Liberalism

The Death of Contrarianism

The New Republic returns to its Progressive roots as a cheerleader for state power.

|

In the spring of 2007, two era-defining liberal opinion journalists—up-and-coming self-styled "wonk" Ezra Klein, then just 22 years old, and "neoliberalism" godfather Charles Peters, already on the wrong side of 80—met for a discussion swollen with meaning about a magazine neither worked for, The New Republic.

Klein, then at The American Prospect, a progressive D.C. opinion magazine founded in 1990, wanted Peters, founder (in 1969) of The Washington Monthly, to answer for the way neoliberalism had degenerated into lefty-on-lefty contrarianism. "What has happened, at least to some younger folks like me," Klein said, "is that at times this appears to have become not an honest critique, but a positioning device. The idea that it's not about the quality of the argument, but the display: You show honesty by attacking Democrats, you show independence by attacking liberals. At times I think that has been a damaging impulse on our side."

Peters, already speaking in the past tense about Washington Monthly–style neoliberalism, wanted to make one key difference clear: "We were not Marty Peretz, Peter Beinart, and Michael Kelly."

Those three men were, respectively, the owner of The New Republic (TNR) for most of 1974 to 2011, the editor of TNR from 1999 to 2006, and the (conservative) editor of Progressivism's flagship magazine from 1996 to 1997. Under Peretz's tenure, The New Republic gobbled up a series of bright young journalists first groomed by Peters at The Washington Monthly—Michael Kinsley, Mickey Kaus, Gregg Easterbrook—and launched a series of lefty-infuriating journalistic crusades against Lyndon Johnson's welfare policies and Hillary Clinton's health care reforms, and in favor of the forcible overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The New Republic's full-throated support for the Iraq war (Beinart wrote a rallying cover story that became a book entitled The Good Fight) became the last straw for a new breed of left-of-center commentators who a generation before would have been lining up to work for what was once referred to as "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One." The likes of Ezra Klein mocked TNR's reliable hawkishness as "mercilessly frivolous"; Peretz returned the favor by describing Klein as one of those "cold Jews or almost Jews or non-Jews who cannot stomach Zionism because it is of this world."

The magazine's circulation plummeted an estimated 40 percent during George W. Bush's presidency, triggering a series of staff cuts and ownership shuffles. Its brand of progressive-tweaking contrarianism seemed dangerously out of step with the rising tide of earnest, activist-government Obamaism. Markos Moulitsas, proprietor of the popular liberal netroots site The Daily Kos, spoke for many when he declared in 2006 that "TNR's defection to the Right is now complete."

Well, those days are now gone. In March 2012, Peretz sold the magazine to baby-faced Facebook billionaire and Obama social media guru Chris Hughes. After nearly a year of hiring, expanding, and reorganizing, Hughes (who, like Peretz, gave himself the titular role of "editor in chief") unveiled a redesigned New Republic, featuring on the cover a laughably softball interview that Hughes and TNR Editor Franklin Foer conducted with President Barack Obama. (Sample question: "You spoke last summer about your election potentially breaking the fever of the Republicans. The hope being that, once you were reelected, they would seek to do more than just block your presidency. Do you feel that you've made headway on that?")

The second redesigned issue featured a cover concept as fresh as a Ronnie Ray-gun joke: Against an all-white background a small headline read, "The Republicans: The Party of White People." Another headline tease above the masthead spoke volumes about the magazine's ideological realignment within Washington journalism: "Ezra Klein Cannot Be Stopped."

Peretz reacted by lamenting in The Wall Street Journal that "I don't recognize the magazine I used to own." A liberal blogosphere that was raised on anti-Peretz jokes erupted in collective snickers. ("So admirable of Marty Peretz to help the new TNR win back readers he alienated," came a typical Twitter reaction from Center for American Progress analyst Matt Duss.)

But the truth Peretz alluded to was more interesting than his critics—or probably even Peretz himself—grasped. An entire valuable if flawed era in American journalism and liberalism has indeed come to a close. The reformist urge to cross-examine Democratic policy ideas has fizzled out precisely at the time when those ideas are both ascendant and as questionable as ever. Progressivism has reverted to a form that would have been recognizable to Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann when they founded The New Republic a century ago: an intellectual collaborator in the "responsible" exercise of state power.

