Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

On Climate, Business as Usual




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Arsenals of Folly

Arsenals of Folly

By Richard Rhodes
$28.95

more items

 
Report

Little Journals That Loom Large

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 6, 2012

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

We know there are coffee lovers and tea lovers, as well as lovers of baseball, football, art, literature, music and cars. But many years ago, Father Richard John Neuhaus, a hero to conservatives who earlier was a guide to religious radicals, identified a category to which I proudly belong: He said there were lovers of opinions.

I do love opinions—those I agree with, certainly, but often enough, even some I disagree with. Having grown up in a politically diverse extended family that spent a great deal of time arguing (fiercely but mostly amiably) about the world, I have always been enchanted by the process through which people reach their conclusions. The factors at play in opinion-formation describe the full range of human capacities and feelings: reason, emotion, experience, interest, calculation, faith, love, hate and willfulness. This brief list is by no means exhaustive.

My love of opinions quickly transformed itself into an affection for the magazines that purvey them. I began at an early age reading National Review and Human Events on the right, and The New Republic and Commonweal on the left. And imagine my joy in discovering that this list only scratched the surface. Rather quickly, I learned about The Nation and the Public Interest, now sadly defunct, along with Dissent and Commentary. I laughed louder than most at Woody Allen’s joke that an unlikely merger of the last two would produce a journal called Dissentary.

Piles of other opinion magazines, from libertarian to socialist, have cluttered every place I’ve ever lived. Such publications are about more than brisk polemics. They can change the world. That’s what William F. Buckley Jr. did when he started National Review in 1955. He and his writers provided the arguments and ideas that revitalized American conservatism. Its work led, eventually, to Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980. I mourn the result but still admire Buckley’s daring.

What prompts these thoughts is a possible death in this great family of opinionators that could be averted. The American Prospect, a center-left magazine (for which I have occasionally written) faces a financial crisis that could soon force it to shut its doors. My interest here is, in part, unabashedly political, since I think it’s important for our country to have a vibrant publication devoted to an egalitarian brand of liberalism that honors the social contributions of a strong labor movement and values good reporting and writing.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The maddening aspect of The Prospect’s crisis is that it has been innovative in dealing with the new online world that, as an opinion-lover, I also appreciate (even if I would insist that opinionated writing can never substitute for the relentless daily reporting of the traditional news outlets). The magazine gave a start or a big push to some of the best younger progressive online writers now gracing us with their views. They include Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Jonathan Cohn, Kate Sheppard, Dana Goldstein, Laura Secor and Jonathan Chait.

The Prospect was founded in 1990 by Robert Kuttner, Paul Starr and Robert Reich partly to provide intellectual competition from the other political shore to the neoconservative Public Interest. (I still have the first issues of both of them somewhere.) It blossomed into a magazine that honors and invests in long-form journalism, “the deeply reported piece that requires a huge amount of time and effort from a writer,” says Kit Rachlis, the magazine’s current editor. “There’s a strong need for this in the age of Twitter,” argues Rachlis, who had successful stints at Los Angeles magazine, the LA Weekly and the Village Voice, “since print venues for long form have been dwindling.” No kidding.

The progressive think tank Demos came in as a partner with the magazine in early 2010, but The Prospect is now threatened by debts it needs to pay off quickly. And there is some happy news here that marries the new tech world with an old-fashioned sense of community: Rachlis says that since word of the journal’s crisis got out, more than 700 people have contributed a total of $110,000. But it will need more to survive.

Yes, opinion magazines come and go and have their niches filled—National Affairs magazine, for example, now occupies conservative space left by The Public Interest. But at a moment when the political debate is excessively influenced by tens of millions of dollars spent by super PACs on short, nasty ads, you’d think we could spare a little for places like The Prospect that encourage us to think.


E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2012, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Mekhong Kurt, May 10, 2012 at 4:35 am Link to this comment

Mr. Dionne, thanks for this; I was unaware of The American Prospect’s financial crisis.

I’ve never contributed in this sort of case, but I immediately went to their website and did so. But in my comment explaining why, I failed to mention you and your piece here.

Report this

By Wikileaks for Nobel, May 7, 2012 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment

A long time ago, I had a sub to the Prospect.  I was surprised to find how much it dealt in really vague rhetoric…there was little substance to it.  I’m surprised even liberals still bother with it. 

Save some trees.

Report this

By balkas, May 7, 2012 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

go ahead and divide people into progressives, liberals, Democrats, plutocrats, democrats,
libertarians, theocrats, neocons, paleocons, independents, Repubs, et al, but it seems to me they
all swear an oath of allegiance to u.s ideology on which u.s runs.
in short, when it comes to the SYSTEM, they all think exactly the same.
and the SYSTEM does not care about gays, their marriages, service in the army, hatred between
races, most laws/reforms/regulations, etc.
so, the SYSTEM allows these people to opine all they like on these cosmetic issues as long as they
show deep respect for and awe at u.s basic ideology; ie, the inalienable right of one person to
control/command another person. that’s the holy of holies that most people must not touch.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook