« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Conservative New Republic Editor supports Obama saying negotiating isn't appeasement
J. Peter Scoblic, Editor of the New Republic, says Bush, McCain and other conservatives are on the wrong side of history when they dismiss Obama's foreign policy.
"Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for
engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and
now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given
conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate
seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not
1938?"
For the full article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story
Advertisement
Comments (12)
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story
May 17, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't "conservative" mean "sticking with the old ways"? The conservatives aren't here to learn.
May 18, 2008 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because the Republicans are not conservatives, they're reactionaries. Progressives come up with real ideas, and reactionaries just say no to be different. Well, look what that's gotten them into.
May 18, 2008 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mostly self-serving distortionists.
May 18, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only in TPM Cafe would one read that _The New Republic_ is a "conservative" magazine or that its editor is. In the wikipedia article, we find this:
Editor in chief Franklin Foer describes the magazine as overall center-left, stating that TNR "invented the modern usage of the term liberal, and it’s one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for.".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
May 18, 2008 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The New Republic can describe itself any way it wants to, but that doesn't make it so.
TNR was a major, liberal voice from its founding in 1914 through its purchase by Marty Peretz in 1974, at which point conservative voices began to predominate. Here, from the same Wikipedia article (since you've cited it as authoritative), is the list of notable contributors from the '80s and '90s:
* Fred Barnes
* Jeane Kirkpatrick
* Joshua Muravchik
* Eric Breindel
* Jacob Heilbrunn
* Irving Kristol
* Edward Luttwak
* Michael Ledeen
* Ronald Radosh
* Robert Kagan
* Charles Krauthammer
The adjective that best describes most of these contributors is, of course, neoconservative, not liberal.
For over a quarter century the word "liberal" most often occurs in the general vicinity of "The New Republic" when Republicans defend a policy by saying "Even the liberal New Republic says..."
All that being said, I don't think it's fair to call Scoblic a conservative, especially since he just wrote a book blaming conservatives for everything that's gone wrong in US foreign policy for the last half century.
May 18, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. It's always interesting to see how "liberal" and "conservative" are labels applied to people further to the left or further to the right than the person doing the labeling.
As far as the "they're all a bunch of neoconservatives" goes, there must be a horrible schism in neoconservative circles because here is the lastest article in "The Plank," credited to "'The Editors' and 'the TNR staff'":
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/16/peering-into-the-kristol-ball.aspx
Peering into the Kristol Ball
We understand that writing a newspaper column is hard work. But, sweet jeebus, does Bill Kristol have to be this bad at it? Blandly written, intellectually lazy, and--worst of all--hopelessly predictable, his columns will stink up The New York Times' op-ed page for the foreseeable future. Instead of despairing, however, we figured we might as well have some fun with the old gasbag. So, on Fridays, we're going to try to guess what his Monday column will be about. This is our stab this week:
Using Bush's Knesset speech as the peg, he'll consider the possibility that Barack Obama just might be a terrorist appeaser who totally hearts Iran and Hamas. (Bonus points if he references the Great Flag Pin Flip-Flop of 2008.)
What's your guess?
--The Editors
Anyone who claims that "The Editors" and "the TNR staff" who penned the above are sympathetic to the neoconservative cause, is, well, looneytunes.
May 18, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, well, turns out that the mag was sold about a year and a half ago, and was moving towards a more solid centrist position starting around 2004. The current editor, Franklin Foer, took over in early 2006:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2878.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/books/24repu.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
So, prior to 2004, the characterization "neo-conservative," would be accurate. After that, it moved towards the center, or so all the mainstream media are claiming.
May 18, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read TNR and its blogs pretty much every day. While there are occasional 'conservative' contributors and Marty Peretz is quite conservative on some issues, the overall bent of the publication is, as they say, center left or slightly more left than center left. They try to present both sides of most arguments, but you get the feeling the more conservative views are mostly there to help flesh out the liberal ones. You can't make your strongest case in an echo chamber - you need opposing ideas to react to sometimes to make your clearest argument. In this primary, for example, they had a few posts that were total pro-Clinton or anti-Obama in tone, but most of them were pretty clearly pro-Obama, but not un-critically pro-Obama.
May 18, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone have a picture of the ad discussed in this article? The 1938/1998 bit.
Link?
May 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the Real John McCain. Video of some of his contradictions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
May 18, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just my opinion, but TNR isn't a conservative magazine. There were times over the last quarter century, on various issues, when it embraced various conservative or right-wing causes. That was certainly so under Andrew Sullivan's editorship and it was a recurring theme of Peretz's owner-editorship. But particularly since late 2003 even that is really no longer the case.
So while I don't think it was ever accurate to describe TNR as a conservative magazine, it is certainly not accurate post-2003.
May 18, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment