The New Republic

While the case Adler makes may be a weak one (I haven't read the article; I don't know), do keep in mind you're probably posting here for the most self-critical publication in the country, and it does happen to be a liberal one.

- rozenson

June 10, 2009 at 4:42pm

James, you're right about the Nation, and by the way good on you for avoiding what must have been an overpowering temptation to list the various connections to the Comintern or Larouche among the staff of the Nation. Your restraint served your argument well. But really, go ahead and identify for us by name the equivalent of James Kirchick on the staff of the Weekly Standard or the National Review. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain away the blistering quantities of hate-filled comments, mail, and peer blog posts that have followed every recent failure by writers at NRO to hew the party line.

While I would not want to go as far as saying that the leftwing opinion press is more self-critical than the rightwing opinion press, a couple of statements are obviously true: 1. The rightwing opinion press is more loyal to the Republican Party than the leftwing opinion press is loyal to the Democratic Party; and 2. The rightwing opinion press tends to see itself more as part of a single team, where loyalty valued as proof of integrity, whereas the leftwing opinion press tends to see itself more as free agents, where originality and skepticism, not loyalty, are valued as proof of integrity. In other words, the Nation might not be a bastion of self-critical diversity, but among the Nation, the New Republic, and, I don't know, Mother Jones there is much more diversity and sniping at one another than there is among the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and Commentary.

These phenomena are the natural result of conservatism having become an ideological movement. The right's groupthink is an inherent result of the nexus of being part of an ideological movement and identifying that movement with the fortunes of a specific political party. The fact that conservatives are by and large also authoritarians to one degree or another helps the team-player thing, and to a certain extent the American right has thus always been more cohesive than the political left. But the main thing is that the right, unique in American politics, sees itself as a single ideological movement, and identifies the Republican Party as the agent of that movement in politics.

- rhubarbs

June 10, 2009 at 4:56pm

Oh good god. What is it with kirchick and The Nation? What a hobby horse. Perhaps if the idee fixed lad read the magazine he would know that contrary to his perception, based primarily on the Christopher Hitchens departure and lord knows what other events created this Moby Dick sized obsession, that the magazine does not allow for a wide range of opinion. The Nation is not a heterodox as tnr for sure, but The Nation is certainly not aligned with either of the political parties - it criticizes Democratic and Republican administrations with equal gusto - though I would say that it has a definite pov. As does tnr, NR, and almost all opinion journals.

As for the loathsome Hitchens, at the time of his departure, the editors did state that they did not ask Hitchens to leave. Of course, who really knows but it appeared to this long time reader that Hitchens chose to leave because of his problems with the magazine's political positions and he was not asked to leave. I distinctly remember an editorial expressing to the reptile good wishes and appreciation for his work at the magazine.

As for the always interesting game of name that kirchick pile, it took three paragraphs before I knew it was kirchick.

- thejauntyboulevardier

June 10, 2009 at 5:01pm

Um...yes.

That's why I read this magazine.

(And why I read National Review purely for amusement, followed by a sad shaking of the head.)

- janus

June 10, 2009 at 5:09pm

What Rozenson said about TNR.

Furthermore, I think it's fair to say that liberalism in its contemporary form contains a strong dose of pragmatism that impels liberals to endorse ideas that work rather than ideas that smack of mere ideological purity. Moreover, liberalism, as I understand it, endorses the idea--which Leon W. recently wrote about in TNR's pages--that people should not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Members of the New Left used to argue that this strain of thought caused people to consider every side of an argument to the point where the result was paralysis and the death of activism. That criticism may be valid, but it has a positive side that encourages continual argumentation and the rejection of hagiographic treatment of liberal leaders. There is no contemporary liberal equivalent of Reagan: not even FDR  qualifies for comparison.

That said, TNR does hold, I imagine, a fairly small share of the liberal universe. This study deserves some follow up in the analysis of other liberal journals. I wonder what Colin Powell would have to say about this.

- propositionjoe

June 10, 2009 at 5:22pm

I'm with you Cookie.  That instant where "Kirchick" popped into the brain didn't occur until he said "The Nation, of all publications....".  Then, like a white-hot 5000 watt spotlight had hit me, I knew of whom I was reading.

There are some very interesting questions raised about conservative and liberal publications.  Rhubarbs, as per usual, has added much of interest to the conversation.

- Brent

June 10, 2009 at 5:29pm

I've never really cared about this particular smear against the so-called liberal media. You bring out your calulators, your political equations, and then start toting up the minutes and the words. Who got more? It's so "objective", right?

Well, that and infantile.

Instead, there two other combat zones I feel are far more important.

1]

The liberal and conservative wingnut syndrome.

Here the consevatives are given a virtual carte blanche by the mainstream media. It is almost impossible for them to be TOO conservatve. Thus we are inundated with reactionary political clodhoppers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage and O'Reilly.

On the left though you almost never have commentators as radically liberal as those on the right are radically conservative. Sure, we get the occasional talking heads from Nation magazine. But almost without exception, the rest of them are straight out of the White House Correspondence Dinner clique.

2]

The "what's the difference?" syndrome.

Here, both liberals and conservatives are well trained to toe the line. They almost never broach the nature of crony capitalism at home or the coldly calculated manner in which the Bilderberg claque steers American foreign policy abroad.

As a consequence, the "Obama is a socialist!!" narrative is actually taken seriously by many American citizens. And wars like Vietnam and Iraq are solidly backed only until the Democrats and the Republicans, the New York Times and the Washington Post begin to grow weary of the incompetents who are waging them from the White House and Congress.

