The New Republic

There's probably a good reason why none of TNR's (paid) writers have taken up Alterman, in particular his lambasting the utterly predictable, unimaginative, narrow-minded screeds of the erstwhile owner. Said writers probably agree with Alterman, but, at least in their current employ, are hardly likely to fess up. The silence is deafening.

- robertgorton

July 6, 2007 at 5:53pm

But, since I have only been reading the magazine in, apparently, its waning years, I must admit I sort of like it. I enjoy getting to read both conservative and liberal takes on the same issues at the same time, getting not just a balanced view, but a debated view of the political situation. Even during the magazine's stupid support for the war in Iraq, as an opponent of the war I still found plenty to read on my side of the argument. And, as robertgorton put it, Martin Peretz's "predictable..narrow minded screeds," have always been offset by the professionalism of the rest of the staff's writing, to Mr. Peretz's credit. That said, let's hope this magazine can maintain its legacy of promoting true liberalism in the future.

- fwslusser

July 7, 2007 at 3:44am

Bah. No one has that kind of certainty. No possible government program (or private enterprise, either) can possibly remove all risk from our lives. And if it could, they wouldn't be worth living anyway. If winning is guaranteed, there's no point to playing. Nothing is free, either. (As the reviewer claims health care is in other countries.) It's just a question of when and how and how much. We may pay more than they do, but that was elided in favor of the misleading "free".

- Mabus

July 7, 2007 at 6:16am

Weisleter often runs a review of a book also done in the NYRB, and TNR more than holds its own. It would make a fine literary/cultural magazine if it didn't cover politics. But, of course, it does, and I have cancelled my subscription more than once. Not, in the immortal words of Mitt's Dad, because "I was being brainwashed" -whatever else the readership migh be here, it is not stupid or uninformed- but because I hated being associated with policies on Iraq, in particular, that can only be described as simple-minded. Andrew Sullivan had a certain charm that allowed him to ply you with his rhetoric without insulting your intelligence. With Beinart, not so much. I always saw a rather simple ideology masquerading as something more. We'll see. Peretz, generously, has pointed out that he has always sought out those smarter than he, and in his readership (and I mean you, not I) he has succeeded.

- raycon

July 8, 2007 at 6:28am

Alterman hits from three directions -- (1) substantive positions with which he disagrees, (2) waning influence, and (3) Marty Peretz. On (1), Alterman acknowledges that TNR accommodates a lot of viewpoints, which I think distinguishes it from other political journals. It doesn't spout talking points. It presents arguments, and then argues with itself. It throws a lot against the wall but without hand-wringing. I trust it, because I get the sense that honest (and forceful) debate lives on these pages, more than in those other louder and stupider organs of political orthodoxy. True, TNR has committed legitimate sins: It did not challenge the administration nearly enough Iraq. You could challenge some of the left's arguments as glib without then adopting wholesale the other side's nonsense. In fact, pointing out where both of the loudest voices in the conversation are wrong has been somthing of a TNR specialty. On the other hand, support for the Iraq war came from (I think) the right (as in good) place -- a desire to take national security a lot more seriously than, you could argue, it is by the left generally. TNR just doesn't take the peacenik line. It was right to argue with John Kerry's implicit suggestion that no use of force may proceed without UN approval, for example, and it's right to argue with some of the dominant left-wing narratives about Muslim extremism in the Middle East, e.g., that the answer to the question "why they hate us" has a rational answer. The problem for TNR was that the Iraq war was not really the right stage for that discussion to play itself out. As Barack Obama said when running for Senate (not an exact quote), "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars." TNR's preoccupations led it to support a war that was just dumb, 9/11 having rendered it, along with the rest of the country, incapable of telling the difference. At least it spent a lot of time admitting its mistake. The other legitimate sin Alterman points out, which did not come from a good place, was the McCaughey hit job on "Hillarycare." But that was an isolated incident. TNR's domestic policy positions are as close to old-fashioned New Deal liberalism as you'll find, now loudly, consistently, and smartly (thanks, John Cohn) behind the Social Security Act's unfinished business of universal health care. Chait and Ackerman spend a lot of column inches pointing out the foolishness and blind ideological (and/or downright corrupt) nature of the right's economic orthodoxy. Then there's the disdain, of course, for the right's ugly social attitudes. As for Israel, I'm happy that there's a magazine that is generally liberal and not hostile toward Israel. Even if Alterman's suggestion that TNR has never published a critical word regarding Israel's policies were true, and it's not, you could make the reverse argument about Alterman's The Nation. Anyway, the left's sometimes ugly turn against Israel is legitimately distressing. I share the Peretz-Dershowitz view that Israel is in some quarters subject to a double-standard -- singled out for unfair criticism by those who basically wouldn't mind if the Jewish homeland were handed over to Arab Muslims, whose political disputes focus, as Jon Stewart put it, on whether they hate the Jews or *really* hate the Jews. Being somewhat emotional on the topic is understandable. As for (2) -- waning influence -- Alterman's suggestion that Talking Points Memo is more influential and that the blogosphere is suspicious of TNR may be right, but would he have TNR sink to their childish level? And (3): I disagree that he's bigoted, and I enjoy his blog. More importantly, he's been running my favorite magazine!

