X-Sender: mcooper at pop2.igc.org Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:03:07 -0800 To: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> From: Marc Cooper <mcooper at igc.org> Subject: Cooper responds Mime-Version: 1.0
Doug-- Please circulate this to your email list. MARC Doug: Thanks for forwarding me Marta Russell's comments on my radio show last Thursday with Arianna Huffington and Patrick Caddell. First a couple of corrections: the show she heard was NOT RadioNation (which I do host) but was rather my daily afternoon drive time show on KPFK. Radio nation airs at a different time once week. Second, I will claim to be a bit mroe than a casual writer for The Nation (I'm an active Contributing Editor publishing 15-20 pieces a year and generating a number of others from fellow writers). Further, as you, Doug, know very well, whatever one thinks of my hosting Arianna on my show it is a riduclous, I would say paranoid, notion to construe that as having anything to do with the editorial line of The Nation. The Nation doesn't tell me what to do on my radio show (including on radio nation) and while my opinion is freely offered I do not have responsibilty for shaping the position of the Nation. But I have stood solidy to the left within the internal and external Nation debates; I have published a minority viewpoint column in The Nation objecting to its defense of Clinton and calling for his resignation. And I recently repeated that position in a controversial December 23 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Now about the radio show in question:
Well, Ms. Russell is absolutely correct that I was polite and kind to Arianna. Two simple reasons: 1) Arianna is a friend of mine and I'm kind and polite to all my friends.(By the way I have MANY MANY more conservative and even reactionary friends than just Arianna. Some our my own award-winning bowling team; some are members of my National Association of Impala SS Owners and some-- gasp! -- are even blood relatives! And I'm also very nice to all of them. 2) In case, Ms. Russell missed it, I said very clearly on the air that this was a conscious attempt to explore common ground between right and left. During the course of the show Arianna: denounced the bombing of the Sudanese asprin plant by Clinton; denounced the impeachment trial and called for its immediate end without witnesses; denounced Trent Lott and Bob Barr for not going far enough in denouncing the CCC; trashed Trent Lott for his remarks on Gays; denounced the GOP for its politics of personal sexual morality; endorsed Clean Money campaign finance reform (she is on the national advisory board of Ellen Miller's Public Campaign and last week held a reception for the very liberal Miller which was attended by the cream of the Hollywood donor liberal/left); denounced "corporate welfare," decried the division of the country into "two nations," (the bottom nation by her definition is that huge majority of Americans who are suffering a growing wage gap, who suffer the effects of NAFTA , who are not floated by the Dow Jones etc ); she expressed a desire that impeachmentend soon so that the left could regain its independence from Clinton and start challenging him on his pro-corporate policies; she proposed the notion of a Third Party that would get us past the artificial partisan divide and OF COURSE she agreed heartily with me and Caddell that Bill Clinton is something less than a visionary leader requiring an exercised defense. The telephones were opened and Pacifica callers had a 1/2 hour of open time to ask anything their little hearts desired and -- aha! ALL of the calls were polite, courteous and curious. Arianna was asked why she is still a Republican and she said it is because she doesn't like big government programs. Ok So let's shoot her. She did say, however, that this objection was no longer one of principle. It was merely because she doesn;t think they are very efficient. I did make a joke after that.. but perhaps Ms Russell's ears were too inflamed to have heard what I said: "So, Arianna," I said with a laugh. "Does that mean that w e on the left can still win you over to a very expensive, very government-intensive program as long as it works?" So? Let's shoot me, I suppose.
What Ms. Russell might be interested to know is that after I announced my email address 3 times soliciting open listener reaction to the show, I received (at last count) 57 emails including one from Ms Russell. Fifty-one were positive, most of them effusively so. Most of them saying how refreshing it was to hear on Pacifica, indeed, a polite, high-caliber, and friendly chat across political lines. Most listeners said they found this stimulating and provocative and wanted to hear a whole lot more of this rather than the whining wholly predicatble agit-prop so often poured out over Pacifica (did anyone hear Amy Goodman the other day suggest that Republican Senators might secretly be discomforted when they have to walk into the Chamber past a painting of Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation??? --puh-leeze!).
What I don't understand here is.. what is the fear? Is Ms Russell smarter than the rest of my listeners? Only SHE knows that Arianna is a conservative and unsuspecting listeners seduced by my friednly tone will do what exactly? I don't get it. I can say this: I myself find it much more interesting to talk to the opposition nowadays than talking to many of my allies (especially when they go into contorsions to defend Bill Clinton). I have not researched Arianna's position on SSI -- I have no idea to what degree she is or is not in favor of that program. She is certianly on record criticizing entitlement programs. On the other hand, she is a social liberal on most issues and I find it hard to believe that she favors putting the disbaled into the streets. I know my position on it, and I know it's not going to be changed by talking to Arianna or any other conservative.
