Daniel Larison. I'd rather that he was the "UChicago public intellectual" instead of David Brooks. Also, he's stuck at "The American Spectator" which is kind of like going to Der Stuermer to read good critical inquiry on the Frankfurt School.
As a liberal I will second McDevite - in fact I was going to say the same thing before seeing his comment. Larison's "stop interfering in other countries" conservatism is sadly missing from our national dialogue.
Anonymous; it's not just non-interventionism or isolationism that makes Larison worthwhile, it's the fact that he points out the jibbering madness of American imperial theory as being the geopolitical version of the underpants gnomes. THAT is why he's worthy of a promotion to take over neckless one or neckless two at the NYT.
Drudge.
ReplyDeleteI mean, come on, the poor guy's practically living out of his car. ;-)
Steve Sailer and Clyde Prestowitz
ReplyDeleteDaniel Larison. I'd rather that he was the "UChicago public intellectual" instead of David Brooks. Also, he's stuck at "The American Spectator" which is kind of like going to Der Stuermer to read good critical inquiry on the Frankfurt School.
ReplyDeleteAs a liberal I will second McDevite - in fact I was going to say the same thing before seeing his comment. Larison's "stop interfering in other countries" conservatism is sadly missing from our national dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI also admire Larison. He blogs at The American Conservative not the Spectator.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous; it's not just non-interventionism or isolationism that makes Larison worthwhile, it's the fact that he points out the jibbering madness of American imperial theory as being the geopolitical version of the underpants gnomes. THAT is why he's worthy of a promotion to take over neckless one or neckless two at the NYT.
ReplyDelete