer
“ COMMENTARY isn’t just an important magazine. It’s an indispensable one. It’s been indispensable for half a century, and it is today. It’s indispensable for understanding the moment we live in, and it’s indispensable for laying out a path forward. The challenges we confront are great, but COMMENTARY is used to facing grave challenges without fearful cowering or wishful thinking. So we need COMMENTARY today as much as we ever have, and we need it to be as strong as it’s ever been. „
William Kristol
“ COMMENTARY’s writing is predictably engaging and edgy, but its content is anything but homogeneous. Center-right perspectives characterize contributions, but not predictably so. Jewish affairs are thematic, but not always. Controversies of the day are the usual subjects, yet offered only with reflection well apart from the frenzied 24/7 news cycle. Intellectual honesty and analytical rigor characterize COMMENTARY and that is why even its political critics concede that they are still enlightened by the very arguments they often oppose. „
Victor Davis Hanson
“ COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it’s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys—the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell—are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about “Moon River” that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts’n’culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I’m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson’s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That’s COMMENTARY for you—provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as “Moon River” teaches us, there’s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can’t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. „
Mark Steyn
“ COMMENTARY has played an invaluable role in American political discourse for decades, offering thoughtful analysis on issues rather than sound bites or bumper stickers. Especially when it comes to U.S. foreign and defense policy, COMMENTARY has time and time again been ahead of the crowd, anticipating trends and developments that others react to only after the fact. I can't imagine not being a COMMENTARY subscriber. „
John Bolton
“ In the midst of today’s political rancor, COMMENTARY Magazine provides a rare venue for thoughtful discussion. COMMENTARY’s talented writers provide insightful analysis of foreign affairs, domestic policy, and the politics of the day. COMMENTARY is a treasure not only for conservatives, but for anyone looking for in-depth exploration of the issues that influence America’s public dialogue and shape the nation’s future. „
Karl Rove
“ It's notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct. They've lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis—and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. „
Elliott Abrams
“ For more than 60 years, COMMENTARY has been a go-to source on matters of the greatest importance to our nation and our civilization. Today, its full-throated defense of the United States and freedom is as eloquent as it was a half-century ago, and no less urgent. Issues of the day will change, news cycles come and go, but COMMENTARY remains an indispensable authority in the battle of ideas that help to shape our world. Its continued success is both an indication, and source, of the country’s intellectual health. „
Donald Rumsfeld
“ COMMENTARY is America's most important monthly journal of ideas, period. For nearly seven decades it has published the best and most exciting writing from the most important thinkers: Saul Bellow and Lionel Trilling; Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Paul Johnson and Ruth Wisse; Cynthia Ozick and—of course—Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. Is there anything remotely like it? No. It is the lamp by which America, and Israel, and the Jewish people, may find their way to safety. I'm proud to be published in its pages. „
Bret Stephens
“ Irving Kristol once called COMMENTARY the most influential magazine in Jewish history. Certainly, no publication had a greater influence on me as I evolved from adolescent reader (arguing over its articles with my father and older brother) into a “frequent contributor” who made it my intellectual home. The magazine did not exploit American freedom to escape from civilizing duty but rather activated the intertwined responsibilities of citizens and members of a group. American Jewry can boast of many contributions to the welfare of this country and the Jewish people, but few as fortifying as COMMENTARY. „
Ruth R. Wisse
“ Edward Shils noted that there are four means of education in the modern world: the classroom, bookstores (especially used-bookstores), the conversation of intelligent friends, and intellectual magazines. For me intellectual magazines were more important than any of the other three, and no magazine among them more so than COMMENTARY. I first happened on COMMENTARY as a student browsing in the University of Chicago Bookstore in 1957. I have not missed an issue since. The magazine spoke to my intellectual interests and passions, and still does. As a reader and as a writer, I should be lost without it. „
Joseph Epstein
“ Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. „
Matthew Continetti
“ COMMENTARY has long been an unmissable landmark on the American intellectual landscape. These days it shapes debate, propels argument, and explains society with renewed vigor and force. It is one of the small group of essential reads for anybody engaged in politics, Judaism, foreign policy, national manners, and morals. „
David Brooks
“ Anyone looking for a definitive exposition of a significant historical moment—whether UC Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, say, or the battles over "general education" at Harvard—has at his fingertips an inestimable gift: COMMENTARY's archives, which contain countless gems of reporting and analysis. Today's generation of COMMENTARY writers is building an equally invaluable store of knowledge for future researchers and scholars. „
Heather Mac Donald
“ I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P’s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my “idealistic” ’60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life’s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation’s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn’t alone. „
Michael Medved
“ Just as one begins to despair of hearing the strong voice of sanity and courage, leavened with charm and good humor, in our modern polity, COMMENTARY arrives, and once a month one can be reminded that there are indeed some clear-sighted and articulate people who seem actively to enjoy the battle for truth. „
Andrew Roberts
“ Every month in print, and every day online, COMMENTARY somehow manages to pull off a dazzling balancing act: intellectual but unpretentious, serious but never boring, timely but not fleeting. On the leading questions of the day, it offers fresh and unfamiliar insights. And on the emerging questions that will dominate the years to come, it often sees things first and clearest. It is simply indispensable. „
Yuval Levin
“ In a time of passion, COMMENTARY champions reason. Against lies, COMMENTARY speaks for truth. Confronting those who would doom to death the Jewish people, COMMENTARY is a magnificent continuing achievement of American Jewish life. „
David Frum
“ COMMENTARY has become my new go-to website for news analysis because it is measured, substantive, thoughtful, and written for news consumers of all shapes and sizes. When juggling all the issues of the day and thinking them through, I find myself going back to COMMENTARY again and again to see if there’s anything more that can help me add the ingredients needed to finalize an argument. I like the mix of foreign policy and national political news, as well as the discussions about America’s place in the world and what it should be. I’m a print subscriber and a frequent website visitor, and I follow all of the writers on Twitter. Thank you, COMMENTARY, for providing such consistently helpful content. „
Dana Perino
“ There is more commentary in the world than ever before—whether in print, on the air, or on the Internet. But there is still a dearth of serious, informed commentary that reports, analyzes, and argues without ever stooping to name-calling or vitriol. If you further narrow down the segment of the commentariat that looks at the world from a conservative and Jewish perspective—well, you’re left with only one choice. The magazine you are now reading. COMMENTARY has changed over the years—for instance, it now publishes this blog—but one thing that has not changed is its steadfast commitment to providing the best analysis from the most informed writers of the most important ideas in the world, all written in clear prose that appeals to a general audience. There is nothing else like it. Never has been, never will be. „
Max Boot
Never again miss another issue or article. Not a subscriber yet? Join the intellectual club, today.
Unlock the rest of this article and all other COMMENTARY articles, including our entire archive dating back to 1945, and featuring so many classic, epoch-defining articles by some of the very best minds of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Enjoy every new issue—either in print, on our responsive website, or on our beautiful, hand-crafted iPad edition, enriched with multimedia and other web-exclusive content.
Already a subscriber? Sign in to unlock this article.
Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles:
A Phantom Campaign the GOP Needs
Jonathan S. Tobin 2016-04-11
Let’s take House Speaker Paul Ryan at his word that he has no interest in running for president this year, even if a deadlocked Republican convention were to turn to him as a savior this summer. Heck, Ryan didn’t even want to be speaker until pressured into it in the weeks after a conservative revolt forced John Boehner to resign. But though he was a reluctant speaker and has disavowed any idea of parachuting into the presidential race, Ryan is under intense scrutiny because of the way his office has been promoting him and his ideas in a way that is unusual for a Speaker of the House in a presidential election year. In particular, a video depicting him speaking to Congressional interns about his core beliefs has gotten tremendous attention because it seems more like an ad for a presidential candidate than anything else. But if Ryan isn’t running for president, what is he doing?
The answer appears to be one that isn’t any more to the liking of the leading GOP presidential candidates than an announcement of his candidacy. He is clearly seeking to prepare the Republican Party for the aftermath of what might be an electoral debacle this fall by promoting a policy campaign that will keep alive the core ideas of the conservative movement. While Donald Trump and, to a lesser extent, Ted Cruz have pandered to a populist anti-trade and anti-immigrant trend in American politics, Ryan is keeping the flame of the party’s principles burning. That not only provides an interesting counterpoint to what Trump and Cruz are saying but also lays the foundation for rebuilding the GOP in case 2016 turns into a debacle.
Of course, Trump supporters are having none of this. They see Ryan, one of the driving forces behind the push for conservative ideas in Washington during the last generation, as a mere tool of the DC establishment. At best they believe he is seeking to ignore or override their desire to reshape the GOP. At worst, they think he is conducting a shadow campaign that is intended to steal the presidential nomination from the choices endorsed by the voters in Cleveland.
To a certain extent, they have a point. Voters in Republican primaries and caucuses appear to have rejected Ryan’s ideas. Anger about immigration reform, which Ryan favors, helped both Trump and Cruz get a jump in the race. The same is true of opposition to trade bills that Ryan favors. Even if they differ on immigration and trade, Cruz shares much of Ryan’s conservative ideology. Yet the tone of Ryan’s efforts seems a direct contradiction of a lot of what the two leading Republicans candidates have been saying. Ryan’s critique of “identity politics” made in the video particularly hits the mark as a riposte to a GOP campaign that has centered more on anger and resentment of the establishment than anything else. Ryan’s talk about our “common humanity” and the need to bring people together rather than divide them is inspired. But it is also exactly the sort of message that a great many Republican voters have specifically rejected. Indeed, if that were what primary and caucus voters truly wanted, Marco Rubio would be the frontrunner rather than Trump.
From the point of view of those who believe that Republicans need to expand their base rather than merely try harder to get out more of their core voters, Ryan’s efforts are welcome. If, as the New York Times reports, all the videos, social media activity, and speeches are meant to help shape the discussion and supplement the party platform at Cleveland on poverty and economic issues, it will be an effort to provide an alternative to Trump’s talk of a wall for which Mexico will pay.
What that means is that even if Ryan stays out of any possible presidential maneuvering in Cleveland what he’s doing is to begin a war of ideas that will ultimately decide the future of the Republican Party.
To that, Trump supporters will answer that such a war has already begun and someone that opposes much of what Ryan’s optimistic conservatism stand for is on the verge of winning it. They’re right about that. But even if Trump emerges from Cleveland as the GOP standard bearer, that doesn’t end the battle to save conservatism from Trump’s angry populism that is as much if not more of a threat to notions of conservative governance as it is to Obama-style liberalism. In the unlikely event of Trump being elected president, as the leader of House Republicans Ryan would serve as a check on the real estate mogul’s belief in concentrating more power in the presidency that rivals that of Barack Obama.
But in the far more likely scenario in which Trump leads the GOP to defeat, Ryan’s initial efforts to promote a different view of Republicans stands for will be the beginning of an effort to rebuild what may be a shattered party on a basis that are not only more attuned to conservative principles but also more electable in the long run. So perhaps what we’re really talking about is the start of Ryan’s 2020 campaign.
Is it too soon for Republicans to begin preparing for losing in November? Yes, but what Ryan seems to be doing is more than just building for the future. Trump’s divisive and insulting behavior may have won him the devotion of a large fan base, but it is also setting a destructive tone that could ensure the destruction of Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate. The pushback against it needs to be more than Cruz’s talk of a “bloodbath.” An alternative set of ideas — of which Ryan has never been in short supply — is just as necessary.
As for the presidential rumors about Ryan, he should be believed when he says that’s not what he’s aiming for. But should the Cleveland convention become deadlocked with neither Trump nor Cruz being able to secure a majority, there isn’t much doubt a lot of Republicans will look to Ryan as a potential savior of his party. I don’t think it will happen because, in 2016, Ryan would be a rejection of both Trump and Cruz, not a compromise between them. But if the GOP is to have a future as a conservative party of ideas along the lines that Ronald Reagan helped build, then Ryan’s phantom campaign is a vital first step to a recovery that will follow what may be a dismal collapse.
Everyone worth reading avidly reads COMMENTARY. Can you afford not to?
“ In 1975 the Economist said of COMMENTARY: “The world's best magazine?” Take away the question mark and that statement still stands, thirty-eight years later. It's still the magazine America's liberals dread most, and the one America's enemies can't afford to ignore. It's the point of the conservative spear in the never-ending fight against the insanity of the left, whether it's in foreign policy or economic policy, social and cultural issues, or the arts—and no one does a better job standing up for Western culture and America's interests and those of its allies, including Israel. In fact, surviving the next three years—the Obama administration home stretch—and building the foundations for an American resurgence afterward will be impossible without reading COMMENTARY in print and online. „
Arthur Herman
“ There’s an enormous amount of shouting in the wild west of conservative media. That has its place, and is often a sign of the energy on the right. But amidst the cacophony there’s a special need for serious, considered, and compelling argument, presented in the hope of persuading, not just punishing. This is where COMMENTARY has always shined, perhaps more now than ever before. It aims to tackle the best arguments of its intellectual opponents, not just the easiest targets. It’s a journal I’ve read for nearly 30 years and I can’t think of a time when I’ve valued it more. „
Jonah Goldberg
“ For decades, COMMENTARY has opened its pages to the most serious uncompromising defense of the American creed—exemplar of ordered liberty at home, pillar of the free world abroad—in an era when it has been most under attack. From the exceptionally influential manifestoes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick to today's counterattack against the empowered advocates of the entitlement state and of American decline, COMMENTARY remains what it has been for more than a generation: fearless, informative, indispensable. „
Charles Krauthammer
“ COMMENTARY isn’t just an important magazine. It’s an indispensable one. It’s been indispensable for half a century, and it is today. It’s indispensable for understanding the moment we live in, and it’s indispensable for laying out a path forward. The challenges we confront are great, but COMMENTARY is used to facing grave challenges without fearful cowering or wishful thinking. So we need COMMENTARY today as much as we ever have, and we need it to be as strong as it’s ever been. „
William Kristol
“ COMMENTARY’s writing is predictably engaging and edgy, but its content is anything but homogeneous. Center-right perspectives characterize contributions, but not predictably so. Jewish affairs are thematic, but not always. Controversies of the day are the usual subjects, yet offered only with reflection well apart from the frenzied 24/7 news cycle. Intellectual honesty and analytical rigor characterize COMMENTARY and that is why even its political critics concede that they are still enlightened by the very arguments they often oppose. „
Victor Davis Hanson
“ COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it’s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys—the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell—are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about “Moon River” that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts’n’culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I’m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson’s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That’s COMMENTARY for you—provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as “Moon River” teaches us, there’s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can’t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. „
Mark Steyn
“ COMMENTARY has played an invaluable role in American political discourse for decades, offering thoughtful analysis on issues rather than sound bites or bumper stickers. Especially when it comes to U.S. foreign and defense policy, COMMENTARY has time and time again been ahead of the crowd, anticipating trends and developments that others react to only after the fact. I can't imagine not being a COMMENTARY subscriber. „
John Bolton
“ In the midst of today’s political rancor, COMMENTARY Magazine provides a rare venue for thoughtful discussion. COMMENTARY’s talented writers provide insightful analysis of foreign affairs, domestic policy, and the politics of the day. COMMENTARY is a treasure not only for conservatives, but for anyone looking for in-depth exploration of the issues that influence America’s public dialogue and shape the nation’s future. „
Karl Rove
“ It's notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct. They've lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis—and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. „
Elliott Abrams
“ For more than 60 years, COMMENTARY has been a go-to source on matters of the greatest importance to our nation and our civilization. Today, its full-throated defense of the United States and freedom is as eloquent as it was a half-century ago, and no less urgent. Issues of the day will change, news cycles come and go, but COMMENTARY remains an indispensable authority in the battle of ideas that help to shape our world. Its continued success is both an indication, and source, of the country’s intellectual health. „
Donald Rumsfeld
“ COMMENTARY is America's most important monthly journal of ideas, period. For nearly seven decades it has published the best and most exciting writing from the most important thinkers: Saul Bellow and Lionel Trilling; Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Paul Johnson and Ruth Wisse; Cynthia Ozick and—of course—Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. Is there anything remotely like it? No. It is the lamp by which America, and Israel, and the Jewish people, may find their way to safety. I'm proud to be published in its pages. „
Bret Stephens
“ Irving Kristol once called COMMENTARY the most influential magazine in Jewish history. Certainly, no publication had a greater influence on me as I evolved from adolescent reader (arguing over its articles with my father and older brother) into a “frequent contributor” who made it my intellectual home. The magazine did not exploit American freedom to escape from civilizing duty but rather activated the intertwined responsibilities of citizens and members of a group. American Jewry can boast of many contributions to the welfare of this country and the Jewish people, but few as fortifying as COMMENTARY. „
Ruth R. Wisse
“ Edward Shils noted that there are four means of education in the modern world: the classroom, bookstores (especially used-bookstores), the conversation of intelligent friends, and intellectual magazines. For me intellectual magazines were more important than any of the other three, and no magazine among them more so than COMMENTARY. I first happened on COMMENTARY as a student browsing in the University of Chicago Bookstore in 1957. I have not missed an issue since. The magazine spoke to my intellectual interests and passions, and still does. As a reader and as a writer, I should be lost without it. „
Joseph Epstein
“ Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. „
Matthew Continetti
“ COMMENTARY has long been an unmissable landmark on the American intellectual landscape. These days it shapes debate, propels argument, and explains society with renewed vigor and force. It is one of the small group of essential reads for anybody engaged in politics, Judaism, foreign policy, national manners, and morals. „
David Brooks
“ Anyone looking for a definitive exposition of a significant historical moment—whether UC Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, say, or the battles over "general education" at Harvard—has at his fingertips an inestimable gift: COMMENTARY's archives, which contain countless gems of reporting and analysis. Today's generation of COMMENTARY writers is building an equally invaluable store of knowledge for future researchers and scholars. „
Heather Mac Donald
“ I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P’s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my “idealistic” ’60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life’s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation’s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn’t alone. „
Michael Medved
“ Just as one begins to despair of hearing the strong voice of sanity and courage, leavened with charm and good humor, in our modern polity, COMMENTARY arrives, and once a month one can be reminded that there are indeed some clear-sighted and articulate people who seem actively to enjoy the battle for truth. „
Andrew Roberts
“ Every month in print, and every day online, COMMENTARY somehow manages to pull off a dazzling balancing act: intellectual but unpretentious, serious but never boring, timely but not fleeting. On the leading questions of the day, it offers fresh and unfamiliar insights. And on the emerging questions that will dominate the years to come, it often sees things first and clearest. It is simply indispensable. „
Yuval Levin
“ In a time of passion, COMMENTARY champions reason. Against lies, COMMENTARY speaks for truth. Confronting those who would doom to death the Jewish people, COMMENTARY is a magnificent continuing achievement of American Jewish life. „
David Frum
“ COMMENTARY has become my new go-to website for news analysis because it is measured, substantive, thoughtful, and written for news consumers of all shapes and sizes. When juggling all the issues of the day and thinking them through, I find myself going back to COMMENTARY again and again to see if there’s anything more that can help me add the ingredients needed to finalize an argument. I like the mix of foreign policy and national political news, as well as the discussions about America’s place in the world and what it should be. I’m a print subscriber and a frequent website visitor, and I follow all of the writers on Twitter. Thank you, COMMENTARY, for providing such consistently helpful content. „
Dana Perino
“ There is more commentary in the world than ever before—whether in print, on the air, or on the Internet. But there is still a dearth of serious, informed commentary that reports, analyzes, and argues without ever stooping to name-calling or vitriol. If you further narrow down the segment of the commentariat that looks at the world from a conservative and Jewish perspective—well, you’re left with only one choice. The magazine you are now reading. COMMENTARY has changed over the years—for instance, it now publishes this blog—but one thing that has not changed is its steadfast commitment to providing the best analysis from the most informed writers of the most important ideas in the world, all written in clear prose that appeals to a general audience. There is nothing else like it. Never has been, never will be. „
Max Boot
Never again miss another issue or article. Not a subscriber yet? Join the intellectual club, today.
