{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "The Nation (or at least Michelle Goldberg) has been staking out a decent claim on the \"last generation's left-media stars tell...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/114442311218/", "html": "

The Nation (or at least Michelle Goldberg) has been staking out a decent claim on the “last generation’s left-media stars tell the kids their leftism is mewling, toxic, illiberal shit” beat. (See for example)\n\nI won’t say it’s the last place I expected that from but it’s not the first. An open niche, I suppose.\n\nBefore and into the dawn of the Internet I tried to live up to my pretensions of worldly knowledge by going to the library to read a “balanced diet” of The Nation and National Review. (I was, like, twelve, so this was a precocious pretension.)\n\nSo my image of The Nation comes from its post-Cold War stumblings, all “Fuck, socialism isn’t even a *dream* anymore? Well I, uh\u2026 hm. Well how about \u2013 no. Hm. Fuck. Look, Adbusters!” The Zack de la Rocha era of American left media, before George W. Bush came along to rescue it.\n\n(My memory of ‘90s National Review was a bunch of indistinguishable columnists trying too hard at second-rate Buckley impersonations with the result that they all sounded like poncey British twits. The exception was John Derbyshire, who secure in the knowledge that he *was* a poncey British twit allowed himself a personality.)\n\nAnyway, it’s a noble fight, or at least an interesting one. Has me actually paying attention to The Nation for the first time in a while.

"}