Not Much Left

Martin Peretz, the editor in chief of The New Republic, has added to the growing volume of incisive criticism of liberalism by liberals in a thoughtful TNR essay, Not Much Left. His main point, not surprisingly, is that liberalism has run out of idea, that it is “bookless,” in the snooty term John Kenneth Galbraith used to describe conservatism in the early 1960s.

Along the way Peretz has some interesting things to say about race, such as his complaint that among liberals “the usual hustlers are still cheered.”

Jesse Jackson is still paid off, mostly not to make trouble. The biggest insult to our black fellow citizens was the deference paid to Al Sharpton during the campaign….

This patronizing attitude is proof positive that, as deep as the social and economic gains have been among African Americans, many liberals prefer to maintain their own time-honored patronizing position vis-

Say What? (13)

  1. actus February 18, 2005 at 12:14 am | | Reply

    ‘Liberals, according to Peretz, have not adapted to changes in the country since the New Deal, and the area of race is no exception.’

    Meanwhile, the GOP seems intent on returning to pre-new deal policies, so this might not be such a problem.

  2. Stephen February 18, 2005 at 5:56 am | | Reply

    The other half of the liberal brain death, so aptly demonstrated by actus, is a feverish insistence that nothing has changed economically since 1930.

    Liberalism has also died because it thrives on and is committed to economic failure. Americans are not. The vast majority of them are happily making money and getting on with their lives.

  3. actus February 18, 2005 at 8:37 am | | Reply

    ‘The other half of the liberal brain death, so aptly demonstrated by actus, is a feverish insistence that nothing has changed economically since 1930.’

    Oh a whole lot has changed, thanks to the post-new deal way we deal with the economy.

  4. Eric February 18, 2005 at 9:57 am | | Reply

    If you want to be real technical about it, the new deal really didn’t change many of the economic realities of the country, but rather help assuage the negative impact that economic downturns have on the citizenry. The real change in economic reality came from a) the United State being the only economic power left unscathed after WWII, b) almost as important, the switch from controlling economic policy via money supply to one controlling it via interest rates, and c) productivity gains brought about by the proliferation of the semi-conductor. The new deal policies was crafted to deal with a reality that has been fundamentally changed by these developments.

  5. Eric February 18, 2005 at 9:59 am | | Reply

    “new deal policies WERE crafted….”

    Noun verb agreement is our friend.

  6. notherbob2 February 18, 2005 at 11:26 am | | Reply

    An article in The New Yorker profusely quotes Mr. Keller, the executive editor of the NYT on the subject of possible liberal bias in the news articles in the NYT. I cite the article as an example of a liberal (Keller) who has every reason to be au courant who discloses in his comments that he is stuck in the sixties. The article reads like a parody, but I believe that it is intended as a serious comment on leftist thinking. Speaking of which, how about Screaming Dean

  7. James February 18, 2005 at 2:31 pm | | Reply

    I,and many others, have always found it odd that Peretz and his fellow travelers at the New Republic are quick to condemn blacks and others who speak about the continuing importance of race in THIS country when their own monomanical support of the FOREIGN state of Israel leads them to quickly condemn as anti-semitic anyone who criticizes Israeli policy in the Middle East. In an LA Times article before the election,Peretz made these astonishing statements:

    “Both Carter and Baker are deeply distrusted by the Israelis, and by American Jews. There was no mystery as to why. Carter (well, how does one say this?) is not exactly a friend to the Jewish nation and, besides, his favorite politician in the Middle East was the mass murderer Hafez Assad, the late president of Syria. A huge beneficiary of Saudi business, Baker was adept at pooh-poohing concerns about Israeli security.

    “Bush’s empathy for the government in Israel is particularly remarkable, because empathy was altogether foreign to both Bush pere and his secretary of State. One can only imagine the horror of George H.W. and Baker (to whom the current president may actually owe his office) in seeing the inheritor become a true ally of Israel. Yet there it is. And with his understanding of

  8. Dom February 18, 2005 at 5:13 pm | | Reply

    Well, here’s one thought. Peretz doesn’t once use the term “anti-semite” and he doesn’t even hint about it.

    Dom

  9. notherbob2 February 18, 2005 at 9:32 pm | | Reply

    Good point, Dom. I took it for granted that we all know that not agreeing with all current Israeli government positions is not being anti-Semitic. Just as not agreeing with all Bush Administration positions is not being anti-American. Of course, never agreeing with a government’s position simply because it is that government’s position…..

  10. Richard Nieporent February 18, 2005 at 9:37 pm | | Reply

    James, please explain to me how Carter is one of our most distinguished diplomats. Since he has left office he has supported dictators like Castro and Arafat and has consistently opposed US foreign policy.

    I take it from your comments that you are not a big supporter of Israel. That is your right. However, to call Carter one of our most distinguished diplomats because he also opposes Israel is disingenuous of you.

  11. James February 18, 2005 at 10:05 pm | | Reply

    Richard

    Excuse my bluntness, but you are the one who is being disingenuous. My opinion of Carter has absolutely nothing to do with, what you call, his opposition to Israel. In fact, if anything, most of my favorable opinion of the man is based on the leadership role he played in bringing the Israelis and Egyptian together in the signing of the Camp David Accords.

    I am not alone in this opinion:

    It’s difficult to imagine any other American president doing what Carter did at Camp David. Most would not even have tried, and Carter’s capacity for hard work, mastery of detail, moral integrity and just plain stubbornness all came into play. Though he would receive little domestic political benefit, it established Carter as a top global statesman and has served as the inspiration for much of his work since leaving office.

    see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_peace.html

    If one is to condemn Carter for his dealings with Arafat and Castro, then that person should be prepared to condemn Israel for its dealings with South Africa during the pre-Mandela era. Carter has never “supported” Arafat or Castro, he has merely pointed out that by ignoring them we are being unrealistic in our approach to diplomacy. Castro is not well liked in Cuba but he is ALSO not well hated. The people of Cuba will determine the fate of their country. Any attempt by the US Govt to dictate to the Cuban people their leaders and form of government can only backfire, as the Bush-Cheney-Feith-Wolfowitz-Perle led disaster in Iraq, has now made quite clear.

    Good day.

  12. Richard Nieporent February 18, 2005 at 11:01 pm | | Reply

    James, I am glad that you could find a favorable opinion of Jimmy Carter as a diplomat. However, there are more than a few folks who would disagree with you. See http://www.nationalreview.com/20may02/nordlinger052002.asp “> here and here and here and the list goes on and on.

    Also since you go out of your way to criticize Israel, I find it more than a little strange that your

  13. David Nieporent February 22, 2005 at 2:30 pm | | Reply

    Without offering a single piece of solid evidence, Peretz has painted three of our nation’s most d istinguished diplomats (BushI, Baker and Carter) as anti-semites.

    Perhaps he took for granted that readers would know of Baker’s (in)famous comment during his time in the Bush I administration: “F-ck the Jews; they don’t vote for us anyway.”

    Imagine a similarly crude statement made about blacks by a Republican politico; what do you think the reaction would be?

Say What?