Unlock the rest of this article and all other COMMENTARY articles, including our entire archive dating back to 1945, and featuring so many classic, epoch-defining articles by some of the very best minds of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Enjoy every new issue—either in print, on our responsive website, or on our beautiful, hand-crafted iPad edition, enriched with multimedia and other web-exclusive content.
Already a subscriber? Sign in to unlock this article.
Like us on Facebook to see more of our articles:
Where Israel Bashing Pays Off
Jonathan S. Tobin 2016-04-11
For casual political observers, it may have seemed counter-intuitive. As the campaign for the New York primary heats up, presidential candidates usually go into full pander protocol when it comes to Jewish voters in the only state where this group may actually have a real impact on the outcome. For most of them that usually consists of eating food, paying homage to religion (Ted Cruz went through the motion of trying to learn how to bake matzah) and, of course, reminding voters of their undying friendship for the state of Israel. But Bernie Sanders isn’t reciting the usual script about the Jewish state. After delivering a Middle East policy speech last month that was highly critical of Israel that he chose not to give at the AIPAC conference (the only presidential candidate to avoid their annual event this year) and then making a staggering exaggeration about the 2014 Gaza war that amounted to an accusation of a massive war crime during an interview with the New York Daily News, Sanders walked part of it back but actually doubled down on the underlying attack on Israel during another interview yesterday on CNN’s “State of the Nation.”
Asked by Jake Tapper about his claim that Israel had killed “10,000 innocent civilians” — a number that was five times the inaccurate claims made by Hamas and more than ten times the actual toll of those used as human shields by the Islamist terror group — Sanders admitted the number was inaccurate (something he seemed to want to blame on his interviewer rather than himself) but then insisted that the basic premise of his critique of Israel was correct.
Sanders again said that Israel’s counter-attack on the terrorist group, which was raining down thousands of rockets on Israeli towns and cities and sending killers through tunnels to kidnap and murder, was “disproportionate.” Though he coupled this assertion with a claim of supporting Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself against terror, he failed to explain why a weaker response to an active threat would have either worked or been more appropriate. Instead, he again shifted the conversation from what the Palestinians are doing to what he believes is Israel’s responsibility for the conflict. He said Israel must “treat Palestinians with dignity and respect” and address the poverty in Gaza. His point was that to be really pro-Israel you have to do more than be concerned about the Jewish state’s security.
This is the sort of thinking that is common on the American left, including left-wing Jews, who cling to their preconceptions about Israeli perfidy and ignore the reality of the Middle East. Sanders doesn’t bother to consider that poverty in Gaza is the result of Hamas misrule, especially since Israel withdrew from the strip in 2005. If their poverty is to be blamed on the partial blockade of the area enforced by Israel and Egypt (though Israeli convoys of food and medicine kept flowing into Gaza even while Hamas was firing at Israel), it is because that independent Palestinian state in all but name is a terrorist enclave.
Though he is right to say Palestinians are deserving of respect and dignity, but if they think the lack of a state and the continuing Israeli presence in the West Bank is the problem, then why doesn’t Sanders ponder why they have repeatedly refused Israeli offers of statehood and independence? Even now, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn and speaks (when addressing Palestinians in Arabic as opposed to speaking to Westerners in English) of all of Israel as being “occupied” territory.
Sanders’ distortions about Israel would not have earned him cheers from a pro-Israel audience like that at the AIPAC conference and they aren’t likely to do so from similar Jewish audiences in New York. Why then is Sanders doubling down on a controversial approach to the Middle East just as the largest number of Jewish primary voters are about to have their say about the Democratic race?