In 1909 a 40-year-old journalist and philosophical gadfly named Herbert Croly published a book entitled The Promise of American Life, which championed a strong central government—preferably headed by a charismatic president—to stand along with big labor as a bulwark against capitalism and "extreme individualism." The book caught the eye of charismatic former president Theodore Roosevelt, who expropriated Croly's call for a "new nationalism" in a famous 1910 speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, in which he laid out the philosophy behind what would become his "Bull Moose" run for the White House in 1912.

In one of the most power-aggrandizing passages in the history of American political speechcraft, Roosevelt thundered that "the New Nationalism…is impatient of the utter confusion that results from local legislatures attempting to treat national issues as local issues. It is still more impatient of the impotence which springs from over division of governmental powers, the impotence which makes it possible for local selfishness or for legal cunning, hired by wealthy special interests, to bring national activities to a deadlock. This New Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than in property, just as it demands that the representative body shall represent all the people rather than any one class or section of the people."

(A century and one year later, Barack Obama, who first ran for president as a critic of George W. Bush's abuse of executive power, would trek to Osawatomie "to reaffirm my deep conviction that we're greater together than we are on our own.")

Backed by the family of Willard and Dorothy Whitney Strait, which made its fortune through the Morgan banking interests and Standard Oil, Herbert Croly approached a young T.R. fan named Walter Lippmann about starting a magazine of ideas to champion the New Nationalism. In November 1914, just as World War I was getting under way, The New Republic made its debut, mailing copies to fewer than 1,000 addresses. By the end of the war in 1918, circulation would stand at 40,000, a baseline around which it has been zig-zagging ever since.

Then as now, the magazine represented a marriage between New York literary ambitions and Washington power politics. Judge Learned Hand mingled in its pages with critic Edmund Wilson and economist John Maynard Keynes. Lippmann, on his way to becoming the most popular public policy intellectual in the country, developed into a horse-whisperer for politicians, transferring his fealty from Teddy Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson so quickly and thoroughly that he was already writing speeches for the president by 1916 and working full-time for his war cabinet the following year.

Along with The Nation (founded in 1865), The New Republic helped create the template for the modern magazine of political opinion, a publishing niche reason joined in 1968. Others in the category include the conservative National Review (1955), the left-investigative Mother Jones (1976), and the neoconservative Weekly Standard (1995). Opinion magazines tend to be slim, light on advertisements, heavy on text, and dependent on the largesse of either millionaire owners (as with The New Republic) or nonprofit donors (like reason).

Most of the time, including much of The New Republic's history, these explicitly ideological publications stay reliably tethered to a political faction or set of ideas. That began to change with the arrival of The Washington Monthly.

Charles Peters, a lawyer, Army veteran, and politician, worked for the federal government from 1962 to 1968 as head evaluator of the newly launched Peace Corps. That work seared into Peters an appreciation of the vast gulf between high-minded intentions and the messy realities of government. With The Washington Monthly, Peters would take that critical-thinking ethic and spread it all across the workings of the federal bureaucracy.

"The government's struggle to reform itself has been the continuing political story of the 1970's," Peters co-wrote in the preface to a 1976 collection of Monthly articles, "but often the story has a familiar ending. No sooner has an agency been set up to save the environment, deliver the mails, cure the sick, or discover new sources of energy than it begins to behave like the many other government agencies, which were created years ago in similar bursts of enthusiasm but quickly crossed the threshold into bureaucratic ossification."

The late '60s and early '70s were perhaps the high-water mark for liberal disaffection with Democratic politics, a ferment that produced a creative burst of art, policy, and journalism. The Pentagon Papers, released in 1971, revealed serial Democratic-administration treachery in the escalation of the Vietnam War. David Halberstam's bestselling The Best and the Brightest, released in 1972, eviscerated the very notion of elite, technocratic management. Hollywood was coughing up cynical anti-authoritarian classics like The Conversation and The Candidate. Ralph Nader, Teddy Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter backed industrial deregulation in the name of breaking up government-managed oligopolies. Skepticism was making the world a better place.

