[Broco]

I'm proud/ashamed to be a regular The New Republic reader. Five years ago when I was completely politically illiterate, I was browsing the library periodicals section and started reading it because it was more entertaining than all the others -- at a minimum, always having an interesting literature section even though I often couldn't follow what they were talking about with all their Washington scandals and other such bullshit. I've been reading it since and it's responsible for turning me into a politics junkie. I've branched off to other magazines since but I still pretty much identify as, for better or worse, a TNR guy. I've deeply absorbed their combative centrism, aggressively staking a moderate position and taking swipes at both crazy left-wingers and crazy right-wingers ("moderate" doesn't mean you don't give a fuck).

Anyway I said proud/ashamed since on the one hand they have a way of being extremely embarrassing sometimes (Marty Peretz, Lee Siegel, initial support for the Iraq War, and of course Stephen Glass -- good movie incidentally). On the other hand they've been improving since Franklin Foer took the reins, and at their best they've always done things no one else does. Take this recent debate on the War on Terror (parts 1, 2, 3 -- free registration required unfortunately). I don't think I've ever seen a War on Terror debate like this, with informed sane people on both sides, both actually responding to each other's points instead of attacking straw men.

The video debates between Beinart and Goldberg (here's their latest one, on Columbia's invitation of Ahmadinejad) are also generally really excellent -- every time I watch it I'm like, oh my god, a genuine friendly and informed debate on politics! I've never experienced such a thing in my entire life! Generally all that ever happens when I argue with a friend is that one or both of us is horribly biased or uninformed, and it turns either into a one-sided lecture about the facts of the matter, a mutual acknowledgment that neither of us has enough knowledge and we need to look some key points up, or a veering into obviously crank arguments that ought to rebut themselves and feel like a waste of breath to discuss. You don't get to see debates like this on TV, because producers always want to restrict the length and artificially create drama, and you don't see it in other political magazines because they don't actually carry debates between individuals, but rather editorials vaguely aimed at "the left" or "the right". So TNR is really a breath of fresh air.


I rarely talk about politics on these forums although it makes up much of my daily reading material, because, well, most people here not being politics fans, any debates about it here usually take one of the dysfunctional forms I described above. But I'm bringing it up now in the hope that maybe some of you will hit it off with TNR like I did.



Oh oh! Also, in this week's issue, they have awesome pictures of monkeys!

[Levi]

I dunno. It seems like the nation is at a lull when it comes to political debate that doesn't involve cranks/zealots. Let me pull up my national controversy checklist:

Government handling of Katrina
Iraq
The War on Terror
Petroleum woes
Global Warming
No Child Left Behind

and etc.

For the first time in a long time the majority of people seem to be pretty much in agreement on these things, with only the long-standing controversies (gun control, health care) unresolved.

Or maybe I listen to too much NPR?

[wourme]

I have virtually no interest in discussing politics on the Internet or in real life, but I do like to read about issues and read or listen to arguments between others when the arguments are interesting and seem informed.

I had a subscription to The New Republic a few years ago and I was very impressed with some of the articles, but when a few issues in a row struck me as lackluster I let my subscription lapse. After reading this post I'd like to resubscribe, but I'm afraid that I may be too cheap to do so unless I find a discounted rate.