Why is this interesting? The New Republic is a progressive journal, yet its editorial staff think of it in conservative terms. The people who made up The New Republic are all progressives in relation to American politics, yet they are all conservatives in relation to the identity of The New Republic. They say it is a public trust. This means that it does not really belong to the people who happen to own and manage it for the time being. Rather, it is bigger than they are, and they have an obligation to preserve its traditional identity and pass it on to the next generation.
That is a fine way to think about a long-established journal. It is also a fine way to think about one’s country. Yet the staff of The New Republic have not thought about their country that way for as long as I can remember. They have instead been in favor of the transformation of America in both law and morals. There is irony here.
Maybe the people at The New Republic have been implicitly committed to an enterprise that could not, in the end, be sustained. After all, if you dedicate your energies to convincing people that they are not bound by their country’s traditions, you should not be surprised if a new owner has no respect for the traditions of a mere magazine.
Liberals wants to keep their cake on display in a museum and eat it for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and twice for dessert. If they write for a publication like TNR then they'll have you know that they are doing it for the noble good of humanity. But on payday, let me tell you, those people who think they work in the front office sure as hell better shell it out to them, man. Wait—where'd they get that money? Do you mean this magazine is run like a business concern? I thought it was done for the sake of goodness, truth and beauty! Did someone actually decide that the magazine's operations could be moved to another city? Like, in moving trucks?? Did anyone think of how that might displace people or, even worse, upset the harmony and balance of the universe?
Do these people think they can make those kind of decisions just because they call themselves "owners"? Can someone named Marty Peretz actually sell TNR? Can someone named Chris Hughes really buy TNR? They didn't build that! What about the guys in hardhats who built roads and bridges?
To me, all the hand-wringing and depression is akin to the uber-cool kids in college who were "into R.E.M. before they were popular." Some of those kids didn't want to admit that Get up or The one I love were actually pretty good songs. It seems like some of TNR's "mourners" are going to have a hard time admitting that their favorite magazine still has something to offer them. Of course, I might agree if it starts to be mainly about a bunch of gay stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment