<< A little while back when I was at the Boston Public Library I
happened to peruse through old copies of The New Repulic
from the early 1970s (pre-Marty Peretz days). What struck me
was not just that the magazine was far to the left of its present
incarnation (which is a given) but it was also well to the left of the
current
incarnation of The Nation.
JKS: There was no drift in the case of TNR. which was simply murdered and taken over by Neocons--the shell survived, rather like a pod person in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but the inside was gone. I stopped reading it in 1979 when I saw an article there by, I believe, Walter Laquer, arguing that what had gone wrong in Iran was that the Shah hasn't been repressive enough.
Now as Lou points out apparently The Nation is drifting in the same
direction thereby furthering the narrowing of American political
discourse. Whereas, in the case of The New Republic its drift to
the right can be blamed on one person, Marty Peretz in the case of
The Nation blame for its current drift seems to be a bit harder to pin
down but the result is still unfortunate.
JKS: There is a personality think involved: my old classmate Katrina Vanden Heuvel took over the Nation. But there's another aspect that relates to the issue of whether the left should support Clinton and the Democrats. K V-H has Clintonitis the way her husband (I believe) Stephen Cohen has Gorbachevitis--a wishful and unrealistic commitment to the idea that reform minded leaders from the ruling class, be it capitalist or communist, are really what's needed because realistically, supporting them is the only way to make change. This view is based ona deep pessimism about the acapcity or ordiunary people to mobilize for change--maybe a deep suspicion and fear of such actionw here it occurs. It's of a piecew ith a desire for respectability ttaht goes with being a member of the chattering classes. Lord knows I feel the pressures myself,s o I'm not sneering.
--jks