The willingness to take on liberal sacred cows proved tonic to a generation of skeptical political journalists, who saw their project as the patriotic elevation of truth above faction. It also led to some unorthodox conclusions about redistribution, religion, and race.

Charles Peters summed up some of these ideas in "A Neoliberal's Manifesto," a 1983 Washington Monthly piece that reads today like a message from a different liberal planet. "We no longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military and big business," he wrote. "Liberalism has become a movement of those who have arrived, who care more about preserving their own gains than about helping those in need."

From a libertarian's perspective, this neoliberalism—much like the Bill Clinton–led "New Democrat" movement it helped inspire—was a mixed bag. Calls for scaling back old-age entitlements and overhauling union-hobbled public schools went hand in hand with support for tough-on-crime policies and the military draft. But as a journalistic and policy-seeking impulse, it was a breath of fresh air that helped bring the Democratic Party, and therefore the country, out of the dead end of trade-union liberalism. It also had a lot more to do with Marty Peretz's New Republic than either Peters or Ezra Klein were ready to admit.

"We were for the Contras in Nicaragua; wary of affirmative action," Peretz recalled in his Wall Street Journal lament. "For military intervention in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur; alarmed about the decline of the family. The New Republic was also an early proponent of gay rights. We were neoliberals."

Peretz took self-critical liberalism so seriously that in 1991 he hired the openly conservative Andrew Sullivan to edit the magazine. Under the leadership of Sullivan and hawkish successor Michael Kelly, the liberal stalwart got heavy into the Clinton-bashing business, most famously in an influential and award- winning 1994 HillaryCare hit piece by the Manhattan Institute's Elizabeth McCaughey titled "No Exit: What The Clinton Plan Will Do for You."

By the time the Iraq war came around, the magazine's by-now institutional contrarianism had combined with Peretz's vociferous Zionism to alienate a generation of progressives. Young lefties were sick of Democrats being apologetic about liberalism and constantly currying favor with Republican hawks and conservative economists. Ezra Klein, then producing op-ed pieces with headlines like "Give Bigger Government a Chance," poured salt on neoliberalism's grave just prior to meeting Charles Peters.

"Neoliberalism is not simply temperamentally unsuited to the times; it is an ideology that failed," Klein wrote. "Substantively, it didn't move the country very far forward at all. Its lasting legacy will be the elevation of counterintuitive argumentation and sardonic detachment in the press corps."

The last remaining trace of neoliberalism's contrarian bent may be a running joke on Twitter about Slate, the publication former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley founded in 1996. The hashtag #slatepitches is tacked onto tweets that are self-consciously counterintuitive purely for the sake of being counterintuitive, such as "The State of the Union is an important and interesting speech" (as Foreign Policy Managing Editor Blake Hounshell wrote in February). In reality, Slate's political and policy coverage these days is about as unpredictable as you'd expect from a publication whose staffers preferred Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a count of 29 to 2.

Some of The New Republic's rapprochement with the left began prior to Chris Hughes' arrival. In 2006 then-new Editor Franklin Foer (who quit in 2010 and was rehired by Hughes last year) made one of his first acts repudiating Elizabeth McCaughey's HillaryCare piece, announcing in an editorial that the magazine's new No. 1 priority would be "to begin [in] the very spot where liberalism left off a decade ago: Guaranteeing every American citizen access to affordable, high-quality medical care."

Soon came another apology, about Iraq: "The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom." By the time newbie Hughes bought the magazine, it had become one of the biggest journalistic cheerleaders for Obama­Care and was regularly churning out the kind of Keynesian economic treatises that made Charles Peters' skin crawl back in the heyday of neoliberalism.

So what can we expect from the new New Republic? Judging from its output since the redesign, this is a magazine that is prepared to spend (and therefore lose) more money than it has in a generation, which is good news for liberal journalists at least. Top-shelf writers Michael Lewis, Walter Kirn, and Michael Kinsley graced the Obama interview issue; Sam Tanenhaus and Julia Ioffe anchored the next.

