This perhaps shouldn’t come as such a surprise, the magazine has recently been dipping its roguish toes in coverage of the Right’s most headline-making figures — Glenn Beck made an appearance a few weeks back, as did the tea partiers. But still, it has to be a sort of triumph on the part of Sarah Palin, (sneering or otherwise, depending on how you feel about the magazine) that her influence is now such she has warranted a near 4,000 word review — penned by Sam Tanenhaus, no less, who is moonlighting from his regular gig at the The New York Times Book Review, so a double whammy of sorts in the ‘liberal media elite’ category.

What does The New Yorker think of Palin’s Going Rogue ? Much like Newsweek (but without the alarming cover) they peg Palin as the modern-day successor to former conservative populists like Barry Goldwater . Unlike Newsweek, the New Yorker thinks that the very fact she is a woman may make her a populist of “historic consequence.”

Populists, from William Jennings Bryan and Huey Long through Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace, have always been divisive and polarizing. Their job is not to win national elections but to carry the torch and inspire the faithful, and this Palin seems poised to do. That she is the first woman to generate populist fervor on such a scale enhances her appeal—and makes her, potentially, a figure of historic consequence.

Didn’t necessary see that one coming did you? The magazine also notes Palin’s “iron grip” on the daily news cycle, and the “a permanent air of improvisation and experiment” that surrounds her career. Furthermore, they suggest that Barack Obama may have something to do with her popularity: “fascination with Palin owes something to the way that her cultish aura mirrors, or refracts, the aura that surrounds Barack Obama, the other political figure who comfortably inhabits the nexus of politics and celebrity” (also, “the only candidates from outside the Lower 48 ever to grace national tickets”).

But what did they think of the actual book? There’s actually precious little critiquing of the tome in the article; much like Palin has used the book’s publication to give her a renewed platform, the magazine has used it as an excuse to talk about her in a larger context. However they did have this to say:

Whenever “Going Rogue,” which Palin wrote with the help of the Christian journalist Lynn Vincent, leaves the subject of family joys (“Every child is created special, with awesome purpose and amazing potential”), the beauties of the Alaska landscape (“Autumn in Alaska shimmers in white and gold”), or the utility of prayer (“As the months went on, Todd’s prayer was answered by an offer for a permanent position with BP”) and turns to politics, it becomes a narrative of almost continual embattlement. It’s the outsider against the insiders, the innocent circled by wolves, whether in the Alaska Republican Party, in the “professional political caste” that stifled and, finally, betrayed her during the 2008 campaign, or in “the liberal media.” In almost every case, Palin’s own part in these conflicts is scrubbed free of complicating detail, lest it add darkening shadows to her pastel self-depiction.

We’ll have to keep an eye on Palin’s Facebook page to see whether the magazine warrants a reverse review.

Who

On a night where the topics of art and technology were supplanted by concerns over current national and world affairs, The Cooper Union university students vacated their lecture hall and left it in the hands of another generation. Although we would have liked to have seen a more significant student turnout, the venue for this conversation was ideal. Like adept professors, Meacham and Tanenhaus covered the historical context for the current state of conservatism, and solicited opinions and observations from the engaged and well-read crowd. As they discussed the future directions of politics, it felt as though the pair was running an advanced level political science class.

Tanenhaus offered significant overviews — and previews of his book — to bring the audience up to speed. While Tanenhaus’ oration tended toward verbosity, it reflected the vast knowledge he has accumulated on subjects like the role of the New Deal in framing modern conservatism.

When Meacham asked him to summarize what it meant to be a conservative today, Tanenhaus explained that conservatism has evolved into a brand of radicalism that calls for a rejection of the liberal policies or norms in place today. It’s that radicalism, he says, that has brought the elderly to more conservative views and rallying cries. Supporters of Glenn Beck and those who align with the teabaggers largely come from older Americans, who have lived through communist scares. Allegations of socialism resonate differently with them.

And conservatives like Sarah Palin, he says, may be able to remind them of an era when family values played a more significant role. Tanenhaus pointed out that while the elderly tend to vote with Medicare and Social Security, two Democratic-led programs, Sen. McCain got that population’s vote in the recent election. It seemed that the audience on hand was similarly conflicted. Though Tanenhaus may not have resolved anyone’s debate, he most certainly sharpened the understanding of their doubts.

What They Said
“This is what conservatism has become: It’s a declaration of cultural warfare.”
- Sam Tanenhaus says that conservatism today has become mostly about undoing a liberal society

“I am a little obsessed with Iran right now because the regime has imprisoned one of our writers since the 21st of June.”
- Jon Meacham reveals he has a personal stake in current world affairs

“I think we’ve actually become a nation that views all of its politics as movements.”
– Sam Tanenhaus is concerned that social movements are too heavily guiding people’s political stances

“I’m just going to say it this way: Sarah Palin.”
– Jon Meacham struggled to come up with the right way to bring up the conservative former Alaskan governor

What We Thought

• There’s no denial that Meacham and Tanenhaus’ prior friendship contributed to this panel. We enjoyed listening to them compliment each other’s arguments and questions, we couldn’t help but wonder if they regularly converse with such compliments and dramatic shows of respect.
• Hearing Meacham begin a sentence with “In 1827 comma” allowed us to knock another item off of our bucket list. As impressive as the retention of information these two men have in their minds are their abilities to recall details and dates off the cuff.
• We particularly liked the way that Tanenhaus made Burkean philosophy understandable by relating it to how President Obama has handled the health care debate. It sent a strong message to the crowd that conservative values can be adopted by pragmatic, even liberal, leaders. It showed how some sound ideas can cross party lines.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like… Obamania
Yes, President Obama has a dynamic personality. Yes, the President is black. Those are undeniable facts that matter to discussions of race in American politics. This event, on the other hand, was specifically supposed to focus on the past, present and future of conservatism in America. Honestly, it would have been better to ask about President Zachary Taylor instead. Seriously, we don’t know a lot about him.

Panel Nerds Etan Bednarsh and Danny Groner are New York-based writers and avid panel-goers. Want them at your panel? Email them here: PanelNerds@mediaite.com

— Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, in discussion with Sam Tanenhaus about his latest book, The Death of Conservatism, on the echo chamber of current Conservative thought, and how it’s totally like being walled off in an overcrowded, disease-ridden plot of land where Germans went on killing sprees and then deported people to concentration camps.

Okay maybe that’s a bit harsh. But still — wow, rather a boneheaded comparison to make. Even worse, not sure if it registered on anyone in the group — Mort Zuckerman? Thoughts? — because no one on set indicated any reaction or made any comment (though music guy Q fired up the music pretty quickly after). Then Sam Tanenhaus said he thought David Brooks was one of the best Conservative thinkers writing today. But it wasn’t enough to get him to the editorship of the National Review, now, was it? Why was that again…? Hmm. An unexpected link here, but not an entirely inappropriate one.

Here’s the video of the full discussion – soundbite at 6:53: