On Thu, 13 May 1999, rayrena wrote:
> I too cheer Katha Pollitt for taking a principled stand.... But I do
> have a couple of problems with her
> decision, at least as it has been presented in the two places I have read
> of it.... Why keep the columnist job? If it's a statement of
> principles she is making, retaining the weekly (bi-weekly?)
> writing gig cheapens that statement.
I think Pollitt's reasoning is that the column is where she expresses her own opinions, and the editorial board is where she casts a vote to determine the magazine's line. And she wins some votes, and she loses others, but so long as she's on the board, she's saying she stands behind the resultant line, just like membership in the party means you stand behind the platform, even though of course you like everyone disagree with parts of it. But she felt this decision was so far from her principles that she could no longer say she stood behind the line. Her voting power had become pointless. So she resigned the board. That in effect declares her part of the dissenting left minority within the Nation, a position she feels perfectly comfortable with. And as such she can continue express her opinion through her column.
That seems like a reasonable enough stance, no? I could be wrong that that's what she thought, of course; maybe it is about lifestyle. And I agree with you that a column attacking Unz would be much more constructive. Lord knows Alex Cockburn has written countless columns attacking his colleagues, his editor and the Nation as a whole, and most of them have been good reading.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com