But the political discussion proceeds as if the failed liberal experiments of the 1960s, '70s, and '80s never happened. "Progressives have achieved the impossible: They balanced California's books," proclaims David Dayen, brazenly ignoring the Golden State's $28 billion wall of debt and estimated $300 billion in unfunded pension liabilities (not to mention the fact that the balanced-budget claim was based on the kind of overly optimistic projections that have long caused eye rolling among Sacramento journalists). Walter Kirn spends thousands of words elegantly describing the nuanced cultural aspects of being a lifelong gun owner, pointing out that much of the anti-gun policy debate is hysterical, but then punts on the policy conclusion: Owners should accept feel-good gun restrictions, Kirn says, in order to look "civilized" and "reasonable" to the rest of the country.

The great irony is that The New Republic is repudiating contrarian neoliberalism precisely when we need it most. Obama proposes in his State of the Union address to jack up the minimum wage to $9 an hour, and instead of surveying the vast skeptical academic literature, or asking (pace Charles Peters) whether such liberal gestures are "more about preserving their own gains than about helping those in need," TNR columnist Timothy Noah declares, "Raise the Minimum Wage! And make it higher than what Obama just proposed." The president announces in the same speech a plan to create universal, federally funded preschool, and instead of reflecting on the well-documented failures of the K–12 system, Jonathan Cohn congratulates the president, because "first somebody has to start the conversation." A more accurate take: First somebody has to ignore the conversation of the previous four decades.

In the spring of 2010, liberal commentators began advancing a meme that the conservative movement's intellectual wing was heading toward "epistemic closure," shutting out any viewpoints that didn't match their skewed version of reality. Paul Krugman and Eric Alterman deploy the term readily to mock the closed-minded groupthink of their opponents. Like a lot of partisan insults, the closure crack contained some truth: Witness the conservative-journalism freakout in February over a group, called "Friends of Hamas," that eventually turned not to exist. But it was also a reminder of the Pendulum Rule of politics: You quickly become that which you criticize.

Somewhere, some day, a left-of-center critique of the Obamaite consensus will emerge, perhaps even one that revives the neoliberal economic ideas currently out of fashion. It's hard to know where the epistemic opening will come from, but we can say for certain where it won't: The New Republic.

NEXT: Pakistani Taliban Pledge to Kill Musharraf if He Returns to Pakistan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Somewhere, some day, a left-of-center critique of the Obamaite consensus will emerge, perhaps even one that revives the neoliberal economic ideas currently out of fashion.

    I don’t think so Matt or at least not until things have turned out really badly, like French Revolution bad. Liberals have gone past the point of no return on this. They have too much of their own personal self worth invested to turn back. This is the wages of the personal is political.

    1. What has struck me over the last decade is how openly statist and socialistic many of the left have become. Something happened to strip off the veneer or to turn things a more radical direction. I’m not sure what it was, but it definitely happened.

      It may very well be the willingness of the right to go down statist, socialist road as well that drives some of this.

      1. i think it’s associated with the “demographic changes ensure we will never lose” mentality that the left has. this has freed them to be more open.

        1. You’d have to be retarded and economically backwards to say “Yayy, having everyone on welfare means we can never lose!”

          Yeah until the damn thing collapses under its own dead weight. Rand gave the metaphor of a big oak tree that had rotted from the inside out, that is exactly what the left has done to the intellectual foundation this country once had. But evil cannot win, and the left will self-destruct, as all light timbers must.

          1. You’d have to be retarded and economically backwards to say “Yayy, having everyone on welfare means we can never lose!”

            or you could just be interested in political power and growing dependency on govt provides power for those doling out the benefits. Yes, the left is both retarded and economically backward, but it does not care about that.

      2. The left became rabid under Bush. At least that’s how I see it. Once they got the leashes of power, they went full crazy.

        Also, their base of power has shifted. It used to be working class (many whites) who were more socially conservative.

        1. Yes. They marinated in their own craziness and then the lid got taken off.

      3. You’ve just become a paranoid libertarian, and see a socialist conspiracy everywhere you look. As your dangerous individualism becomes more fully realized, you stand in more contrast against the collective of both the right and left.

