My book got a brief notice in (as it happens) the “Briefly Noted” section of First Things (scroll down the page). It’s basically a zippy little precis by a very recent Princeton graduate they have now, Stefan McDaniel. To cut a precis down to a blurb, Mr. McD tells his readers that:
“James Kalb’s new book is distinguished by remarkable comprehensiveness and a refreshing freedom from rancor. It is an excellent resource to those new to this debate, and those steeped in it will commend Kalb’s clarity and may even find something to learn from or profitably argue with.”
He notes that my “description of … blind alleys … is likely to attract the most opposition from otherwise friendly readers”—not surprisingly, since the “blind alleys” include tendencies many would identify with First Things. And that makes their decision to run a favorable notice liberal in a sense I could hardly find fault with.
Blind Alleys, New Oxford Review and First Things
Hello Mr. Kalb,
I’m relatively new to the US Catholic scene, so please excuse my ignorance. I’ve recently subscribed (and purchased back issues) of First Things and the New Oxford Review.
The NOR seems to be rather antagonistic to FT… but they are both suppose to be within the “conservative” universe… As somebody who lives and breaths Catholicism in the US, could you clarify what the distinction is between the two? I find it a bit strange that journals that purport to be orthodox in their Catholicism should be at each other’s throat.
I ask only because you stated: “He notes that my “description of … blind alleys … is likely to attract the most opposition from otherwise friendly readers”—not surprisingly, since the “blind alleys” include tendencies many would identify with First Things.” … and I’m not sure how to understand this.
I’m no expert on what who thinks of who
Also, I don’t really live and breath U.S. Catholicism, I’m just a guy who converted 5 or 6 years ago and has a few random connections, but anyway: some people, including I think Oxford Review, think of First Things as “neoconservative,” which in this setting means overly inclined to tailor Catholicism to fit a conservative version of American liberalism. I suppose FT might consider OR to be a bit crankish, provincial, sectarian, and out of touch with the needs of the times and the positive aspects and indeed lessons for all humanity offered by the American experience. (I should add that FT is not officially Catholic, so its basic standard is presumably something like “public life” rather than “Catholic truth.”)
Neoconservative vs. Paleoconservative
Thank you all for the clarification. A technical qustion: does that make The New Oxford Review a paleoconservative magazine?
I don’t think so
“Paleoconservatism” is a specifically political movement, and NOR isn’t specifically political. (Unlike FT, which also has a background of conflict with the people who put out the main paleoconservative magazine, Chronicles.)
Just War at FT
FT found someone (George Weigel?) to redefine Just War to make it fit the Iraq War, because the Pope had said it wasn’t a Just War. Now you might have thought that the Pope was right, or that he was wrong, but it’s pretty cheeky to redefine Just War doctrine to make the Pope look out of step with Catholic doctrine. (This is how I remember it.)