SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home And Now, From The Peanut Gallery

THE PLANK JANUARY 29, 2008

And Now, From The Peanut Gallery

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Both Matthew Yglesias and The Nation's Ari Berman are appalled at two of the endorsements contained in our "TNR Primary;" those of liberal intellectual Paul Berman and law professor Alan Dershowitz, both of whom endorsed Hillary Clinton. To Berman, the mere fact that these two have endorsed Clinton is enough to render her campaign noxious; "Need I say more?" he asks. Berman attacks Dershowitz for "devot[ing] his life in recent years to discrediting the careers and reputations of critics of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, slavishly defending Israel against any and all comers, no matter the validity of their point," linking to a defense of Norman Finkelstein (read Dershowitz's take on this drama in TNR here). If this is the best Berman can do, he ought to elucide what "scholarship" of Finkelstein's be believes to be "valid."

He then sneers at Paul Berman for writing that "I think it wouldn't do [Hillary] any harm to acknowledge that, now and then, John McCain has been right." What, exactly, is wrong about acknowledging that John McCain, "now and then," is right? Outside the echo chamber that is The Nation, what liberals cannot at least acknowledge the huge political risks John McCain has taken on issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming to work with Democrats? Berman concludes that these men's "words aren't likely to boost Clinton's standing in progressive political circles." Heaven forbid if Hillary Clinton loses the vote of Nation subscribers, most of whom were probably planning on writing in Norman Thomas.  

Yglesias, as per usual, doesn't have anything to offer other than snide remarks, referring to "Paul 'al-Qaeda is totalitarian so we should fight it by invading Iraq' Berman" and "Alan 'everyone who disagrees with me is an anti-Semite' Dershowitz." These penetrating insights from the namesake of the laughably titled, "Yglesias Award," bestowed upon individuals "who actually criticize their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe." This is actually a fitting descriptor for men like John McCain, Paul Berman and Alan Dershowitz.

--James Kirchick

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

18 comments

Michelle, Chris, Jason,

I'm really shocked that you would write something like this. It smacks of a defensive, chip-on-shoulder, single-issue, obsessive mentality.

Oh, my bad. Now that I've read it all the way through, I can see from the byline that, in fact, James Kirchick wrote it. I never would have guessed.

- huntlib

January 29, 2008 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the department of it-takes-one-to-know-one:

"Yglesias, as per usual, doesn't have anything to offer other than snide remarks..."

- adamvaught

January 29, 2008 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now on Dershowitz I gotta admit I see a point -- as I recall he didn't mention Israel in his endorsement, but come on, don't tell me Zbigniew Brzezinski's presence in the Obama foreign policy braintrust isn't a big motivator (I'd argue this is a legit criticism of Obama and part of why I think he's more Carter than JFK, but anyway...)

The criticisms of Berman are way off base (and they can hardly claim surprise -- he's always had foreign policy centrist leanings...)

- Lymon1

January 29, 2008 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kirchick, you need to realized that your posts only make sense to people that share your Peretzian worldview.  To the rest of us it looks like argument by assertion.

We could call it Peretzal Logic.

- ejbenjamin

January 29, 2008 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kirchik, as per usual, doesn't have anything to offer other than snide remarks.

- jobeek2

January 29, 2008 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Elucide"? What, the author's insights are too keen to be contained by the actual English language? "Explain" just didn't do justice to the power of the author's truth, so he had to invent a new word? Come on.

I'm sure the author feels he's doing us a service by reading "The Nation" so we don't have to. But if I don't want to read "The Nation", then I also don't want to read _about_ it here.

In the end, what is this piece other than Kirchick telling us what to think about something another magazine wrote about something in this magazine? It's like, dude, trust your readers a little.

(But does this mean that Kirchick backs Hillary?)

- rhubarbs

January 29, 2008 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yglesias, as per usual, doesn't have anything to offer other than snide remarks."

Kirchick, I would be stunned that you could write this sentence if you hadn't already demonstrated on many occasions a truly bizarre lack of self-awareness. Outside of the Ron Paul article, "snide remarks" are your entire ouvre. Most of the time you don't even bother to present arguments. You just fulminate about how morally repugnant your opponents are. And you yourself certainly aren't above snark, as this post itself illustrates. Didn't it occur to you that this criticism of Yglesias might be, uh, wildly hypocritical?

