Alan Wolfe is a TNR contributing editor and professor of political science at Boston College.
One reason to lament the passing of Irving Kristol is that we will never know what this acerbic and witty critic of the New Left’s most romantic and hare-brained ideas really thought of the even more preposterously absurd thoughts of the contemporary conservatism that Kristol himself did so much to launch. It is all but forgotten, except among those who remember Irving Kristol before the Fox News era, that this quintessential American man of letters defended what he called in his 1972 essay “About Equality” the “middling” nature of bourgeois society. The intelligentsia of those years--a decidedly left-leaning one--simply could not bear how prosaic capitalism had become and had let themselves become attracted to the craziness of the counter-culture, if not outright support for totalitarianism. Kristol may have been an American, but he had a fine sense of the dangers of what the French call resentiment.
What better word could be used to characterize the mad ravings of today’s birthers and tenthers? I only met Kristol a few times, and had far more intellectual exchanges with his wife and son. I never agreed with his political views and found myself continuously disappointed by his preference for ideology over intellectual consistency. But I never had any doubt that he was someone one could always read with profit. He was never--absolutely never--as mean-spirited as his fellow neo-conservative Norman Podhoretz. The gleam of humor I saw in his eyes the few times we met, the same one that is on constant display in the wonderful film Arguing the World, was easily transferred to the page. (The fact that Kristol was even willing to be featured in a film primarily intended for leftist audiences says something about his generosity). He loved literature and it showed. The Public Interest, which he co-founded and co-edited with Daniel Bell, was a breakthrough publication that is sorely missed. A critic of the wayward tendencies of the intellectuals, he was a model intellectual himself.
It is for all these reasons that a life cut short, even at 89, is a cause for remorse. Intellectuals are constantly trying to make sense of the world even as it changes around them. The world that fashioned the ideas of Irving Kristol, one in which the left had grown tired and the right had seen its chance, no longer exists. What a shame he will not be around to watch how Sarah Palin, and her like-minded coterie of paranoiacs, make total fools of themselves in the years ahead.
Print
COMMENTS (5)
classy memorial, however 89 is simply not a life cut short, especially not his since he lived it to its fullest. I don't agree with his politics, and find it hard to believe anyone could ever be dumb enough to be a Trotskyite, yet his having been one at least gave him some humility in regarding the stupidity of others. I also very much like this line of his (from the NYTimes obit) He once said that his career had been “one instance of good luck after another.” This notion of luck is quintessentially American and his awareness of the part it has played in his own life shows just how thorough an American he was.
classy memorial, however 89 is simply not a life cut short, especially not his since he lived it to its fullest. I don't agree with his politics, and find it hard to believe anyone could ever be dumb enough to be a Trotskyite, yet his having been one at least gave him some humility in regarding the stupidity of others. I also very much like this line of his (from the NYTimes obit) He once said that his career had been “one instance of good luck after another.” This notion of luck is quintessentially American and his awareness of the part it has played in his own life shows just how thorough an American he was.
Regarding Irving Kristol's colleagues in the mainstream media who feel none at all, what will be the statute of limitations for remorse? Outside the mainstream media, a question like that would never even come up. Here we feel remorse every day these intellectual hiers of the Fatherland hang on.
And while Irving will not live to see the Palintologists make a complete mockery of conservativism, he did live long enough to see his son set the stage for it. Indeed, as the godfather of one or another dogmatic conservative belch [Didn't he edit "The Whole Truth For Reactionary Dinosaurs"?] he helped pave the way for "model intellectuals" of the neanderthal troglodyte order everywhere.
Now we can onl ... view full comment
Regarding Irving Kristol's colleagues in the mainstream media who feel none at all, what will be the statute of limitations for remorse? Outside the mainstream media, a question like that would never even come up. Here we feel remorse every day these intellectual hiers of the Fatherland hang on.
And while Irving will not live to see the Palintologists make a complete mockery of conservativism, he did live long enough to see his son set the stage for it. Indeed, as the godfather of one or another dogmatic conservative belch [Didn't he edit "The Whole Truth For Reactionary Dinosaurs"?] he helped pave the way for "model intellectuals" of the neanderthal troglodyte order everywhere.
Now we can only ponder how the man who once insisted, "I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory" will approach his mentor on the other side. They will argue about many things, certainly, but I suspect none so fiercely as who will lead the Palintologists in the Stalinist purges of all those reactionaries who still have an ounce of intellectual integrity within them.
gw
I think the phrase is "hare-brained" not "hair-brained."
I think the phrase is "hare-brained" not "hair-brained."
An implication in this very fine post is the difference between father and son as Wolfe sees it.
Palin can be forgivably read as a taliswoman for Bill Kristol. And one might forgivably think there is a veiled comparison between The Public Interest and The Weekly Standard.
I saw, have copy of, Arguing the World; and it is wonderful, as Wolfe notes, though "wonderful" may not be a strong enough adjective. I'd say it's magnificent, a masterpiece, maybe the best documentary I have ever seen. I’d recommend it to anybody. My father’s life, he passed away in the early seventies, in a much more muted and less impactful way followed the broad outlines of the trajectories of these four guys’ live ... view full comment
An implication in this very fine post is the difference between father and son as Wolfe sees it.
Palin can be forgivably read as a taliswoman for Bill Kristol. And one might forgivably think there is a veiled comparison between The Public Interest and The Weekly Standard.
I saw, have copy of, Arguing the World; and it is wonderful, as Wolfe notes, though "wonderful" may not be a strong enough adjective. I'd say it's magnificent, a masterpiece, maybe the best documentary I have ever seen. I’d recommend it to anybody. My father’s life, he passed away in the early seventies, in a much more muted and less impactful way followed the broad outlines of the trajectories of these four guys’ lives, and at times, watching, I was in tears.
I find intensely resonant this observation in the post:
“... that this quintessential American man of letters defended what he called in his 1972 essay “About Equality” the “middling” nature of bourgeois society. The intelligentsia of those years--a decidedly left-leaning one--simply could not bear how prosaic capitalism had become and had let themselves become attracted to the craziness of the counter-culture, if not outright support for totalitarianism. Kristol may have been an American, but he had a fine sense of the dangers of what the French call resentiment....”
p.s.
"..hare·brained (hârbrnd)
adj.
Foolish; flighty: a harebrained scheme.
Usage Note: The first use of harebrained dates to 1548. The spelling hairbrained also has a long history, going back to the 1500s when hair was a variant spelling of hare. The hair variant was preserved in Scotland into the 18th century, and as a result it is impossible to tell exactly when people began writing hairbrained in the belief that the word means "having a hair-sized brain" rather than "with no more sense than a hare." While hairbrained continues to be used and confused, it should be avoided in favor of harebrained which has been established as the correct spelling..."
Thanks for this generous retrospective on Irving Kristol, and I have to agree with the poster who saw Sarah Palin as a cipher for his son.
Alan: it's "ressentiment". Is anyone still fact-checking and proof-reading at TNR?
Thanks for this generous retrospective on Irving Kristol, and I have to agree with the poster who saw Sarah Palin as a cipher for his son.
Alan: it's "ressentiment". Is anyone still fact-checking and proof-reading at TNR?