The answer isn’t that complicated. Though most politicians believe they must leave no doubts about their pro-Israel bona fides when competing in New York, Sanders seems to understand that a large number of Jewish voters don’t really care about that much about Israel. The idea that Jews are one-issue pro-Israel voters has always been a myth. Most are liberal Democrats who may care about Israel but are more concerned about domestic issues. But among Sanders’ core audience, the alienation from Israel goes much further than that. Their embrace of the J Street-style attack of Israeli policies may show how out of touch they are from what even the center-left in Israel understands to be the reality of the conflict. But it is also a product of distancing from support for Zionism that has far more to do with larger demographic trends that are leading to the disintegration of non-Orthodox Jewry in this country. As Elliot Abrams writes this month in Mosaic Magazine, the drifting apart of Israel and American Jewry is a function of the trends that were illustrated in the 2013 Pew Survey of Jewish Americans more than it is a coherent critique of the policies of the Netanyahu government or shifts in Israeli opinion.
It must be acknowledged that a lot of New York Jews are aware that Sanders’ point of view is wrong and understand that Israel is currently under siege from a wave of bloody Palestinian terrorism that is just one manifestation of the rising tide of global anti-Semitism. Hillary Clinton, who during her eight years representing New York in the U.S. Senate showed herself to be a practiced panderer to pro-Israel sentiments that she dropped while at the State Department, will win some of those votes. But it will not have escaped the notice of many New Yorkers that, though often presented with disclaimers about support for Israel like those put forward by Sanders, his talk of “disproportionate” self-defense and blame on Israel is the sort of distorted point of view about the Middle East that we have come to expect from the Obama administration during the last eight years.
For the base of the Democratic Party, this seeking of “daylight” between the positions of Israel and the United States is popular. Moreover, for young Jews and others who have lost any sense of Jewish peoplehood and who have internalized the distortions about the Middle East conflict that are commonplace in the liberal mainstream media, Sanders’ attacks on Israel resonate. While Clinton and the Republicans seek to show that they are Israel’s friends, Sanders understands a crucial New York voting block wants something different. For the Jewish left, Sanders’ refusal to understand the reality of Palestinian intransigence or to acknowledge the facts about rejected Israeli efforts to make peace isn’t dumb politics. Whether or not, they can help the Vermont senator win New York they believe their views will ultimately prevail among Democrats. It is that possibility, more than the negligible possibility that Sanders will become president that should worry friends of Israel.
Everyone worth reading avidly reads COMMENTARY. Can you afford not to?
“ In 1975 the Economist said of COMMENTARY: “The world's best magazine?” Take away the question mark and that statement still stands, thirty-eight years later. It's still the magazine America's liberals dread most, and the one America's enemies can't afford to ignore. It's the point of the conservative spear in the never-ending fight against the insanity of the left, whether it's in foreign policy or economic policy, social and cultural issues, or the arts—and no one does a better job standing up for Western culture and America's interests and those of its allies, including Israel. In fact, surviving the next three years—the Obama administration home stretch—and building the foundations for an American resurgence afterward will be impossible without reading COMMENTARY in print and online. „
Arthur Herman
“ There’s an enormous amount of shouting in the wild west of conservative media. That has its place, and is often a sign of the energy on the right. But amidst the cacophony there’s a special need for serious, considered, and compelling argument, presented in the hope of persuading, not just punishing. This is where COMMENTARY has always shined, perhaps more now than ever before. It aims to tackle the best arguments of its intellectual opponents, not just the easiest targets. It’s a journal I’ve read for nearly 30 years and I can’t think of a time when I’ve valued it more. „
Jonah Goldberg
“ For decades, COMMENTARY has opened its pages to the most serious uncompromising defense of the American creed—exemplar of ordered liberty at home, pillar of the free world abroad—in an era when it has been most under attack. From the exceptionally influential manifestoes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick to today's counterattack against the empowered advocates of the entitlement state and of American decline, COMMENTARY remains what it has been for more than a generation: fearless, informative, indispensable. „
Charles Krauthammer
“ COMMENTARY isn’t just an important magazine. It’s an indispensable one. It’s been indispensable for half a century, and it is today. It’s indispensable for understanding the moment we live in, and it’s indispensable for laying out a path forward. The challenges we confront are great, but COMMENTARY is used to facing grave challenges without fearful cowering or wishful thinking. So we need COMMENTARY today as much as we ever have, and we need it to be as strong as it’s ever been. „
William Kristol
“ COMMENTARY’s writing is predictably engaging and edgy, but its content is anything but homogeneous. Center-right perspectives characterize contributions, but not predictably so. Jewish affairs are thematic, but not always. Controversies of the day are the usual subjects, yet offered only with reflection well apart from the frenzied 24/7 news cycle. Intellectual honesty and analytical rigor characterize COMMENTARY and that is why even its political critics concede that they are still enlightened by the very arguments they often oppose. „
Victor Davis Hanson