Or is this a narrative only a Commie Fascist would support?

george walton

- iambiguous

June 10, 2009 at 5:36pm

yeesh, try looking up Conservative some time there James. Conservative:   disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Conservatives should have less diversity of opinion, that is why they are conservatives. That is not in itself a bad thing. Think of Orthodox Jews, do they change their minds about their traditions like pretty much ever? Isn't that a reason to be Orthodox? Liberals are more for the fetish of the new or untried, many even take the term Progressive, meaning their ideas are a work in progress towards progress.

- blackton

June 10, 2009 at 6:11pm

Here's a simple measure of how much ideological diversity one finds in The Nation as opposed to TNR:

Whose staffers, writers and editors get invited to appear more often on Olbermann and Maddow?

Case closed.

- timteeter

June 10, 2009 at 6:18pm

Oh, Cookie, er, jaunty, this time you really touched a nerve:

"As for the always interesting game of name that kirchick pile, it took three paragraphs before I knew it was kirchick."

It took me several minutes and re-reads of that sentence before I realized that 'that kirchik pile' meant 'pile-of-s**t,' and not 'hemorrhoid," which didn't make any sense. (Or did it?)

- tomeg

June 10, 2009 at 6:45pm

I actually liked this column and found it thought provoking.  The thought it provoked was that "James Kirchick" is only a few letters away from "James T. Kirk" but still, kudos to Kirchick

- Simon Greenwood

June 10, 2009 at 6:46pm

<<

Here's a simple measure of how much ideological diversity one finds in The Nation as opposed to TNR:

Whose staffers, writers and editors get invited to appear more often on Olbermann and Maddow?

>>

What's the answer? I've never seen Olbermann and Maddow's smirk makes me ill.

- mcorey.geo

June 10, 2009 at 7:32pm

"On the left though you almost never have commentators as radically liberal as those on the right are radically conservative"

Really.  You ever listen to Olberman?

And most of the conservatives you complain about have views no different than mainstrteam conservatives had 20 years ago.

- McDuffy

June 10, 2009 at 9:12pm

On magazines the liberal ones have better debate, but in newspapers it's just sad. I used to read the times everyday but I just can't stand it any more, the way they accept every action from Obama as some kind of predestination.

My favorite is with the unemployment, I remember when the liberal papers cried their eyes out over 5% percent unemployment, now they're acting like Obama's 10 is to simply be expected.

- cthulhu2008

June 10, 2009 at 10:06pm

I think, to be fair, it's not yet Obama's 10%, but it will be in Fall.  The idea that if' he'd just have let everything go into free fall we'd be fine today is really silly.

- ironyroad

June 10, 2009 at 11:41pm

McDuffy - Olbermann is quite liberal, it's true, but honestly, the most far-left things I've seen him devote time to are a passionate (and admirable) defense of gay marriage and a desire to see the blatant criminals of the Bush administration be brought to trial for their crimes.

While you have put me in the mind-boggling position of defending something Mr. Walton has said, the other side of the argument is this:

-Rush Limbaugh has explicitly stated he wants the President of the United States to fail in his attempts to improve the lives of American citizens and resolve the various crises facing our nation.

-Michael Savage has written a book with the self-explanitory title "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder."

-Ann Coulter has written a book about liberals with the only-slightly-less-obvious title "Treason."

-Sean Hannity's last book was "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism," equating his ideological opposition with terrorists, and his major contribution to the 2008 election was a prime-time special claiming that Barack Obama was a) a secret Muslim, in an attempt to

pander to bigoted sentiment and b) trained "for a radical overthrow of the government.”

-Bill O'Reilly, in just his most recent outrage, decried Dr. George Tiller regularly on his show; after Tiller was assassinated, he continued to refer to "Dr. Killer," as if it hadn't occurred to him that perhaps demonizing someone from his bully pulpit might have had something to do with that person being murdered.

And those are just the ones that Walton named. I haven't even gotten into the real crazies, like Glenn Beck the secessionist, and the actual politicians like Rick Perry, also a secessionist, and John Cornyn, who told a federal judge to her face that her family being murdered might be divine payback for her failure to oppose abortion.

For there to be an actual liberal analogue to these people, it would have to be a serious liberal commentator or political figure arguing for the state to seize all industry and eliminate capitalism entirely, or for the establishment of the death camps for conservatives that Glenn Beck hallucinates are being planned, or for an full-on one-world government to rule with an iron fist. Instead, I see liberal commentators arguing for an end to discrimination and in favor of universal healthcare and responsible regulation, with liberal politicians struggling to enact weak legislation to slowly, very slowly, move towards those things.

And if there were mainstream conservatives 20 years ago arguing that the only sane response to Democrats winning elections is to dissolve the union built by Washington and maintained by Lincoln, I'd love to see it.

- janus

June 11, 2009 at 10:34am

My earlier comment was meant to indicate that you a) you don't see a lot of diversity of opinion on Olbermann, with maybe just a smidgin more on Maddow, and among their regular commentators you are far more likely to see folks from The Nation than TNR.  I think that says something.

As regards other comments here, it seems clear to me (a man in his mid-fifties who has been following politics since early adolescence) that the right has become more and more unhinged of late.  If you take out hot button social issues--gay marriage and abortion--it is clear that the right simply has no voice, and in the current atmosphere social issues will not win you an election.  No one takes their fp or economic views seriously.  The wingnuts have been discredited but still control the levers of power in the Republican party and the major organs of opinion on the right.  When a coherent economic philosophy and foreign policy that takes in the reality of international markets and the excesses of greed is finally formulated on the right by someone who is not angry all the time, then conservatism will have a chance at a come back.

In other words, a calm voice that offers an alternative other than "the sky is falling" has a chance. Until then, forget it.

- timteeter

June 11, 2009 at 11:55am