        1. I’ll report to the reeducation center immediately.

      4. The most disturbing part is how they have made a living by division. They don’t even pretend to care about the white working class anymore. Their entire sales pitch consists of providing a way for people to hate and feel superior to the white working class. That is not going to end well. Eventually the white working class is going to coalesce as their own victim group and we are going to end up with real Balkanization.

        1. It’s gotten to the point that any affection I had for this country has diminished to the point that I really don’t care what happens to it. The past few years – Bush II included – of running roughshod over the entire concept of “America” – freedom, individual rights, etc – has changed the character of this nation. These aren’t coming back.

          Not that things have been dandy for the past 50-100 years, but the bones – the very reason for the 1776 Declation – were still there. Now?

          1. Pfft. Pipe down there, Sad Sack.

        2. Eventually?

        3. Eventually the white working class is going to coalesce as their own victim group

          They can and will be bought off. Food stamps, expanded Medicaid, EITC, ObamaCare subsidies, higher minimum wage, blah blah blah.

          Now, when the whole thing takes a dump because there just ain’t any more money, things will be really, really ugly. Who knows who they will direct their anger at when their gov checks dry up and they’ve got nothing else left?

          1. I know. The libertarian menace.

          2. This is why they want them disarmed.

        4. A coalition consisting of disparate factions (their hatred for the ruling class partially binds them) will form cracks eventually. Asians, Latinos, and blacks have little natural attraction to another. Some of them are social conservatives.

          The massive student loans and Obamacare disaster should lead to some soul searching among their ranks.

      5. They used to be very careful to keep a lid on their nuttiness. They kept the moderate liberal mask on very tight for decades.

        I too am disturbed that they tossed aside their masks so casually.

    2. Agree. The irony of the “Fight the Power!” left BECOMING The Establishment? is delicious on one level, but frightening and horrifying in real life.

      And I definitely don’t see it changing or being challenged “from within”. It’s rotten to the core, thus precluding any self correction.

      Hail Ceasar!

      1. The scary part is that the best way to get people to start killing others is to convince them they are victims. The Germans happily killed the Jews because they felt like they were victims of the Jews. The Russian and Chinese Communists killed the upper classes because they felt they were victims of the upper classes.

        American liberals control virtually every institution in America. Yet they still see themselves as victims and as fighting authority. That is scary.

        1. Liberals worship force. Everything they do involves force.

          So when someone opposes liberals using force, the liberals feel that they are victim.

          Recall how liberals despise the notion of self defense and equivocate it to vigilante justice?

          This is because they see the mugger as the victim when some bitter clinger pulls a gun on them.

          1. This is because they see the mugger as the victim when some bitter clinger pulls a gun on them.

            They see the mugger as a poor starving minority (usually) while the bitter clinger who pulled a gun on them is usually a white suburban middle to upper class male. So the mugger is almost always seen as a victim of the EVUL CAPITALIZM and the bitter clinger as some rich white dude jealosly gaurding his “property”.

            They’re icapable of seeing the mugger as an individual who made the decision to try and rob someone and the bitter clinger as being an individual who made the decision to defend themselves.

            1. “icapable”: freaking Apple. Now they’re taking over vocabulary as well.

            2. …from a real conversation I had:

              “Yeah, seriously, if someone mugged me, threatening to injure or kill me for my wallet, and I had a gun handy, I would shoot them. Even if it killed them, and, yes, even if they were 12. Are you seriously telling me that if someone threatened to kill you unless you gave them anything they wanted, you wouldn’t fight back at all?”

              “Well, no, that would be horrible! I couldn’t live with myself. I’d rather they kill me and take my purse than me kill them.”

              “…but…but…this is a person who has decided to threaten you, who might kill you anyway, and who may do it to someone else!”

              “Exactly. Imagine what that person’s life has to be like to drive them to do that!”

              And that’s the mentality you’re fighting against. Welcome to Progressivism.

              1. This is one of the downsides to civilized life, and may yet be its doom. In a harsher world, such fools would die out and leave few if any offspring.

        2. liberalism relies on perceived victimhood for its very survival. It’s one reason the left can never honestly outline a policy position. The ideology plays on the worst of man’s emotions, always trying to convince the masses that any problem they face is someone else’s fault.