“ COMMENTARY is an indispensable read on the Arab Spring, the Afghan war, the future of American conservatism, and all the other crazy stuff out there. But you already knew that. What I really love about it is that it’s a full-service operation, and its back-of-the-book guys—the fellows who write about music, literature, and all the things that make life worth living as the world goes to hell—are the best in the business. There is an observation in a Terry Teachout piece on the wonderful singer Nancy LaMott about “Moon River” that has stayed with me for almost two decades. I fished it out from the back of my mind to impress a gal at a Goldwater Institute reception only the other day, and it worked a treat. So thank you, COMMENTARY! Likewise, my differences with the arts’n’culture crew unsettle me far more than the geopolitical ones: reasonable people can disagree on how large a nuclear arsenal those wacky mullahs should be permitted to own, but I’m still agog at the great Andrew Ferguson’s mystifying praise for the New York Times obituaries page a couple of issues back. That’s COMMENTARY for you—provocative to the end, on matters large and small. In these turbulent and dismaying times, we can all use a huckleberry friend waiting round the bend, in the mailbox each month and on the computer screen every morning. For any journal of opinion, as “Moon River” teaches us, there’s such a lot of world to see. COMMENTARY sees most of it with piercing clarity: it can’t know all the answers, but it asks all the right questions, and with great farsightedness. It deserves your wholehearted support. „
Mark Steyn
“ COMMENTARY has played an invaluable role in American political discourse for decades, offering thoughtful analysis on issues rather than sound bites or bumper stickers. Especially when it comes to U.S. foreign and defense policy, COMMENTARY has time and time again been ahead of the crowd, anticipating trends and developments that others react to only after the fact. I can't imagine not being a COMMENTARY subscriber. „
John Bolton
“ In the midst of today’s political rancor, COMMENTARY Magazine provides a rare venue for thoughtful discussion. COMMENTARY’s talented writers provide insightful analysis of foreign affairs, domestic policy, and the politics of the day. COMMENTARY is a treasure not only for conservatives, but for anyone looking for in-depth exploration of the issues that influence America’s public dialogue and shape the nation’s future. „
Karl Rove
“ It's notorious, and true, that government officials hardly read anything. Memos, sure; nowadays, emails and tweets as well. But magazines? People barely have time to eat lunch or see their kids, so how can an intellectual monthly affect public affairs? The question is a good one. How did COMMENTARY do it? The answer is that officials, like all citizens following American foreign policy, need a way to understand the world around them. When prevailing theories fail, when conventional wisdom is clearly at variance with what they see before their eyes, the outcome for senators and congressmen and White House officials is what the shrinks call cognitive dissonance. They may say one thing but believe another, or simply be unable to square previous beliefs and policies with the clear effects of U.S. conduct. They've lost the ability to explain the world. And then came COMMENTARY, offering month after month of piercing, bracing analysis—and value judgments of right and wrong, and clear writing about American gains and losses. Here was an insistence on looking reality in the face. Here was plain argument, seeking no quarter intellectually and giving none. And it mattered. It shamed some people, and emboldened others; COMMENTARY demanded that we conform policy to the opportunities and dangers that really faced America. In years of confusion and obfuscation, that striking clarity changed policies, and changed American conduct, because it changed the way we understood the world. „
Elliott Abrams
“ For more than 60 years, COMMENTARY has been a go-to source on matters of the greatest importance to our nation and our civilization. Today, its full-throated defense of the United States and freedom is as eloquent as it was a half-century ago, and no less urgent. Issues of the day will change, news cycles come and go, but COMMENTARY remains an indispensable authority in the battle of ideas that help to shape our world. Its continued success is both an indication, and source, of the country’s intellectual health. „
Donald Rumsfeld
“ COMMENTARY is America's most important monthly journal of ideas, period. For nearly seven decades it has published the best and most exciting writing from the most important thinkers: Saul Bellow and Lionel Trilling; Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Paul Johnson and Ruth Wisse; Cynthia Ozick and—of course—Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. Is there anything remotely like it? No. It is the lamp by which America, and Israel, and the Jewish people, may find their way to safety. I'm proud to be published in its pages. „
Bret Stephens
“ Irving Kristol once called COMMENTARY the most influential magazine in Jewish history. Certainly, no publication had a greater influence on me as I evolved from adolescent reader (arguing over its articles with my father and older brother) into a “frequent contributor” who made it my intellectual home. The magazine did not exploit American freedom to escape from civilizing duty but rather activated the intertwined responsibilities of citizens and members of a group. American Jewry can boast of many contributions to the welfare of this country and the Jewish people, but few as fortifying as COMMENTARY. „
Ruth R. Wisse
“ Edward Shils noted that there are four means of education in the modern world: the classroom, bookstores (especially used-bookstores), the conversation of intelligent friends, and intellectual magazines. For me intellectual magazines were more important than any of the other three, and no magazine among them more so than COMMENTARY. I first happened on COMMENTARY as a student browsing in the University of Chicago Bookstore in 1957. I have not missed an issue since. The magazine spoke to my intellectual interests and passions, and still does. As a reader and as a writer, I should be lost without it. „
Joseph Epstein
“ Why does COMMENTARY matter? Since 1945, no other monthly magazine has so consistently published serious, provocative argument and analysis. No other monthly magazine has viewed America and the world through such a wide angle, encompassing economics, politics, society, culture, religion, and diplomacy. No other monthly magazine has published such a celebrated and wide-ranging list of editors and contributors. Cerebral, critical, and committed, the point of view found in its pages is as unique as it is formidable. And in a world of Iranian nukes, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, American disarmament, bipartisan neo-isolationism, and disintegrating institutions, reading COMMENTARY is more than a pleasure. It is a necessity. „
Matthew Continetti
“ COMMENTARY has long been an unmissable landmark on the American intellectual landscape. These days it shapes debate, propels argument, and explains society with renewed vigor and force. It is one of the small group of essential reads for anybody engaged in politics, Judaism, foreign policy, national manners, and morals. „
David Brooks
“ Anyone looking for a definitive exposition of a significant historical moment—whether UC Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, say, or the battles over "general education" at Harvard—has at his fingertips an inestimable gift: COMMENTARY's archives, which contain countless gems of reporting and analysis. Today's generation of COMMENTARY writers is building an equally invaluable store of knowledge for future researchers and scholars. „
Heather Mac Donald
“ I first subscribed to COMMENTARY in 1973, as a recovering liberal who had invested four years of my young life in writing speeches for a constellation of McGovernite candidates and office-holders. Living in Berkeley at the time, I relished COMMENTARY as a guilty pleasure, feeling grateful that the magazine arrived each month discreetly disguised in a plain, brown wrapper that concealed its suspiciously neo-conservative content. In the militantly leftist community in which I functioned forty years ago, receiving regular monthly installments of the most degrading porn would have produced far less embarrassment than my growing devotion to the persuasive prose of Norman Podhoretz and Co. Yes, my personal journey from left to right-center involved the usual biographical factors, including the three P’s: paychecks, parenthood, and prayer. Paychecks, because they arrived with shocking subtractions in the form of onerous and incomprehensible taxes; parenthood, because responsibility for a new generation forced a longer-term perspective; and prayer, because my own growing Jewish observance led to the conclusion that my “idealistic” ’60s generation, with all its narcissism and preening self-regard, might not provide life’s ultimate answers after all. Fortunately for me, reading COMMENTARY with near-religious regularity helped to organize my onrushing insights and experience into a more coherent world view. In a dark time in our nation’s history, while surviving (temporarily) in the most unhinged corner of the continent, this incomparable publication persuaded me that I wasn’t alone. „
Michael Medved
“ Just as one begins to despair of hearing the strong voice of sanity and courage, leavened with charm and good humor, in our modern polity, COMMENTARY arrives, and once a month one can be reminded that there are indeed some clear-sighted and articulate people who seem actively to enjoy the battle for truth. „
Andrew Roberts
“ Every month in print, and every day online, COMMENTARY somehow manages to pull off a dazzling balancing act: intellectual but unpretentious, serious but never boring, timely but not fleeting. On the leading questions of the day, it offers fresh and unfamiliar insights. And on the emerging questions that will dominate the years to come, it often sees things first and clearest. It is simply indispensable. „
Yuval Levin
“ In a time of passion, COMMENTARY champions reason. Against lies, COMMENTARY speaks for truth. Confronting those who would doom to death the Jewish people, COMMENTARY is a magnificent continuing achievement of American Jewish life. „
David Frum
“ COMMENTARY has become my new go-to website for news analysis because it is measured, substantive, thoughtful, and written for news consumers of all shapes and sizes. When juggling all the issues of the day and thinking them through, I find myself going back to COMMENTARY again and again to see if there’s anything more that can help me add the ingredients needed to finalize an argument. I like the mix of foreign policy and national political news, as well as the discussions about America’s place in the world and what it should be. I’m a print subscriber and a frequent website visitor, and I follow all of the writers on Twitter. Thank you, COMMENTARY, for providing such consistently helpful content. „
Dana Perino
“ There is more commentary in the world than ever before—whether in print, on the air, or on the Internet. But there is still a dearth of serious, informed commentary that reports, analyzes, and argues without ever stooping to name-calling or vitriol. If you further narrow down the segment of the commentariat that looks at the world from a conservative and Jewish perspective—well, you’re left with only one choice. The magazine you are now reading. COMMENTARY has changed over the years—for instance, it now publishes this blog—but one thing that has not changed is its steadfast commitment to providing the best analysis from the most informed writers of the most important ideas in the world, all written in clear prose that appeals to a general audience. There is nothing else like it. Never has been, never will be. „
Max Boot
Never again miss another issue or article. Not a subscriber yet? Join the intellectual club, today.
Unlock the rest of this article and all other COMMENTARY articles, including our entire archive dating back to 1945, and featuring so many classic, epoch-defining articles by some of the very best minds of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Enjoy every new issue—either in print, on our responsive website, or on our beautiful, hand-crafted iPad edition, enriched with multimedia and other web-exclusive content.
Already a subscriber? Sign in to unlock this article.