Old Friends

The New York Times often has ideological opponents review political books. It can make for lively criticism, but just as often degenerates into caviling.

For instance, here's Victor Navasky reviewing two books dealing with William F. Buckley. He starts out claiming, as editors of political magazines, they're actually brothers under the skin:

Let me explain: I despised Buckley’s rationalizing role during the McCarthy period, his early and arrogant opposition to integration, his radical conservatism and all the rest, but a part of me identified with his struggles as the proprietor of his little money-losing journal of opinion. (Despite Buckley’s commitment to free enterprise, which would have ordained an early death for National Review, he often excused his annual appeal for support by observing, “You don’t expect the church to make a profit, do you?”)

As the above quote exemplifies, there's little fraternal feeling in the review. Even his parenthetical remark undercuts what little positive he has to say about Buckley.

I wouldn't mind if Navasky had a bigger view of things, but his complaints are generally petty. Perhaps the Times thought they'd get fireworks. Instead they got carping.