      2. Hail Ceasar!

        Napoleon might be more appropriate.

    3. I think it’s already emerging. The gun issue in particular has done much to expose the authoritarian statists on the left, and those of us who believe in natural rights have been quick to notice when some resort to disrespecting the First Amendment, and even openly calling for violating the Fourth, in their desire to repeal the Second. Simply put, these are not who you want to trust with defending any of your rights.

      Much can be said of the defeat of DiFi’s new “assault weapons ban,” the threat of which was what moved me to join the Liberal Gun Club’s forums (and to visit here more often), but I’d say it also means I’m not alone in pushing for new ways of doing things. The old model of a linear ideological spectrum is as simplistic as it is obsolete, and it’s time to challenge establishment-types on all sides.

  2. So if libertarians take the country’s helm, The New Republic will suddenly extol the virtues of personal liberty? Or gradually implode?

  3. “You spoke last summer about your election potentially breaking the fever of the Republicans. The hope being that, once you were reelected, they would seek to do more than just block your presidency. Do you feel that you’ve made headway on that? *SLURP* – *MNUM* – *GLARGH* – *SLURP* – *GAG* – *COUGH* – Mmmmm More – *SLURP*”

    1. *GULP*

  4. Now there is a dude that clearly knows what time it is. Wow.

    http://www.GoinAnon.da.bz

  5. Nice article, baby face! But re the Tannenhaus piece, please explain to me why the Republican Party isn’t the white man’s party. For more on this, go here to my blog, http://avanneman.blogspot.com, and search for “Republican racism”!

    1. The Anal Canal can type.

    2. ALAN VANNEMAN HI MY NAME IS ALAN VANNEMAN I’M HERE EVERYBODY ALAN VANNEMAN ALAN VANNEMAN HIIIIIIIII

    3. Why is race important to you? Projectionist supreme.

      1. You see, in the old days, if a set of opinions was popular among the darker races, that was supposedly proof that it was wrong. That attitude is called “racism.”

        Today, though, progressives have enlightened us, and we know that if a set of opinions is popular among whites, that proves that it is wrong. This attitude is called “anti-racism.”

  6. Finally the left has a media outlet so they can get their message out to the masses… er… wait… wha?

    1. I’m certain it’s not really left, it’s just what worked, what the people want, it’s what comes naturally, people demand it…

  7. I can’t fucking stand the word “wonk.” When did it become common usage, and how can I kill it?

    1. Yes. Use it in what you believe to be its original and correct meaning:

      wonk (n.)
      “overly studious person,” 1954, American English student slang, popularized 1993 during Clinton administration in U.S.; perhaps a shortening of British slang wonky “shaky, unreliable.” Or perhaps a variant of British slang wanker “masturbator.” It was earlier British naval slang for “midshipman” (1929).

      1. So an overly studious, shaky, unreliable, masturbating midshipman?

          1. My British wife uses “wonky” all the time to describe something that is not quite level or appears to be broken.

  8. So, in other words, all of the policies they’re proposing now didn’t work the last twenty times they were tried becuase The Right People(tm) weren’t in charge. And worse still, this same little coterie seems to be metastasizing throughout the legacy media.

    1. Give that man a prize!

  9. my friend’s mother makes $65/hour on the computer. She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her pay was $15949 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read morehttp://jobsathome.co.uk.qr.net/kgzE

  10. Lisa The New Republic: Your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

    Mr. Burns Obama: Ooh, a tough question, but a fair one.

  11. So, it’s turned into just another propaganda rag. Too bad. It would be nice to have thoughtful critique of proposed government policies.

