Keeping Up With the Bozells
Added 2021-02-27 01:46:10 +0000 UTCWhat can four generations of men named "L. Brent Bozell" tell us about the trajectory of modern American conservatism? Well, quite a lot.
From the union-busting, ad-man scion (Brent Sr.), to the fiercely brilliant and troubled National Review editor-turned-Catholic zealot (Brent Jr.), to the insipid media watchdog and Trump apologist (Brent III), and finally, to the ball-cap-wearing January 6 capitol siege participant (Brent IV, aka "Zeeker") — the Bozell epic has all the elements of a great family saga: pathos, intrigue, tragedy, farce, decline, and even a bit of redemption.
In classic KYE fashion, we over-prepared and over-imbibed to bring you this story. Please enjoy responsibly!
Further Reading:
Jeet Heer, "Meet the Bozells, America’s First Family of Right-Wing Violence," The Nation, February 22, 2021
Jon Shwarz, "Accused Capitol Rioter Brent Bozell IV Comes from Right-Wing Royalty," The Intercept, February 17, 2021
Timothy Noah, "The Rise and Fall of the L. Brent Bozells," The New Republic, February 19, 2021
Eve Tushnet, "Order, Chaos, Peace," The American Conservative, November 18, 2016
L. Brent Bozell Jr., "Freedom or Virtue?" National Review, Sept 11, 1962
Daniel Kelly, Living on Fire: The Life of L. Brent Bozell Jr., Intercollegiate Studies Institute, January 2014
Further Listening:
"Conservative Intelligentsia with Sam Adler-Bell & Matt Sitman," The Dig, February 18, 2021
Comments
why on earth is it at all surprising that conservatives toggle between domination and retreat? people who want to live the way they do arent being stopped, so someone without either of those impulses is just moving smoothly through the world and doesn't need a political project about it
don't come here
2022-03-29 09:22:47 +0000 UTCAmazing episode - two thoughts: 1) Christopher Buckley provides a useful insight into this. Contrast between him and his cousin seems essential to the differences between Buckleys and Bozells, which are at least as important as the similarities 2) In fairness to LBB3, his father could indulge his principles thanks to money from LBB1 and WFB; LBB3 likely had no such resources on which he could call. Still not an attractive character, but you can see how he got there Thanks - keep up the good work!
Ted Westervelt
2022-01-05 00:29:58 +0000 UTCIn one of their earliest episodes, a two parter about the conservative movement and conservative intelligentsia, they go into WFB pretty deep.
bdyeates
2021-03-29 14:29:50 +0000 UTCThere's a bunch of references to Buckley on this podcast, but I don't think there's ever been an official Buckley-sode. Is that something you guys would consider when you come back?
E J
2021-03-26 09:21:53 +0000 UTCWhat about all that palaver in the late 50s and early 60s about "Moral Fibre' coming out of people like Murrow & the nexus between media and state - exemplified by films like this: https://archive.org/details/Challeng1961_2
David Cox
2021-03-14 18:55:11 +0000 UTCThis is a great question! I think the best way to answer it, or at least the answer I'm most confident in giving, is that modern American conservatism—the postwar movement that starts with National Review, etc in the 1950s—decidedly has leaned more toward "absolute principles." Not all of them, of course. What I mean is that there were explicit debates about what a "Burkean" traditionalism, with its distrust of abstract theorizing and emphasis on historical inheritance and organic development (by their nature "contingent"), could mean in America. In the episode of The Dig we did, this came up in the context of "fusionism," in particular Frank Meyer's critique of traditionalism—that now, when you think what's developed historically is bad (say, the welfare state that had come into being), tradition can no longer be a sure guide. You need principles to decide what in the tradition is good and what in it is bad. There also was the sense that you couldn't use that kind of traditionalism effectively in terms of building a political movement and program—you needed something more positive, arguments you could articulate. This traditionalism doesn't correspond entirely with Oakeshott's views, but for the purposes of this topic they're close enough. Oakeshott said that "man is what he learns to become," and he underscored a kind non-planned historical development of political institutions while excoriating "rationalism." You're right to suggest that his political thought could better accommodate pluralism—he thought a kind of pleasant diversity of human types was a feature of living in a free society.
Know Your Enemy
2021-03-11 06:04:28 +0000 UTCNeed a part 2 on zeeker
Edward Smith
2021-03-08 02:27:23 +0000 UTCWhat a fascinating episode. Matt, you said something towards the end to the affect of how conservatives have difficulty negotiating a middle position between cultural retreat and domination in a plan with such a pluralism of people and beliefs. Has American conservatism always in some sense been reflected through absolute principles, as opposed to a type of Deweyan pragmatism? Whether it's nationalism or social/metaphysical conservatism or free market libertarianism? Has there ever been an American conservative philosophy (or mental gesture) that tolerated "the contingent" or "the relative" to the effect that it could, in theory, philosophically justify itself living with people and beliefs radically different from theirs? Michael Oakeshott's conservatism seems much more able, in theory, to negotiate a pluralistic universe- but has that type of dispositional conservatism ever existed in America?
Jeremy
2021-03-02 15:05:56 +0000 UTCReally interesting. Fascinating, honestly. But I admit to being haunted by the early photo of Bill Buckley and L. Brent Jr., in which Bozell appears to be a particularly malevolent carrot or other root vegetable, while Buckley appears to have one too many hits of scotch. That haunting has yet to go away.
pixlaw
2021-03-01 01:28:08 +0000 UTCThank you, Wes!
Know Your Enemy
2021-02-27 20:55:40 +0000 UTC;)
Know Your Enemy
2021-02-27 20:55:29 +0000 UTCGreat episode! I appreciate the nuanced and empathetic portrayal of Jr. I wonder if Barr was in any way influenced by or associated with Jr. Any possibility of an episode covering the whole Opus Dei/Catholic Information Center/Becket fund/Council for National Policy phenomenon and the multiple overlapping memberships in these organizations, the federalist society, and the Trump administration? These would be enemies well worth knowing better because they ain’t done yet! https://youtu.be/Vlx6gQWfjp0
Randy Weinstein
2021-02-27 11:39:22 +0000 UTCThis was good! As a UD grad, it illuminated a lot of what I observed in some of the student intellectual culture, such as it was (monarchism, Carlism, integralism, etc.), while I was there in the early to mid 90s.
John Presnall
2021-02-27 07:21:23 +0000 UTCI really love everything you guys are doing. I desperately wait for the phone for my nye, you guys kill every time. Sooo much love
Wes Fry
2021-02-27 06:05:19 +0000 UTCThe closing to this episode's description accurately sums up why I joined the KYE patreon: "In classic KYE fashion, we over-prepared and over-imbibed to bring you this story. Please enjoy responsibly!"
William Miner
2021-02-27 02:00:23 +0000 UTC
