Newer Republic

[supergee]

Long ago, I heard that a leftist magazine consisted of two parts: the political section in front, which said that the People should rule, and the critical section, which said that at least in the arts the People couldn't find their ass with both hands. The Chronicle reminded me of that, although the front of The New Republic had a different view. Someone mourned for The New Republic because it brought back "liberal internationalism," and I thought, "Worst reanimation since Herbert West."

Ever since Woodrow Wilson had his wet dream of inflicting democracy on the entire world, there has been an element of liberalism that has given cover to the warmongers by suggesting that it is our duty to get into Asian land wars and otherwise meddle in countries we don't understand, and we probably couldn't have had our Vietnam and Iraq adventures without them.

What I didn't notice, but should have, is how awful they were on race. Ta-Nehisi Coates takes the scare story that the new regime wants to make The New Republic into BuzzFeed, and makes the case that it would be an improvement.

Comments

[onyxlynx]

Har. I subscribed (for my sins) in the late '80s less for the political articles, although I did read them, and more because I needed an antidote to Reason (somebody had a sub to that and, one hopes, didn't notice the eyetracks. My distaste for libertarianism has deep roots, but reading that mag confirmed it). I know I let my subscription lapse after Tom Disch left the reviewing section, though.

[supergee]

In the 70s when I was a libertarian or fellow traveler, the Great Schism was between the DFHs who tolerated economic libertarianism, and the money guys who grudgingly supported sexndope freedom. I was unsurprisingly the former, and Reason was very much the latter. I don't think there are many DFHs left in the movement.