- Androscoggin

January 29, 2008 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, I know I shouldn't let Kirchick get to me. I'm a mild mannered guy who enjoys reading a range of opinions, but for some reason Kirchick's posts here drive me to distraction.

- Androscoggin

January 29, 2008 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm also mystified by the shot at Yglesias.  As noted above, Matthew and Mini-Mart have roughly the same style, though I find Yglesias funnier and am more politically in sync with him generally.

- hewstino

January 29, 2008 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can anyone say "knee-jerk"?  Is there a substantive discussion anywhere in these comments?  Oh well, at least this should put the "Jamie is really Marty" rumour to rest.  Or is that Marty's plan?  Diabolical!

- Lymon1

January 29, 2008 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

listen to me, Kirchick. you've gone around the bend. this is absolutley too much. i've appreciated your silly little opinions long enough. The Ron Paul articles were interesting- good work evenl But it wasn't watergate. You get no real credit for it. Some of your writings on Gay Marriage have been thoughtful and have benefited the gernal discussion, but beyond that it's all for not.

I love this magazine, I do. And i swear to god, your blemish won't be enough for me to cancel my subscription. Just the same way I won't cancel the Times because they have Bill "Buffoon" Kristol. But you need to know, you must know: You are The New Republic's Kristol. Peretz can languish in anonymity over at the Spine. He can stay there and talk about anti-semitism until he is blue in the face. That's fine. I don't venture there too often. Either move completely over to Commentary, or Foer needs to send you packing Spine's way.

This is simply enough.

- bendreyfuss

January 29, 2008 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lymon, substantive discussions only occur in response to substantive posts.

- ejbenjamin

January 29, 2008 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anthem for Doomed Youth

And, of course, there was Ted himself. I was a very liberal and politically active teenager, but something always struck me as profoundly wrong with the way people in my state lionized Ted Kennedy. I had a foggy knowledge of Chappaquiddick, but it was enough. The fact that this man was re-elected, time and time again, shocked my faith in America’s system of justice. But more than that, it made me question my own liberal faith. That so many of my fellow liberals would apologize for and explain away a man who - were it not for his privileged station in life - would have served a long jail sentence, seemed to contradict the most fundamental tenets of liberalism, namely, equality before the law and opposition to political power accrued by dynastic lineage.

-- James Kirchick - www.commentarymagazine.com/.../2121

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?  

Only the monstrous anger of the guns.  

Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle  

Can patter out their hasty orisons.

No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;  

Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs, -

The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;  

And bugles calling for them from sad shires.  

What candles may be held to speed them all?  

Not in the hands of boys but in their eyes  

Shall shine the holy glimmers of goodbyes.  

The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;  

Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,  

And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.

-- Wilfred Owen - www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen2.html

"Shill, demented choirs" pretty much describes the rantings of James Kirchick.

- ndmackenzie

January 29, 2008 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

James, the hate is strong in you. Life gets easier as you get older. Before you press enter, pause, chill, reflect stick on a baseball game or something then rewrite the post.

- The Ignorant Populist

January 29, 2008 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Mini-Mart." heh heh.

- adamvaught

January 29, 2008 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lymon, come on, lighten up. I loved the comments here. Mini-me bashing has a long and storied history at TNR.

- blackton

January 29, 2008 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

except that mccain sold out just about everything he believed around the time he started running for president again -- see the R's National convention circa 2004, or his bizarre turn around on jerry falwell. or you could just look at that old TNR cover from after the convention -- the one with mccain's and rudy guiliani's picture on it, with the bold face caption "sellouts."

- jackson5

January 29, 2008 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain isn't trusted by the supply-siders, is hated for his immigration stance and has fliped flopped his way around almost every issue these last two years. As TNR points out from time to time.

He also wants to privitize social security, which is not the smartest vote winning policy at a time when people are looking at their 401Ks (that's the right number, right?) plummet in value.

He's a disastorous candidate and doesn't stand a chance in hell against either McCain or HIllary.

I'll put money on it. Any Republican prepared to put their ill gotten tax cut cash where their mouths are?

- The Ignorant Populist

January 30, 2008 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close