- jhildner

July 8, 2007 at 2:29pm

Alterman's essay, on my reading, pivots not on three points, but on one: TNR's foreign policy perversion of liberalism by cloaking Neo-Conservatism with the mantle of liberalism, especially in its support for the Iraq war and its present Iranian war-orientation, both rooted, argues Alterman, in TNR's stance towards Israel. The fount of all this perversion, for Alterman, is Peretz. ((By the way, I do not think that Alterman makes the same criticism of TNR's take down of Clinton health care, because he assimilates that take down to an overall account of the general eccentricities of TNR under Andrew Sullivan's stint as editor. (And in any event, you make the case for TNR's undisputable present domestic liberalism.)) I am a relative new-comer to TNR, only having begun to read it, as best as I can recall, about 3-3 1/2 years ago and clearly after Iraq turned really bad. And even though I am ardently pro-Israel and in American terms would classify myself as a kind of Hillary Clintonish/Obamaish sort of liberal, I have *some* sympathy for Alterman's main argument and his, to me, subtle and telling observation that "It is a sad but true fact of American political life that liberals rarely exercise so much influence as when they happen to be endorsing conservative causes." From what I know of TNR's position on Iraq back then, I think you give Alterman's criticism of it too short a shrift. Your line of reasoning is: there was good faith in the support for the war; TNR trumped the left by privileging national security and by not following a "peacenik line" and being willing to proceed without U.N. say so (never, by the way, to my understanding, a John Kerry position); TNR along with the "rest of the country" got dazed and confused by 9/11; therefore, its "legitimate sin" is to that extent ameliorated. The problem with this line of reasoning is that TNR's drum beat- like support for the war-"viciously, nastily" supportive, as per Alterman-constituted its then abdication of its journalistic role as a counterweight to power gone terribly amuck. That cannot be absolved or qualified, in my view, by the caveats you lodge against the fullness of its sin. For it was precisely TNR's job as a high order and deeply respected journal of liberal opinion, regardless of its good faith (it obviously was not in any kind of cahoots with the administration) to separate national security from national aberrance, to transcend the stupefaction and confusion wrought by 9/11, and not cheerlead for such a miserably failed policy. As Alterman says, many were the liberals that held firm. Two further comments here: the extent of TNR's error/sin is measurable by the gravity of the foreign policy blunder Iraq constitutes, and constituted right from its inception; and I think Alterman is right to argue that this grievous error is manifest in the fact that what the times needed, among other things, was journalistically responsible and sober second thought, rather than a kind of shrill, enabling callowness that so loudly crowded out dissenting views. As Alterman quotes Tomasky, "Beinart's words of regret read, 'as if he'd spent (the run-up to and the first years of the war) on a mountaintop in Tibet instead of editing an influential magazine and cheering on the administration virtually every step of the way -and accusing war critics, not all of whom (news flash: not even a majority of whom) are anti-imperialist Chomskyites, of 'intellectual incoherence' and 'abject pacifism.' " I do not doubt the good faith of the various mea culpas recently offered. My point is that Alterman's critique of TNR on this score stands unaffected by your argument meant as qualification to it. I cannot comment on Alterman's more underlying thesis that TNR support for Iraq was driven by Peretz's calculation that that war good for Israel. I'm not convinced of that, but nor would I dismiss it out of hand. I simply would need to see that case, or the case against it, made specifically, and based on evidence, possibly including Peretz's and others' own accounts. I am more conflicted by Alterman's argument about TNR's support present day for Israel. I am virtually reflexively sympathetic to that support. But, apart from the odd critical comment by Peretz in The Spine on this or that tittle or jot of Israeli policy, I am struck by what I apprehend is the sheer absence of substantive criticism of Israel, or even substantive debate. If it's there, I've missed it. I am also struck by the sheer animus Peretz in particular levels against the Palestinians and Middle East Arabs generally, seemingly gloating over their tribal barbarism, reporting almost daily on their self-inflicted death counts, virtually unable to accord them humanity, and demonizing them at nearly every turn. I think that Alterman's critical litany of hawkish conservative voices that have graced TNR's pages: "Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Eric Breindel, Jacob Heilbrunn, Charles Murray, Irving Kristol, Ed Luttwak, Michael Ledeen, Ronald Radosh, Robert Kagan, and, of course, Barnes, Krauthammer, and Kaplan" is misconceived, but is his larger implicit point: the absence of equivalently responsible and intelligent voices who argue for a different line of approach on matters Israeli? If they've been there, I've missed them as well. I cannot comment on Alterman's more underlying thesis that TNR's seeming support for the possibility of war with Iran is driven by Peretz's calculation that that is good for Israel. But I am less doubtful of it than I am concerning the case of it in relation TNR's support for the Iraq war. By the way, Can West owns Canada's National Post, started by Conrad Black, which is an excellent newspaper in many respects. But its Neo-Conservative cast is clear and its relentness and total support for Israel and for a specific approach to Israel is of a piece with Peretz's.

