Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Left Gatekeeers, or the Discreet Relationship between Krauthammer and Alterman

By Jordy Cummings

Read full article...

Posted 11/30 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I recall most tough-minded sharpies I know completely tuning Dissent sometime after 9/11 when that crew argued that there was no root cause of terrorism. As far as both Alterman’s continuous claiming Cockburn is a ‘Stalinist’ who ‘stains the pages of the Nation’, and any claims he’s making about working the funding circuit to push his views, it’s good to recall the The Nation’s founding prospectus, that the publication is not ‘the organ of any party, sect, or body.’ As to the former stupidity, Alterman has been pushing this brand of Stalinoid labeling, nescient slurring for a long while now (probably he feels inadequate: Cockburn writes circles around the guy, blindfolded). As for the second, historically speaking, it’ll be perversely funny if Alterman sacrifices The Nation on the Israeli altar.

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  11/30  at  05:09 PM

  2. Err ... tuning out Dissent

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  11/30  at  05:14 PM

  3. Dissent is strange, I never read it regularly because it is incredibly hard to find here, but its analysis of capitalism is spot-on, only rivalled as publications by New Left Review or Monthly Review, in terms of that sort of thing.  And its also always been very Pro-Israel, and never opposed the Vietnam war really.  Still, Irving Howe, its late editor was a brilliant thinker in many fashions, though a redbaiter,, by no means a McCarthyite and helped bring Frankfurt School theorists to popular attention, C Wright Mills, Norman Mailer.  After he died, the “communitarian” movement, Michael Walzer et. al who have a perverse mix of true hawkishness, true anti-capitalism, so it seems, and love of such intrusive ideas as national id cards and drug testing.  Still, Marshall Berman, others hold up the fort.  Point is, you couldn’t say a word about Palestine in that magazine.  And if anything, The Nation bends over backwards to not piss off the Israel lobby.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  12/01  at  01:22 AM

  4. I used to think that Alterman felt inadequate, but hell, he’s got a following.  I read him daily, if only for the fact that he has clout esp. among middle class Jews - esp. kids my sister’s age, early 20s.  He’s all the rage among those who one year ago loved Frum.  He is a kinder gentler Chomsky, and uses that persona to push those Jews back into the arms of the Israel lobby.  He allows them to feel good about ethno-particularism, much like Louis Farrakhan or David Duke....seriously rhough...Whether he is aware of this or not, I am not sure, but I am sure that he is directly referring to rich liberal Jews who, as my father used to say “hate death squads in El Salvador but not if Sharon runs them” who have threatened to pull funds from left-oriented foundation run things like the Nation, etc.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  12/01  at  01:29 AM

  5. Hi j. Sorry for the delay, I use an internet cafe. True, Dissent’s analyses are often pretty good, but as you say, one can also pick up MR or NLR. (Also, if possessed of reasonably on point analytical acumen, one can simply figure things out for one’s self ... what should be the method of preference.) Yes, their Palestine taboo is bizarre. Where’s the dissent here? For me, it’s a kooky American thing: apparently, this discussion of remains uncouth. Denkverbot, I guess. I used to enjoy Dissent when I was younger. Also, not to long ago, I used to read Altercation regularly (and liked ‘What Liberal Media?’). Still, as I say, I find A.’s consistent disparaging Cockburn as a ‘Stalinist’ laughable. A disagrees with C. but seems too feeble to tackle him head on ... so he aims to discredit, and so, easily avoid real conflict. This way, he’ll never debase himself engaging a ‘Stalinist’. Employing this tactic is usually indicates one’s theoretical paucity. A. is often quick to dismiss targets from afar, but I imagine if he committed to a face to face, quite a few would just eat him alive. (btw: thanks for the article.)

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  12/01  at  09:14 AM

  6. sorry about the typos

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  12/01  at  09:19 AM

  7. I liked What Liberal Media too, in terms of style, until I discovered out he cited research by Edward S. Herman improperly (as Edward R Herman, and he missed the book name the “Myth of a Liberal Media,) a man who he regularly publicly derides.

    From that point on, I asked him about it in an e-mail and said the paperback copy would be corrected.  It was not, nor did he admit that he was pretty much dumbing down - not that its a bad thing in principle, Herman’s very influential media analysis. After writing him he linked my stuff at Counterpunch on Palestine at Altercation, proving my point to him that Cockburn was not an “antisemite.” something he’d been saying (I only discovered Altercation, btw, when he first called Cockburn an AntiSemite as per a column a few years back...otherwise, he was the antiNader somewhat bland columnist at The Nation as far as I was concerned.

    My real point here is that, in effect, supporters o the Sharon government are marching in lockstep with the idea that PAlestinians are not ready.  Even Alterman is stating this idea, which makes it all the more effective as propaganda cause Alterman is “liberal,” the real point is regarding fundraising.  He is probably a very nice guy, and is more right than wrong, but dead wrong here.  And I know he reads me...so...(not fucking around...I can provide e-mails to those interested)

    Posted by j cummings from  on  12/01  at  09:36 AM

  8. Eric Alterman personally calls my writing “inspired lunacy.” A greater compliment I could not expect...(and notice how he subtly manipulates my comments)
    see altercation.msnbc.com

    Standing on the shoulders of midgets.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  12/01  at  12:22 PM

  9. Wow!  Alterman gets mega-flack from Likudniks, and you say he’s on their side?

    Could you try, you know, proving your assertions sometime?  (Hint:  Invective alone is not “proof”.)

    Posted by NotTheLoonyLeft from  on  12/01  at  03:05 PM

  10. Regarding the comment by Theo who said Alterman “is too quick to dismiss targets from afar.. and would be eaten alive face to face...”... I would like to direct Theo to Altermans appearence on the Dennis Miller show (July, maybe August). Not exactly an intellectual medium or anything, but Miller tried his damnest to pounce on Alterman with stupid platitudes like, “what, you think Saddam should be free?”, in respons to Altermans criticisms about starting the war (I’d like to ask Miller, “what, you like when hundreds of thousands of children die from malnutrition?")... Anyway, Alterman didn’t skip a beat and gave as good as he got. Miller was, honestly, speechless that a “liberal” didn’t crumble like a wet noodle. Miller literally resorted to childish mocking, when, after Alterman gave a very intelligent “diatribe”, Miller said, “why do you look so glum, you just sitting there like blaa or something? Why do you look that way?”... and then Alterman just said, “ok, is this your mode of argument, to make fun of me?”... So Miller then gets visably pissed and says, “OK, fine, I won’t say anything, I won’t ask any questions. You can just sit there and talk about whatever you want..”... Miller apparently thought he was really giving it to Alterman, but Alterman just said, “OK” and proceeded to talk, nonstop, listing every shady, irrational, selfish thing Bush has done regarding Iraq. Miller sat there completely stunned for the entire time. Alterman eventually finished and Miller was too pissed to even segway into commercials and dismissed Alterman without a gentlemanly handshake or anything. The screen just went black. It was one of the classic moments in television (up there with when Frankin publically humilated O’Rielly at the C-Span book club thing… I was lucky enough to see that live as well...)... Miller made a complete ass out of himself on his own show, and Alterman came through swinging.

    Posted by Dave from Ohio  on  12/01  at  03:33 PM

  11. j, You’re pretty funny. I find your Herman bit interesting (I’ll check it out later today). As far as the ‘inspired lunacy’ bit, let’s remember that A. likes to present himself as a voice of sanity. Besides our agreeing that A. is, well, you got this one right, bland ... shall we recap what we seem to be agreeing on here? One: A. ignores what C. has to say on Palestine, grounding his contempt in the weak ‘Stalinist’ charge. No? Two: A. himself, a known pundit in the Democrats’ stable, is not exactly pernicious, generally means well, but is apparently beholden to ‘The Israel Lobby’. (If you have not picked up The Daily Show’s ‘America: The Book’ by all means do so, it’s worth it just for the foldout poster diagram of The Shadow Government. Very funny people.) Three: The more serious problem here—what you are getting at—is this claim he’s making that the Palestinians ‘are not ready’. It’s just one of imperialism’s stock rationales for keeping people down ... the poor savages just can’t manage things themselves ... look how chaotic they are ... they need our benevolent guidance, etc. This obviously makes sense to those who have a vested interest in maintaning the situation as it is, as it conveniently justifies their behavior (historical examples abound). But to those not so inclined and more partial to getting down to the nitty-gritty (for example, us) it usually sounds more like rhetorical childrenese.

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  12/01  at  03:34 PM

  12. Hi Dave, thanks for the response. I don’t insinuate Alterman can’t hold his own against not just the Dennis Millers of this world, but against a lot of conservative punditeers; nor do I wish to claim he’s a wussy. He’s an informed guy, pretty well-spoken, seemingly decent. What I am saying is: considering how he likes to exercise his liberal voice of reason cred, trying to discredit someone like Cockburn by basting him with (let’s be honest here) outright smeary vituperation just makes him appear lesser. I am saying that he casually dismisses views he finds uncomfortable, claiming for himself the ground of reasonableness itself. This backfires (cf. Cummings’ piece here) regarding Cockburn’s views about Israel. Cockburn might be cranky, but he’s no crank. Calling him all these things is Alterman’s way of proving he is not one of ‘them’, thus freeing him to criticize society and still remain within establishmentarian conventions, ‘politically viable’, so to speak. (And, does possession of establishment credentials reflect well or poorly on one’s social critique?) Alterman (like our NotTheLoonyLeft here) claims others are simply nuts politically. That usually indicates intellectual weakness. Yes, he can do well against the acceptable targets. Personally, I do not think he would hold up well against a good radical. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  12/01  at  04:02 PM

  13. You essay was too long to read. Where’s the part where you blame the Jews for the war, Bush, and other pestilence?

    Posted by Gaddy Yaari from L.A.  on  12/01  at  06:31 PM

  14. The fact that Alterman is the guy that gets put on Dennis Miller as the “far left” says it all.  Yeah, Miller was rude to him, but Alterman himself admits not being a far leftist, but a “Vital Centrist in the tradition of Arthur Schlesinger”

    Posted by j cummings from  on  12/02  at  11:31 AM

  15. A third view that missing from the two stated views—that of a uninational secular state.  I’ve seen this view posted on CounterPunch and elsewhere.  I think the binational “solution” is a defeat against justices and permits the Isreali from never having to face up to the fact that their society is undemocratic, discriminatory, and sectarian.

    WB

    Posted by Wilson Barber from  on  12/03  at  07:46 PM

  16. WB - The problem with a secular state is that neither side wants it. In one survey, 95% of Palestinian respondents described themselves as “deeply religious.”

    Posted by Gaddy Yaari from L.A.  on  12/03  at  07:54 PM

    17. Next entry: Lifestyle as Direct Action

    Previous entry: Interview with an Antiwar Veteran from the Iraq War

    [ads]

    Support Press Action