Thursday, August 10, 2006

"It's a cowardly refusal to answer."

Ok ok. I don't want to bash The New Republic all the time but I just want to point out that we should just stop referring to it as a liberal magazine. It's not. That's not necessarily a bad thing. You can be a resepectable non-ideolgical mag or even a respected neo-con-for-libs mag. But in addition to it's history of hiring, publishing, and fostering plain-old vanilla conservatives, there's this from the co-owner and Editor-in-Chief, Martin Peretz:
HH: Do you want the Democrats to win majorities in the House or the Senate, Martin Peretz?

MP: I'm...I'm appalled by some of the people who would become head of Congressional committees.

HH: Is that a no?

MP: Uh, but I'm also appalled by some of the shenanigans...

HH: But is that...I've got five seconds. Is that a no, Martin Peretz?

MP: It's a cowardly refusal to answer.

HH: (laughing) Okay. We'll carry it on, later. Martin Peretz, thanks.

Ok, when you can't make up your mind over who he wants to win congress, you aren't a liberal. I know that Martin Peretz is a crazy who only gets printed becuase he bought the magazine, but seriously how can people get worked up over the monetary ties of a voluntary advertising ring run by Kos when we have a real-life crazy man officially holding his writers' livelihoods in his hands? How can we not pause before cracking open those pages knowing that the decision of what it means to be "a good liberal" is being made not by a reader ratings system but by a guy who holds some clearly racsist views about Arabs?

Ok, but they do publish some good things in The New Republic. I read it. I'm just saying I'm not going to refer to it as a liberal or left-of-center publication anymore.

5 comments:

Aaron said...

Total AA comment bait.

In any case, this argument is a little bit strange coming from somebody that made such clear pains to distinguish between the positions of MoveOn.org on Afghanistan and those of its founders/owners ;)

Also, for the record, TNR is a publication, run by a crazy, that is contrarian in tendency, pluralistic in structure and generally liberal in temperament.

Tommaso Sciortino said...

Ha, you see right through me. I just wanted a chance to spout off about Peretz but yeah, I'll cop to the fact that my argument is far from complete.

Kevin said...

Peretz is CRAZY. When I read your commentary, I think what was meant was:

'There are some Democrats that are not totally on board with killing every A-rab within a 2000-mile radius. I hate these people"

Not necessarily any disagreement with Liberal social/economic policy

Aaron said...

Also, although I think that Peretz is indeed very crazy, I feel the need to challenge this a little bit:

Ok, when you can't make up your mind over who he wants to win congress, you aren't a liberal.

If a voter that self-identifed as a Republican was saying that he didn't want the current crop of Republicans to win back the congress on the grounds that they were fiscally irresponsible (which they are), would you say that he wasn't a conservative?

Tommaso Sciortino said...

I meant that to apply only to the current case. Given the current reality, anyone who can't decide who should win the 2006 congress is not a liberal. It doesn't make him conservative neccessarily. But he sure isn't a liberal.