Remembering Norman Mailer: I read almost all of my Norman Mailer in a tremendous gulp from 1987-1989, during my "college" years. I was accused in 1992 of calculating possible "Norman Mailer points" in the prospect of my ass getting kicked by anarchists while wearing a tux outside of Ivana Trump's charity ball in Prague, and it was probably true. It's also true that I haven't read more than a paragraph or two of Stormin' Norman since Charlie Hornberger pointed out to me, in the summer of '93, that the reason I was having such a hard time getting into Of a Fire on the Moon was the same reason I tended to avoid Czech public bathrooms -- it's not so much fun to watch middle-aged drunks masturbate.
That said, Armies of the Night blew my mind and deepened my interest in participatory/observational political journalism; Miami and the Siege of Chicago is essential reading, and for years The Prisoner of Sex was my go-to book to illustrate the value of reading the best possible argument against what you actually believe. (In it, if I recall correctly, he argues passionately and persuasively that actual masturbation is evil, abortion is wrong, and that somehow women have all the power even though he's busy stabbing them or whatnot.) Point was, it was a balls-out defense of the indefensible, and a fine example of skin-in-the-game rhetorical pugilism on a critical topic of the day. When he was working at his best, you had to stand back in awe, regardless of whether you agreed with him. A rare thing, that.
I have no idea how much he worked at his best after 1969, though I nibbled on a couple of worms and never got hooked. And I don't know how the stuff I liked then is holding up now. But I'd bet on it.
While John McCain and Hillary Clinton reignite the 1960s culture wars over the merits of a museum to commemorate Woodstock - the former prisoner of war joked that he was "tied up" at the time - the two are finding agreement on another touchstone of the era's radicalism. [...]
With Republicans no longer preaching suspicion of Washington, a new consensus has emerged, as both parties have come in their ways to stand today for a more robust, aggressive federal government. As a result, Goldwaterism is without a natural home in the two-party system, and there's a little bit of the charismatic crusader for everybody who wants to claim him.