- basman

July 8, 2007 at 6:48pm

I am about 2/3ds of the way through Jan Crawford's Greenburg's book Supreme Conflict, which, for a non-specialist type in things SCOTUS such as myself, is a wonderful book. And it gives Clarence Thomas a fair shake too.

- basman

July 8, 2007 at 7:33pm

Alterman notes, in passing, TNR's "...lively web site." Indeed, I have been impressed while following this thread at the level of thought and seriousness evidenced by much of the discussion (to which my opening remarks stand out, by contrast, as somewhat intemperate!) If a magazine gets the readers and commentators it deserves, then TNR is, after all, in good shape.

- robertgorton

July 8, 2007 at 8:08pm

"And finally, on the matter of our public discourse, I mentioned Eric Alterman yesterday, which had the effect of reminding me of the long, critical, sometimes positive but also negative essay on TNR's recent decades he wrote in The American Prospect. He's mentioned on his blog that nobody over at TNR has mentioned the article. So, I'm mentioning it. Anyone want to take it up?"

- jacksondyer

July 9, 2007 at 12:23am

You may be right about some of the things you say. I was focusing on Alterman's baseless charge of racism. I was also put off by his opening sentence of the second paragraph, "My Marty Peretz problem -- and ours..." This is an allusion to the famous essay "My Negro Problem--And Ours" by PODHORETZ, NORMAN in the Feb 1963 issue of Commentary. It wouldn't be that difficult to take the article apart, though, it would be time consuming. Still, perhaps you are right and Marty should address it at some level. I also realize that Alterman has a strong reputation in the popular media, but I have often found his commentary a bit mediocre, though never malicious till now. He also all too often contradicts himself. Take this paragraph from his attack on Peretz and one can find many similar ones: "What's more, during his reign, Peretz has also done lasting damage to the cause of American liberalism. By turning TNR into a kind of ideological police dog, Peretz enjoyed the ability -- at least for a while -- to play a key role in defining the borders of "responsible" liberal discourse, thereby tarring anyone who disagreed as irresponsible or untrustworthy. But he did so on the basis of a politics simultaneously so narrow and idiosyncratic -- in thrall almost entirely to an Israel-centric neoconservatism -- that it's difficult to understand how the magazine's politics might be considered liberal anymore. Ironically Peretz's stance ultimately turned out to be not only out of step with most liberals but also most American Jews, who consistently cling to views far more dovish, both on Israel and on U.S. foreign policy generally, than those espoused in TNR." First he makes a sweeping charge: "What's more, during his reign, Peretz has also done lasting damage to the cause of American liberalism." How does one answer such a charge? But later on he says: "Ironically Peretz's stance ultimately turned out to be not only out of step with most liberals but also most American Jews, who consistently cling to views far more dovish, both on Israel and on U.S. foreign policy generally, than those espoused in TNR." So what kind of lasting damage to liberalism could Peretz have done if his views are out of step with most American Jews? But to go back to the paragraph: Alterman charges that, "By turning TNR into a kind of ideological police dog, Peretz enjoyed the ability -- at least for a while -- to play a key role in defining the borders of "responsible" liberal discourse, thereby tarring anyone who disagreed as irresponsible or untrustworthy." There are no examples just some baseless charge. Then he goes on, "But he did so on the basis of a politics simultaneously