  12. Violet. if you, thought Rachel`s rep0rt is nice, yesterday I bought themselves a Lotus Elan since getting a check for $6499 this-last/month and in excess of ten k lass month. with-out any doubt it’s the nicest-job Ive ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost straight away started to earn over $79 per/hr. I follow the details here,, http://www.fly38.com

  13. The TNR redesign is a train wreck. After the cover shot of the president, interviewed inside by Hughes and editor Franklin Foer, peering at the reader and by implication at his 310 million … subjects like a mildly disapproving uncle (“‘LET ME BE CLEAR…’: The President Is Not Pleased”), the ensuing “busy”, buzzy, bells-and-whistles sardine-can aspect of every squint-requiring page, about the Way We Live Now disposability of whose editorial content the less said the better, was probably a foregone conclusion. Still, even after correcting for nostalgia in recalling the journal’s Stalinoid/Wallaceite flirtations during the New Deal era, and the post-1974 Peretz-era deformations, I can’t help thinking that the shades of Edmund Wilson and Walter Lippmann have as of Winter 2013 taken unto themselves all the world’s post-1859 contra-Darwinian reaction. To say that TNR is, largely thanks to the residual Trillingite humanism of the better back-of-the-book offerings under literary editor Leon Wieseltier, still as an English-faculty adjunct a clear notch above, g-ds help us all, the Goldberg/Lopez/Lowry/Nordlinger-era National Review, and that such among its neoliberal brethren as, e.g., The Atlantic, the NYRoB, the NYTBR and The New Yorker, are themselves long since mired in a like slough of Death-Throes-of-Legacy-Media ossified predictability in both Weltanschauung and regular in-group bylines, really is to damn in praise at its most whisper-soft.

  14. Well I just read TNR’s spew on the making of MSNBC and “Griffin” it’s ideological creator, who according to the spew, just did what worked without any political bias or ideology whatsoever, unlike FoxNews the partisan agenda network for republicans and conservatives.
    That between claiming Griffin might be a democrat no one is really certain, since they just did “what the people wanted” the vast majority no doubt, and soon they will maybe perhaps in 5 years pass up Fox, even if they don’t, it’s great.

    Yeah, the cheer leading was incredible, the lies numerous and obvious and the author pretending obliviousness.

  15. Every once in a while an article, like this one, lets me know I am not nearly enough, nor have I ever been, as intellectual as….I confess that I never understood the nuances and divisions that the author lays out.

    I’ve mostly been taken by the struggles, sometimes bloody, between labor and capitalists, woman’s rights and the struggle of blacks for equality and justice. Those, I have always thought, were the defining causes of my liberalism, and add not so much gay rights as equality and justice for all individuals.

  16. I think the death of contrarianism has been incubating. Baby boomers have been in power for a while now and their kids are grown up. The 60s ideals are status quo.

  17. uptil I saw the paycheck for $8029, I have faith …that…my mom in-law had been realy making money in their spare time on their computer.. there dads buddy has done this for less than 1 year and just now cleared the morgage on there villa and purchased a brand new Lotus Carlton. read more at,
    http://jump30.com

  18. my roomate’s ex-wife makes $74 every hour on the computer. She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $13623 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here http://www.fly38.com

  19. Klein said, “is that at times this appears to have become not an

  20. quality of the argument, but the display: You show honesty by

  21. great post perfectly quality content stick with it

  22. liked your article post really enjoyed studying valuable information

  23. a round of applause for your blog post good luck very nice post

  24. perfectly quality content great articles keep it up

  25. you have mentioned appreciate it for posting i read your blogs daily cool

  26. i’ll reblogged this on special collections keep up the amazing work top post

  27. like this blog thanks again much obliged i certainly love this site

  28. much thanks your have good competence exactly what i was looking for

  29. i certainly love this site where can i find out more? keep up the amazing work

  30. a round of applause for your blog post good luck very nice post

  31. a round of applause for your blog post good luck very nice post, very very informative

  32. I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! keep up the good work

  33. The information you have posted is very useful. The sites you have referred was good. Thanks for sharing…

  34. Nice and intresting lecture thanks

  35. Cerita Sex Dewasa – Ceritanakal.org – Cerita Sex
    Ceritanakal – Kumpulan Cerita Sex Dewasa Tante girang dan anak smp di ngentot serta cerita panas anak sma ngentot dengan pacarnya di sekolah

    Click Link Dibawah!
    http://ceritanakal.org/

  36. Kumpulann Cerita-Cerita Panas Dan Dewasa Terlengkap
    Cerita Seks

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.