The Volokh Conspiracy

[David Bernstein, July 14, 2006 at 12:08pm] Trackbacks

I love the Claremont Review of Books:

I've recommended it before, but I continue to be amazed by the consistently high quality and erudition of the essays in the Claremont Review of Books. If I were to cut down my subscriptions to one journal, this would be it. 'nuff said.

UPDATE: I should point out that the Review is not a libertarian publication, but promotes its own idiosyncratic brand of natural-rights-based conservatism, which is apparent in some, but not all, of the essays it publishes. But I don't have to agree with every essay to appreciate the quality of the writing and editing.

(link)

Anderson (mail) (www):

Self-parody at its finest.

7.14.2006 1:12pm

(link)

David (mail):

I too, love the Claremont Review. However, it is very hard for me to get it here in NY. At one time it was complimentary on the NY-DC shuttle,so I was able to get copies, but no more.

Therefore, I am forced to read it from the web site. I guess I could subscribe, but I get so many publications now I just do not have the time nor the inclination to keep current. In fact, I sometimes feel overwhelmed.

I also find it curious that unlike other publications, Claremont Review of Books, does not publish the email addresses of any of its writers or staff. In fact, neither does its parent, the Claremont Institute.

7.14.2006 1:45pm

(link)

Bob Bobstein (mail):

From the Andrew Busch article at that site:

"Because the policies they offer usually promise concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, it is easier for Democrats to assemble a coalition on the basis of material interest without direct reliance on general principles. In addition, the institutions primarily responsible for interpreting the world and conveying ideas to the public—the educational system, the mass media, and popular culture—advance liberal ideology on the Democrats' behalf."

I don't doubt that the Claremont Review also runs rigorous, carefully factually substantiated analyses of politics, philosophy, and current events. But at a glance, it appears to be the National Review upon stilts.

7.14.2006 1:55pm

(link)

frankcross (mail):

It is, but the stilts are important. There's a huge difference between this and Bill O'Reilly. It's thoughtful stuff even though I typically disagree with at least the political stuff.
I used to subscribe but, like David, couldn't free the time necessary to read it. The best reviews are those that are not immediately politically charged.

7.14.2006 2:44pm

(link)

Mark F. (mail):

Claremont is a great source of neocon foolery.

7.14.2006 3:02pm

(link)

frankcross (mail):

My impression is that Claremont is not even remotely neocon in orientation.

7.14.2006 3:49pm

(link)

therut:

I love this magazine espically the book reviews. I just wish I got one weekly in the mail. Best magazine by a long shot. I don't think it is neo-con. It is conservative in a traditional way at least it seems that way to me. I also find the whole neo-con hysteria really hysterically enjoyable to watch. Amazing how a new boogy man word became mainstream in liberal circles. You would think from reading the lefty bloggs that the left is terrified of the mysterious neo-cons.

7.14.2006 3:54pm

(link)

bigchris1313 (mail):

The best part about the neocon conspiracy is that while they are they not conservative, not new, and not a conspiracy, they're still a buzzword, one I haven't heard nearly as much during Bush's 2nd term.

It's kind of like Scalito. It's new and scary, and then it just kind of fades away when everyone realizes it's hyperbole.

7.14.2006 4:25pm

(link)

Glenn B (mail):

The Claremont Review of Books is published by the Claremont Institute. The Claremont Institute's leading light is Harry Jaffa, commonly acknowledged as leader of the West Coast Straussians. Additionally, the tone of the CRB concerning natural rights and related issues jibes fairly well with Straussian though(e.g. Strauss's Natural Right and History)

Now, it's a ways from this to any manner of actual "conspiracy," but there is a direct intellectual lineage from this to the modern neoconservative tradition.

7.14.2006 5:02pm