so narrow and idiosyncratic -- in thrall almost entirely to an Israel-centric neoconservatism --" So not only is Peretz responsible for ruining liberalism he did so on the behest of the that all purpose bogeyman ""Israel centric (Read Judoecentric) neoconservatism.) Alterman has bought in on the antisemitic conspiracy theory of the neocons pro-Israel manipulation of American politics. (How else can one read this abominable paragraph?) Now that he has set the stage Alterman's demonization knows no bounds: "It is a sad but true fact of American political life that liberals rarely exercise so much influence as when they happen to be endorsing conservative causes, and this temptation has proven consistently irresistible to Peretz and his magazine. TNR under Peretz has been a vehicle that proved extremely helpful to Ronald Reagan's wars in Central America and George Bush's war in Iraq. It provided seminal service to Newt Gingrich's and William Kristol's efforts to kill the Clinton plan for universal health care and offered intellectual legitimacy to Charles Murray's efforts to portray black people as intellectually inferior to whites. As for liberal causes, however

- jacksondyer

July 9, 2007 at 12:24am

I just read your long post and you sure did put a lot out there. Two quick comments, First Alterman's charge that "Peretz has also done lasting damage to the cause of American liberalism" seems bizarre to say the least. If American liberalism is so brittle that one editor can do lasting damage to it then it wasn't worth much to begin with. Needless to say I don't believe that it is that brittle or that any lasting damage was done. Besides the idea that any single article in any magazine much less TNR has derailed some proposed government program is laughable. My second point is that Alterman seems to speak in generalities. He uses phrases like "support for the war" or opposition to the war as if there were nothing in between. One could have supported taking out Saddam without endorsing the hopeless project of democratizing Iraq. Still, the neo-conservative project of spreading democracy is not a right wing conservative project and Alterman seems to hate it precisely because he can't just attack it as conservative or endorse it as liberal. To him one must be either all conservative or all liberal and he seems to hate Peretz because he can't be easily classified. In this sense it is Alterman's search for purity in politics which is the real concern of his article. One of the reasons I despise The Nation is that it does present itself as pure. It is strange to read an accusation by a Nation writer that TNR doesn't publish enough contrary points of view in its pages. How many articles have been published in The Nation which contradicts its editorial stance from a conservative point of view? How many pro-Israel articles have appeared there? I also think that Alterman gets Peretz wrong on Israel. Peretz does not seem to support any single party or point of view in that country. Unlike say Commentary or The Nation or Tikkun all of whom seem to support certain political agendas in Israel be it of the right or the left, TNR and Peretz are more concerned that the debate about Israeli politics conducted here be fair to all sides. Peretz is above all concerned with criticism of Israel which he sees as biased or antisemitic. Here I share his concern. He has otherwise published articles by Israeli writers who are on the right as well as on the left. A more recent example of the latter type of critic would be the left wing Israeli thinker Shlomo Avineri who is to the left of Alterman. He is also a brilliant intellectual well worth reading. No one cannot easily categorize TNR which is the main reason Nathan Alterman is so bothered by it.