Further, last time I looked those of us on the radical left represented about 2% of conscious American public opinion. Does that mean in our dealings with the other 98% we should be constantly "on" -- challenging, resisting every wrong position they have at every moment of our lives? Sorry. No thanks. There's a time for protest (and I have a long arrest record in that regard) and there's also a time for dialogue. (Is this a stanza from Turn! Turn! Turn!).
Let me also say a few words about The Nation. I think it a curious trend for some on the left to be obsessing nowadys on the political purity of The Nation, Pacifica etc. Both these institutions have ALWAYS been uneasy coalitions of radicals and liberals (and worse). The balance between the moderates and hard core shifts back and forth but remains a balance. Much of the liberal reader/donor base of The Nation allows it to keep a circulation near 100,000 and allows it to still be a "carrier" of plenty of radical material : Henwood, Cockburn, Hitchens, Pollitt (might include myself "occasionally" on that list?). That base also allows some of thiose writers to be paid decently for their work. Now, I am among those who are often in favor of an overall more radical line. But I also wonder, honestly, if we were to prevail, what would happen to our base, circulation, penetration, etc. It's great to have Z and The Nation. but I wouldn't want TWO Z's. The answer to this quandry is not a simple, kneejerk one.
Sorry for such a long response, Doug. But as someone who does a daily radio show and who gets plenty of smart listener feedback (which consistently cries out for more debate, dialogue, idea exchange etc) I react very poorly to a sort of PC-police who believe it is my duty to batter and trash every guest who doesn't pass a political litmus test or that, worse, I am some sort of turncoat traitor if I am not stridently on a PC message every minute of my show (My listeners certainly don't want a humorless Commissar.. modestly, my show is one among those on KPFK with the highest ratings and frankly it is in my time slots when we raise the most amount of listener donations) .
As a teenager, some 30 years ago I came to the Left because I rejected the cynical view of my elders that people in general were too stupid to know what's good for them. A Left politics means having faith in people. I have faith in my audience that they don't need me to tell them when to cheer or boo. Regards MARC P.S. Thanks very much for forwarding this email from Russell to me. I have to say that given the fact the Russell already knows my email address (she messaged me right after the Arianna show) I am just a bit put out that she would try to start this thread against me without having the basic courtesy of letting me know it. Thanks again MARC
At 02:56 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Marc -
>
>Someone writes to my lbo-talk list.... Care to comment? I was going to
>blame it on your terrible crush on AH, but I don't want to be rude.
>
>Doug
>
>>Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:52:28 -0800
>>From: Marta Russell <ap888 at lafn.org>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>Subject: Re: article by joel kovel
>>Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>Precedence: bulk
>>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>
>>Speaking of the Nation, Marc Cooper, an occasional writer for the Nation
>>has a show called "Radio Nation." Maybe some of you know of it. A couple
>>of days back he had Arianna Huffington on the show. Huffington is a
>>Republican pundit, her name has come up on this list a couple of times.
>>Knowing Huffington's politics, for instance she wanted to "scrap SSI' and
>>replace entitlements with "effective" compassion (charity), I was simply
>>stunned that Cooper seemed to be uncritical of her politics.
>>
>>I have nothing against being polite to someone you interview but Cooper was
>>downright awed by her and never asked a hard question. For example a
>>caller asked why was Huffington a Republican, and she answered because she
>>did not believe in government, that government programs don't work. Cooper
>>not only let this go unchallenged he joked and laughed with her about it.
>>Is this what the Nation has come to??? Cooper DOES have this radio show
>>named "Radio Nation" and Huffington is not much different from Armey,
>>Gingrich and DeLay on entitlements and the evils of welfare/government.
>>
>>Marta Russell
>>
>>
>>Michael Yates wrote:
>>
>>> friends,
>>>
>>> There is an interesting article by Joel Kovel in this month's "Z"
>>> magazine. It is about his run for senate from New York as an independent
>>> "Green" candidate. Especially interesting are his comments on liberals.
>>> The increasingly f*ed up people at the Nation gave him short shrift.
>>> Anyway, Kovel is always interesting and this piece is worth reading.
>>>
>>> michael yates
>>
>