A few more remarks on specific features of the Alterman Version of the World. Consider the following assertion by him (quoted in an earlier post):
> The radical/academic left concerns itself primarily with race,
> gender, and sexual preference. It lives primarily on college campuses but
> also within small solidarity organizations.
This is seems deliberately intended to disrupt and confuse. If it has any meaning at all, it asserts that only academic pomos can be or are seriously concerned with these issues. It poisons the wells of discourse by marginalizing in advance anyone who disagrees. I myself am probably a bit crudely doctrinaire in my repudiation of most of what is labelled "postmodernism." I also happen to think that any working class movement that does not centrally confront the issues of race, gender, and sexual preference will be self-defeating. Alterman, rather than argue against this (fairly common) position, defines it out of existence. In his world it is quite impossible to combine concern with class and race, and those who do are some sort of weird freaks. (It would be interesting to see Alterman share a forum with Bill Fletcher, Katha Pollitt, and Jane Slaughter.) Here is Alterman in the March 2 *Nation* on Clinton:
"Clinton is redefining himself. The right is finally on the
run. We can retain our moral purity and continue to complain about what
a bastard he is, or we can hunker down and build on HIS [my emphasis]
foundation."
It is true that if we are to build on the foundation (!) Clinton provides, we must drop the quest for racial justice, or for such elementary progressive (even mildly liberal) positions as opposition to the death penalty.
For those without easy access to this issue of the *Nation* I quote an additional passage from his column of May 25. He is speaking of the meeting in Washington D.C. of SAWSJ:
At the D.C. meeting's plenary, Robin D.G. Kelley, who had angrily
quit the teach-in steering committee, denounced the specter of
"neoconservative white guys in left clothing." He wondered why the
meeting's agenda was so limited. What about Mumia Abu-Jamal and the
rights of people with H.I.V.? he asked What about racist hiring practices
and racist research at universities? Kelley infuriated the reformist
organizers, who had issued the invitation to him to speak at the plenary
as a peace overture. One characterized Kelley's speech as, "I'm catching
a train at 10:30; now change your leadership, and here's your agenda."
This seems pretty clear: serious people do not take race and the death penalty seriously, or clutter up progressive politics with these issues. Serious people do not object to limiting the agenda to any issues not approved by Bill Clinton. Serious proponents of "Social Justice" (the SJ of SAWSJ) do not annoy reformists with squawks about executing a black man in Pennsylvania. What does that have to do with justice, or with cheering on Bill Clinton's redefining of himself. (Remember the innumerable "new Nixons" of the 50s, 60s, and 70s?)
While Alterman himself is obviously a mere triviality, for him to be given a column (or any space at all) in the *Nation* does represent a serious concern. However wobbling its core politics, the *Nation* for many years has at least been a source of extremely valuable information for progressives. But it seems that under the leadership of Katrina vanden Heuvel the magazine is rapidly following in the footsteps of the *New Republic*, and with the likes of Alterman appearing in it regularly, that tendency can only become more emphatic. I myself do not plan to renew my subscription when it expires. I suspect many others will do the same. (I plan to go to the library weekly to photocopy Cockburn and Pollitt and the occasional useful article by some of its contributing editors and others. I plan to share those articles with whatever maillists I belong to, thus helping others to dispense with the journal.)
I have decided to copy this post to vanden Heuvel and Navasky as well as to Katha Pollitt (kpollitt at thenation.com). Judging by the content of her columns, she does not go along with the *Nation*'s increasing indifference to workers, blacks, women, unemployed, disabled, and all the other traditional constituency of the (minimally principled) left, and I think we all should extend what support we can to her. (For the Letters column of the *Nation* the e-mail address is letters at thenation.com.)
I hope other list members will similarly post to *The Nation*, with a copy of their posts to the list.
Carrol Cox
Note: The current management of the *Nation* doubtless is quietly happy that the late Andrew Kopkind, former Associate Editor, is not alive to cry Shame! Shame! Shame!