I'm having a difficult time reading this article because of the syntax, I think. So many parentheticals, a little subject verb object never hurt anyone.
In this case, the author evidently need not earn his living through the quality of his prose. He would be destitute, otherwise. But Harper's is not what once it was.
I think that you owe it to HN to let us know what authors real, red-blooded working Americans favor.
If you mistake me for saying he shouldn't be read, in saying he lately attracts a regrettable audience which I did not say was exclusive, then you would better spend your time studying his exemplary prose than grinding in my direction whatever axe this is.
About 30 years ago, Cynthia Ozick published an essay on Trollope in the NY Times Book Review. A couple of weeks later, there were annoyed letters to the editor from persons who considered that her essay had the tone of granting permission to read Trollope, as if Trollope-reading had previously been the province of Anglophile snobs.
I offer that as an example of how one may qualify an audience in terms it finds offensive without writing down the author.