I guess I wasn't too hard on the Nation

Yesterday I used the phrase "limp Nation-style liberalism" and in looking at it later thought it seemed a bit harsh.  After all, I've read a lot of worthwhile articles in the Nation over the years, though I do consider them to be far too close to the Democrats (especially around election time) for comfort; maybe "tepid" would have been a better word choice?

But then today I read this from  Katrina van den Heuvel (the Nation's editor and publisher):

Listening to Senator Joseph Lieberman these days, it's difficult to believe that this is the man who was once Al Gore's running mate and not some Pioneer or Ranger or Misadventurer raising money for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Lieberman's right-wing stances have a consistent pedigree going back for years, which is exactly why so many of us were deeply dismayed (but not very much surprised) that Gore would choose such a conservative Democrat in 2000.   On many occasions I heard people citing Lieberman's inclusion on the ticket as one of their reasons for supporting Nader.

But instead of seeing Lieberman's conservatism as an indictment of Gore and an indication of just how far to the right the Democrats had already shifted in 2000--a key factor in their defeat, in my opinion--van den Heuvel sees it as some bizarre aberration: how could this faux-Democrat have managed to sneak onto the ticket with such a good upstanding liberal as Al Gore?  How did Gore fail to sniff out Lieberman's latent conservative tendencies and drive him away?  The very fact that she finds this "difficult to believe" shows just how deeply in denial she is about the true nature of the Democrats.  And that, in a nutshell, is my problem with the Nation.

One other thing: this article appeared on CommonDreams, as have many other articles by van den Heuvel, which is one of the main reasons why I associate CommonDreams with Nation-style liberalism in the first place.  Their articles frequently skew in this same direction, and they give little space to the more progressive point of view that the majority of their readers favor (based on the comment threads).

Comments

[Thomas]

I have to say that the Nation is CONSTANTLY challenging Democrats to be more progressive and be ... Democrats. The idea to the contrary is silly. Look at their cover story this week! Their coverage of Hillary Clinton and their cover a few weeks ago on her, "the corporate ties that bind" is classic reporting that is strong and urging candidates towards progressivism. vanden Heuvel herself regularly reports on progressive victories -- i saw something on the living wage stuff in Maryland. The breadth of their content (im a subscriber) just doesnt support your post at all -- they are clearly progressive.

[Thomas]

also they have Ralph Nader as a featured guest on their cruise, which i imagine you'd be glad about!

[John Caruso]

I agree with you quite a bit, actually. They are progressive, and they do try to move the Democrats to the left, and (as I said) I've read a lot of very useful articles in the Nation. But when it comes around to election time they fall into lockstep...and I'm sure that 2008 won't be an exception. I'd love to be wrong on that, but I don't expect to be.

I didn't know about Nader going on their cruise--glad to hear it. I do know that as of six months ago Katrina van den Heuvel was still peddling the same old tired rhetoric about Nader costing Gore the election in 2000, though...which, along with the fact that she doesn't see Gore's choice of DLC chairman Lieberman as the nod to the conservative wing of the Democratic party that it was, shows me that (like so many prominent progressives) she still hasn't learned the critical lessons of 2000 and 2004.