and don't let any of the neoliberals on this board come trying to tell you that TNR is in any way, shape or form, liberal. The TNR is a NEO-liberal rag; neoconservatives and neoliberals stand for EXACTLY the same thing except that neoliberals are taking over the Democratic Party and neoconservatives are taking over the Republican party.
Ain't a dime's worth of difference between the two except the lip-service that they are willing to pay for their infiltration.
One of your DUers nailed it in an editorial he wrote for us years ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/06/14_fake.htmlA Fake Reporter for a Fake Magazine
June 14, 2003By Dennis Hans
<snip>
The "liberal" New Republic Long before Glass walked through its doors, the NR was a sordid, sleazy rag that was living not one lie, but two: the pretense that it was (1) non-fiction and (2) liberal.
By "non-fiction," I'm thinking less of Glass and Ruth Shalit (whose frequent ethical lapses - particularly plagiarism - preceded Glass's) and more of the routine smears of human rights groups and individuals who have the wrong take on foreign-policy issues near and dear to the NR's neoconservative heart. That's right, "neoconservative." Parts of the NR's head may be liberal, moderate or conservative, but the heart is hard right.
The rightwing fanatics who dominate George W. Bush's foreign policy team are cut from the same ideological cloth as longtime NR owner (now co-owner) and editor-in-chief Martin Peretz. It made perfect sense for Fox "All-Star" William Kristol to team with the NR's Lawrence Kaplan for a recent book on the U.S. and Iraq. They're peas in the same neocon pod.
<snip>
Alterman asserts that "At least half of the 'liberal New Republic' is actually a rabidly neoconservative magazine," edited in recent years by "Clinton/Gore hater Michael Kelly" (who hated from the right) and by "the conservative liberal hater Andrew Sullivan" (What Liberal Media? p. 10). Sullivan himself, in a recent London Times essay reprinted in the March 30 St. Petersburg Times, described the NR as "neoconservative and neoliberal."
Neoliberals are considered closer to the center than old-school liberals, while hot-to-bomb neocons are considered to the right of old-school conservatives. So even if NR is a 50-50 neoliberal-neoconservative split, that equates to "right of center," not "centrist," let alone "liberal." It's preposterous to identify the NR by the single adjective "liberal."
(snip)
Death-squad "liberals" in print and on the tube
Back in the 1980s, the NR loved Reagan's foreign policy. The magazine's editorials, often penned by Krauthammer, led the cheers for such Reagan-backed torturers and murderers as the Nicaraguan contras, the Salvadoran army and Jonas Savimbi's UNITA rebels in Angola. Neocon guest columnists such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Edward Luttwak, Irving Kristol (William's father), Michael Ledeen, Kenneth Adelman extolled the virtues of counterinsurgency and big-ticket weapons systems.
<snip>
Dennis Hans is a freelance writer who has taught courses in mass communications and American foreign policy at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg. Click here to read his stunning essay "Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His 'Techniques of Deceit'" - published several weeks before the start of the recent war. He can be reached at HANS_D@popmail.firn.edu. YOU and all DUers who care, owe it to yourselves to read that entire article. The NEOs aren't stupid. They are fully aware of how upset American people are over the injustices perpetrated in our name and have been appropriating liberal/progressive labels to cover their stalking horses and to further their goals.
Readers beware!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
