"...they do not set the agenda or advance ideas; their role is rather to mediate and to justify, rationalize, and euphemize. They sometimes understand themselves as guiding the debate, but in fact they have a subaltern position. Whatever authority they have comes not from setting the party line, so to speak, but from trying to smooth its rhetorical contours into something more socially acceptable."
Also sounds like a perfect description of David Brooks, Ross Douthat, or Bret Stephens, the "reasonable conservatives" so beloved of the NPR crowd.
Yep. Their job is to whitewash the right's overt racism and make it palatable for suburban Republicans or, as I call them, I-know-he's-an-asshole-but Republicans, who pretend that trump, despite his crude racism, has some redeeming characteristics. Tax cuts, for instance. They're even worse than the overt MAGA cultists because they're smart enough to know better.
I remembered your original piece because I enjoyed the currency exchange metaphor so much. Buckley and Safire were the templates, and the goal was and is to essentially serve as a thesaurus. A light to moderate rewrite of the things that embarrassing, drooling idiots screamed at kkk rallies and in the John Birch Society newsletter to make them acceptable to say with a straight face at a cocktail party in Manhattan.
"The Indian Question". Is it just that I'm a historian or is it common knowledge (at least is some quarters) that the "The Jewish Question" was the bedrock of antisemitic intellectual discourse a century ago -? A famous joke, I think from Vienna in the 1920s- a schoolboy is asked to write an essay on elephants, and he produces one titled "The Elephant and the Jewish Question"
For white evangelicals, at least, I think the major figures are combinations of traditional, organic, and these conjectural intellectuals--they have the historical authority of clergy or prophets, represent politics as part of an apocalyptic struggle, and translate grievances into problems that political organizing will solve.
Dear John, terrific article. I am not sure if you are aware of George Scialabba's work or my work on public intellectuals, but drawing from Scialabba, I prefer to call these mouth pieces for the far right, anti-public intellectuals. They function in the public but wage a war against any notion of the public that supports the common good, among other issues.
They also give credibility and legitimate a kind of neoliberal fascism or gangster capitalism that must be addressed as the underlying system of which they legitimate and and are the vermin that it produces. You might find this take interesting on the monsters that walk among us, humbly sending: https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/09/18/when-monsters-walk-among-us/
Obviously I agree, and it's clearly obvious in the moments of tension. I cannot think of any offhand examples where the intelligentsia has won.
I can't think of a good way to phrase it, but there is something crucial not just in laundering arguments but also demonizing political opponents.
I think the flagship National Review arc gets at it: they took their shot at Trump in 2016 and now bemoan how the left keeps forcing them to vote for Trump. I remember Rich Lowry starting that act on NPR's "Left, Right, and Center" in December 2016.
Rich Lowry loves to dunk on people like Liz Cheney because her stance against Trump led her to lose "relevance." The question is, relevance to what? National Review Cruises and media hits?
I'm going to save this line for future use 💯 "It’s intellectual work that’s actually harder to do in the internet era: When there’s so much hardcore freely available out there, how are you gonna get them to subscribe to Cinemax?"
"...they do not set the agenda or advance ideas; their role is rather to mediate and to justify, rationalize, and euphemize. They sometimes understand themselves as guiding the debate, but in fact they have a subaltern position. Whatever authority they have comes not from setting the party line, so to speak, but from trying to smooth its rhetorical contours into something more socially acceptable."
Also sounds like a perfect description of David Brooks, Ross Douthat, or Bret Stephens, the "reasonable conservatives" so beloved of the NPR crowd.
I've been in the "NPR crowd' for decades and none of those three fatheads is beloved by me.
Yep. Their job is to whitewash the right's overt racism and make it palatable for suburban Republicans or, as I call them, I-know-he's-an-asshole-but Republicans, who pretend that trump, despite his crude racism, has some redeeming characteristics. Tax cuts, for instance. They're even worse than the overt MAGA cultists because they're smart enough to know better.
I remembered your original piece because I enjoyed the currency exchange metaphor so much. Buckley and Safire were the templates, and the goal was and is to essentially serve as a thesaurus. A light to moderate rewrite of the things that embarrassing, drooling idiots screamed at kkk rallies and in the John Birch Society newsletter to make them acceptable to say with a straight face at a cocktail party in Manhattan.
"The Indian Question". Is it just that I'm a historian or is it common knowledge (at least is some quarters) that the "The Jewish Question" was the bedrock of antisemitic intellectual discourse a century ago -? A famous joke, I think from Vienna in the 1920s- a schoolboy is asked to write an essay on elephants, and he produces one titled "The Elephant and the Jewish Question"
For white evangelicals, at least, I think the major figures are combinations of traditional, organic, and these conjectural intellectuals--they have the historical authority of clergy or prophets, represent politics as part of an apocalyptic struggle, and translate grievances into problems that political organizing will solve.
Yeah very interesting.
Dear John, terrific article. I am not sure if you are aware of George Scialabba's work or my work on public intellectuals, but drawing from Scialabba, I prefer to call these mouth pieces for the far right, anti-public intellectuals. They function in the public but wage a war against any notion of the public that supports the common good, among other issues.
They also give credibility and legitimate a kind of neoliberal fascism or gangster capitalism that must be addressed as the underlying system of which they legitimate and and are the vermin that it produces. You might find this take interesting on the monsters that walk among us, humbly sending: https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/09/18/when-monsters-walk-among-us/
All the best,
Henry Giroux
I know George's work of course, I did not know this specific essay, but I like this concept!
Obviously I agree, and it's clearly obvious in the moments of tension. I cannot think of any offhand examples where the intelligentsia has won.
I can't think of a good way to phrase it, but there is something crucial not just in laundering arguments but also demonizing political opponents.
I think the flagship National Review arc gets at it: they took their shot at Trump in 2016 and now bemoan how the left keeps forcing them to vote for Trump. I remember Rich Lowry starting that act on NPR's "Left, Right, and Center" in December 2016.
Ah yes -- and in 2020 Lowry endorsed Trump as "The Only Middle Finger Available/If Trump wins, it will be as a gigantic rude gesture to the cultural Left." https://alicublog.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-state-of-conservative-intellectual.html
Rich Lowry loves to dunk on people like Liz Cheney because her stance against Trump led her to lose "relevance." The question is, relevance to what? National Review Cruises and media hits?
I'm going to save this line for future use 💯 "It’s intellectual work that’s actually harder to do in the internet era: When there’s so much hardcore freely available out there, how are you gonna get them to subscribe to Cinemax?"