The Corner

Good Is Bad

Russell Jacoby, a U.C.L.A. historian, has penned a bizarre review of the forthcoming anthology, Why I Turned Right: Leading Baby Boom Conservatives Chronicle Their Political Journeys. This is a Mary Eberstadt edited collection, to which I am a contributor.  (The review is in the current Chronicle of Higher Education, and is subscriber restricted.)  I kid you not: Jacoby’s main complaint is that the book is well written, which supposedly proves that conservatives are superficial.

“Almost without exception,” Jacoby begins, “each essay is lucid and articulate.”  “Would it be possible to assemble a countercollection by leftists that would be equally limpid?”  “Unlikely,” Jacoby answers.  The leftist professorate, he admits, “distrusts clear prose as superficial.  Oddly, English and literature professors led the way….they became convinced that incomprehensibility equals profundity….Compared to that, much conservative writing has a deft, light touch.”  The villain here?  “…conservative think tanks, which encourage readable prose for a reading public.”  Yes, Jacoby admits, “these conservatives are best at puncturing liberal, especially academic, balderdash.”  “On the basis of this volume, conservatives are excellent writers–and facile thinkers.  Perhaps the two go together.”

Jacoby’s review betrays no profundity, lucid or otherwise.  It’s merely an angry litany of what struck Jacoby as the most odious conservative views affirmed by the various authors of Why I Turned Right.  Anyway, snaps Jacoby, today’s conservatives are merely reacting to campus culture, not to the sort of truly serious oppression we found in the old Soviet Union.  (Somehow Jacoby missed the account of my trip to the old Soviet Union.)  And Jacoby complains that the authors of Why I Turned Right have nothing to say about a variety of important issues–like civil rights.  (Guess my discussion of the betrayal of liberal civil rights ideals by the movement for race and gender preferences doesn’t count.)

Panning Why I Turned Right as well written but superficial is a risible excuse for a critique.  These pieces are personal statements, not detailed policy documents or philosophical disquisitions.  If you want something intellectually meatier, take a look at, say, “The Future of History.” (I admit that even this is easier to understand than the nonsense penned by many postmodern English professors.)  But liberal academics don’t bother engaging conservative policy analysis, no matter how serious it is.  Instead, they bridle at the thought that a book by conservatives might actually be read and enjoyed by the general public.

Anyway, what do you say about a review that confirms every stereotype of the crotchety, jealous, humorless, politically correct zealots who run our academy.  Get real, professor Jacoby.  Good writing is not a disqualification.  Has the other side really been reduced to this?  You might have tried graciously conceding that the essays read well, and then moved on to some thoughtful criticism.  This sort of silliness merely shows how completely removed from public discourse our academics actually are.  Remember, these folks are supposed to be teaching America’s children.

So I give you Why I Turned Right: in the words of its bitterest critics, “lucid, articulate…limpid…written with a deft, light touch, [penned by] excellent writers…readable prose for the reading public.”  Note to publisher: first blurb for paperback now available.

Stanley Kurtz — Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Most Popular

Economy & Business

The Swamp: Navarro Nucor Edition

The Wall Street Journal has a story today about the ties between President Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, and the biggest steel company in the U.S. -- Nucor Corp. It is particularly interesting in light of the stiff steel tariffs successfully pushed by Navarro, which he championed ever since he joined the ... Read More


EMPIRICAL   As I can fathom neither endlessness nor the miracle work of deities, I hypothesize, assume, and guess.   The fact that I love you and you love me is all I can prove and proves me. — This poem appears in the April 2 print issue of National Review. Read More

Nancy MacLean Won’t Quit

One of the biggest intellectual jousting matches last year was between Duke history professor Nancy MacLean, who wrote a slimy, dishonest book about Nobel Prize–winning economist James Buchanan and the whole limited-government movement, and the many scholars who blasted holes in it. If it had been a boxing ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Rolling Back Dodd-Frank

The Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would roll back parts of Dodd-Frank. The vote was 67–31, with 17 members of the Democratic caucus breaking party lines. If the legislation passes the House and is signed, it will be the largest change to the controversial financial-reform package since it became law in ... Read More

How Germany Vets Its Refugees

At the height of the influx of refugees into Germany in 2015–17, there was little doubt that mixed among the worthy cases were economic migrants taking advantage of the chaos to seek their fortunes in Europe. Perhaps out of instinctive pro-immigrant sentiment, Germany’s Left obscured the difference. Its ... Read More