- jacksondyer

July 9, 2007 at 12:25am

"No one cannot easily categorize TNR which is the main reason Nathan Alterman is so bothered by it." I should have written Eric Alterman and not Nathan Alterman.

- jacksondyer

July 9, 2007 at 9:51am

I've quickly read what you have written and will respond later, when I have more of a moment. But on a quick read, what you say sounds trenchant.

- basman

July 9, 2007 at 10:07am

TNR's always fresh. Annoying at times but engaging, challenging, free of cant.

- teplukhin2you

July 11, 2007 at 12:26am

I guess I wasn't angered by TNR's initial support of the Iraq war (or its endorsement of Joe Lieberman!) -- I never considered for a second cancelling my subscription, for example -- because I viewed these episodes, on the whole, as fair argument. I thought TNR was wrong, but I didn't think it was cheap. I didn't think it "demonized" Iraq war critics nearly to the extent Alterman suggests it did. It was making a point in good faith, as you suggest. The same couldn't be said, I think, about the administration's presentation. That difference is important to me. You say that TNR was obviously not in cahoots with the administration. But much, perhaps most, political commentary is in fact in cahoots with someone. That's the idea of talking points. Elsewhere, it's about pushing a party line. Not so at TNR. TNR calls it as it sees it, often deliberately attacking a party line -- either one. If that doesn't fit Alterman's definition of liberalism, then so be it. It's a mistake to call TNR supportive of the neo-cons. Neo-cons are a weird bunch: Once enthralled with the left, they become disillusioned and go all the way to the other side. This shift tells us something about them: It's all or nothing. They can't sleep at night without a comprehenisve ideology. They're religious that way. This is the opposite of TNR. The neo-cons have more in common with Marxists than with TNR. It's not "neo-con" to be something of a hard-ass on foreign policy or support Israel. (Is Hillary Clinton a neo-con? Is Barack Obama, who once suggested that it might be necessary to bomb Iran, a neo-con? Is Bob Baer, the CIA spy played by George Clooney in Syriana who told Bill Maher, referring to Iran, that we invaded the wrong country, a neo-con? No.) You might be able to tell, given my examples, that I'm a little afraid of an "Iraq Syndrome" when it comes to Iran. The major sin for me was that we totally misidentified our enemy. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be assholes when it comes to our real enemies! Mind you, I'm not saying we should invade Iran. Just that Iran is a legitimate serious effing concern -- the argument you will hear at TNR, not at The Nation, coupled with a multiplicity of arguments about what to do about it. Our greatest leaders -- Lincoln and FDR -- were the ones who saved the American experiment when it faced serious existential threats. What they had in common was, on the one hand, a firm loyalty to that experiment and its principles, and, on the other hand, ideological agility. They were pragmatists, and they weren't afraid to fight. My liberalism is the liberalism of FDR, who gave us the New Deal, but also wanted us to enter the war that ended up saving the world. My liberalism is that of JFK, who wanted civil rights and also took the Soviet threat seriously. These were people who thought the American way was right and dared to imagine that it might win over the world. After the Vietnam spiral -- what became the tragic obsession of the man who declared war on poverty, and legal racism too -- liberalism gradually urged retreat and isolationism. We lost our confidence that when we threw our weight around, we were ever justfied in doing it. I remember vividly in school debates about Bosnia and Kosovo where the liberals ardently urged that we mind our own business. 9/11 changed that to a large extent, but Bush's incompetent response, like LBJ's, has for many squandered American conifdence in itself once again and has certainly squandered that deep well of *willingness to like us* that exists around the world. I think Barack Obama is right: the world doesn't hate America; they're *disappointed* in us, as well they should be, because we've botched the job. But they still want us to do the job. They just want us to do it right. We maintain our leadership by showing it's justified, by doing the job right. Still, too many at The Nation are afflicted by the suspicion that it's not our job to do. The Nation may regard my attitude as a neo-con attitude. I don't think it is. Rather, I think it's the attitude that exemplifies the best in liberalism and the attitude that has largely defined TNR. It's old-fashioned and maybe a bit ornery, but I'm glad that there's a publication that's still pushing it.

- jhildner

July 12, 2007 at 2:54am