Another Look

Spencer Ackerman takes a fresh look at the New Republic/Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. When I read Franklin Foer's fact-check of the story, I remarked that it did not appear to me that the story needed to be retracted at all -- and certainly, nobody had done anything to justify the vitriol that had been heaped upon both writer and magazine by radical right-wing bloggers. Ackerman's piece only verifies that instinct, and it is well worth the read.

Time To Go

I speak as a long-time reader and subscriber to The New Republic. It was the first real political magazine I read. It was highly influential in my intellectual development. I've stood by it when it was under attack.

It is long since past time this magazine fired Jamie Kirchik. He is an embarrassment to the magazine, and to whatever political and social affiliations he identifies with. Show him the door, and don't look back.

The TNR Problem

I'm a proud New Republic subscriber. But I think there is a lot to be said about this profile of TNR by Eric Alterman in the American Prospect. It focuses on Marty Peretz, who is, to be fair, a big problem for the magazine, even if he is out of step with most of the other writers on staff. The piece ends with a quote from a blog commenter: "Peretz is batshit crazy. TNR produces a lot of good stuff. Such are the ironies of life." Fair enough. The vast majority of TNR's output is both very good and very much in line with the prevailing liberal consensus. But there are some very notable exceptions, including much of what Peretz writes and a significant portion of their foreign policy analysis. The latter, however, seems (at least temporarily) suitably chastised by the utter failure of the Iraq War (much as I am). It remains unclear where they will go from there in the mid- to long-term. And as for Peretz--well, I think that TNR's long-term viability is dependent on getting him out of there entirely. His time has passed.

I first found the piece via LGM, and they have chosen to focus on this passage of Alterman's piece:

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 … well, not so much.

Is there something to this? Of course. Anytime a politician, intellectual, or institution steps outside its established narrative boundaries, it's going to receive far more attention than when it toes the line. Chuck Hagel's turn on the Iraq War will invariably garner far more media attention than all of his other mainline conservative positions (which is why he has a primary challenger). It's perhaps lamentable, but then, I don't see how to avoid it in TNR without draining the "electricity" of debates that Alterman admits flows through TNR at its best. Perhaps if the official editorial line was more unabashedly liberal, that could be the compromise we're looking for? In which case, the next few months or years could be crucial--if Franklin Foer, who himself is not detested on the left, can affect such a change, that might be able to revive TNR's liberal standing without sacrificing its unique position as an engagement ground for ideas, rather than a proving ground for ideological purity.

The other thing off this, of course, is that TNR can no longer be contrarian just for the sake of it. I don't think it is unreasonable to pressure liberals on how to incorporate moral and democratic values into their foreign policy (which isn't to say they should win that argument--here is an excellent post by Publius that provides a strong challenge to a "democracy promoting" foreign policy). But I don't think that providing space and cover to "The Bell Curve", or the notion that liberal critics of hawkish foreign policy are unserious kooks is in any way justified by being a magazine of ideas. Sometimes, its important to challenge prevailing liberal orthodoxy. However, there is a fine line between that, and throwing down gauntlets just to prove how "independent" you are. The latter needs to be reined in if the magazine is to be taken seriously.

But if Alterman provides a compelling critique of the sins of the magazine, he also highlights many of its virtues (not just its back page literary reviews, either). Alterman does us all a service when he notes that TNR, even at the moments when many thought the magazine was at its nadir, has continued to make an important and positive contribution to the American political discussion. Neither this, nor its legacy as a flagship publication in American progressive politics, should be forgotten in our haste to condemn it over a misguided foreign policy. I think that TNR has a valuable role to play in the evolving conversation of the 21st century left. It is beyond clear that they have some sins to work out. It is also beyond clear that they contribute a lot of positive work to the body of liberal journalism (how many "hail mary's" are equivalent to the good TNR did getting George Allen's racist past mainstream media attention--and with it, control of the Senate?). Any magazine which provides a consistent outlet for Jonathan Chait, Michelle Cottle, Ryan Lizza, and John Judis has a role to play in my liberal sphere.

Jonathan Stein--of the staunchly liberal Mother Jones, calls the piece a "hit job" (which I think is too harsh, and if Stein is stunned to be defending TNR, I'm shocked that I'm saying MoJo is being too easy on them), and says that--sins notwithstanding--its time to reincorporate TNR into the progressive liberal discussion. No free passes, but an opportunity to make amends. I concur, and I hope that TNR can continue to right its ship and be a force for a positive, progressive agenda in the coming years.

Ackerman on Beinart on Iraq

Former TNR writer Spencer Ackerman comments on Peter Beinart's explanation for why he supported the Iraq war, calling it "one of the most honest, reflective, and insightful things I've read in a good long while."

Peter explains his support for the war through his admiration for the Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya. Kanan, one of the most guileless and brave people I've ever been privileged to meet, is someone I hold in similar esteem. (It probably says something about the times we live in that Cruelty and Silence -- an overview of Iraqi desperation and its apologists -- appears more apt and poignant than Republic of Fear does.) If there's anything I'd add to Peter's column, it would be this: it wasn't Kanan's fault that anyone supported the Iraq war -- wait, wait, hang on, let's make this more personal. It wasn't Kanan's fault that I supported the Iraq war. It was for wanting to believe so badly in the righteousness of America's terrible swift sword. I wanted to be worthy of the respect of such a brave man as Kanan that I ended up unworthy of it by abandoning rigor.

One final thing. Many of you out there really, really dislike Peter Beinart. I hope you'll read his column and see him as I see him: a scrupulous, honest writer who doesn't stop challenging himself. If he falls short, he acknowledges it and tries to learn from the mistake.

Ackerman's blog is titled "toohotfortnr," which points to the circumstances of his departure from the magazine. Both Ackerman and Beinart speak for me on this issue, and I urge everyone to read both of their pieces.

Poor Captain Needa

Kos' response to the recent buy-out of TNR is very troublesome to me, in that it shows that--regardless of what the magazine does, what it says, or where it goes--Kos is hell-bent on turning them into a scalp on his wall.

In attacking TNR, Kos refers back to their support for the Iraq war (in from 2002 to 2003), and their ill-advised endorsement of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary (in early 2004). In other words, nothing that's happened in the past three years. But yet, TNR has backtracked on all of these positions--something Kos has refused to acknowledge. TNR has harshly critiqued Bush administration policy on all number of issues, including foreign policy--something Kos has refused to acknowledge. TNR has engaged in repeated introspection and self-critique on the Iraq war--something Kos has refused to acknowledge. And under its new leadership, TNR has persistently moved in a more liberal direction, such that there is surprisingly little gap between the positions held by TNR writers and Kos front-pagers on the vast majority of political issues. Kos, of course, does not acknowledge this either.

With regard to Iraq, we can thus critique TNR's horrible misjudgment (which is perfectly fair); but 81 House Democrats and 29 Democratic Senators made the exact same mistake. Like some other liberals (e.g., John Edwards) who voted in favor of this ill-advised war, TNR has since apologized and recanted for its stance--as Editor Franklin Foer stated, "the question mark is gone," as to whether the magazine was wrong on the war in Iraq. So the question is whether or not Kos is willing to readmit liberals who have strayed (but have now seen the light) on an issue that a) he was right on and b) is very important to him. If the answer is no, so be it--but that means putting targets on every one of those 110 Democrats still serving in elected office and trying to run them from the party. That's not just Joe Lieberman, that's John Edwards, that's Harry Reid, that's Jack Murtha, that's Chris Dodd, and ultimately, that's fratricide. Of course, Kos hasn't called for the scalps of these Democrats--but that's because the vendetta against TNR has gotten personal for him--it is not an expression of any privilege, it is merely white hot fury that is ultimately irrational and self-destructive. If TNR proves anything, it isn't that Democrats who support President Bush will be punished, it's that apologies are useless.

This is personal to me, because I am one of the heretics--not just because I read TNR, but because I supported the Iraq war. If my repentance is futile and falls on deaf ears to the left, then where can I go? Ultimately, Kos does not want to see me converted back into the fold of liberal politics. He wants my head put on stake on the front lawn as a warning to others.

Sold!

The New Republic has been sold, and will now operate under new, more liberal ownership. This should help resolves some tensions centered around it being a liberal publication with conservative ownership. Editor Franklin Foer explicitly tagged this shift as being in keeping with TNR's shift to the left, which I think is a positive development and necessary for its continued viability. It also is reassuring to me, because in the aftermath of Spencer Ackerman's departure, I was worried about the magazine moving in the other direction (something I felt like I was observing on The Plank).

TNR has worked hard to shake the perception that it is merely liberal cover for neo-conservatism. Peter Beinart has a piece in the latest issue on How He Got the Iraq War Wrong, which struck a chord with me, because I was wrong on Iraq for much the same reasons (Beinart is a writer I respect immensely). There are those on the left who wish to see TNR dead and buried--a view I think is vindictive and unhelpful. But regardless of whether we think they've strayed or not, we should wish them luck in getting on the right track. There are precious few opportunities for sharp liberal writers to get into print without one of the oldest being cannibalized from within.

UPDATE: Can I smile at Marty Peretz's description of his outlook towards blogging?

Mr. Peretz, 67, has himself become a blogger. He said he was "not enjoying it exactly," but that he had found it addictive.

"When I used to see something irritating, I would typically call a friend," he said. "Now I just go to the blog." He said he is often surprised at how quickly readers will post a response. "It’s as if they’re waiting for something,” he said. "Then they say, 'Ah, here he is. I'm going to pounce.'"

I don't have readers poised to pounce on me (if only....), but I definitely relate to the addiction metaphor for blogging.