On Feb 21, 2010, at 3:56 PM, SA wrote:
> Actually, the thrust of my argument is addressed precisely to those
> on the left in a position analogous to NR's position on the right -
> e.g., most obviously, the people who run the Nation. The whole
> purpose of a magazine like that should be to explain to people why -
> for example - corporate personhood is a red herring, even as it
> encourages people to go out and raise hell. Instead, the Nation does
> the opposite. It passively genuflects to every brain-dead trope on
> the left while passionately excluding any denunciation of Obama.
The Nation isn't at all interested in ideas - the opposite of NR back in the day. (NR today is risible, but that's another story.) So it turns out that one of the reasons that Katrina gave MHL a column is that she allegedly speaks to an audience far broader than The Nation's usual readership. The magazine shouldn't be some sort of massification device - it should be a thing where people think seriously. Instead, the editor is dumbing the thing down. It's doing more than passively genuflecting to brain-dead tropes - it's actively disseminating them.
Doug