Roger L. Simon: Time Magazine doesn't need a redesign

It needs euthanasia. But forget the inevitable - and the trees. (Shorter term) money and jobs are more important. Can you blame them? Meanwhile, only a couple of short months before today's vaunted redesign, is the obvious truth.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

A perfectly reasonable and pedestrian article about the early GOP presidential race. Nothing too exciting, but notthing terrible either.

I actuallylike Time -- I think it is much better then Newsweek in the "Coke v Pepsi" battle of weekly newsmagazines. Time has done a much better job of adapting ot the new reality and realizing that people do not read it for "news" -- but rather for analysis and opinion. Time has introduced new regular columns on subjects like history, legal issues and science and is making a really good effrot to stay relevant in this new era.

"I think it is much better then Newsweek", is hardly a very glowing endorsement. A blank sheet is 'much better than Newsweek'. I encounter Time twice a year whenever I visit the dentist, and each time I end up throwing it down with a --Never Again--, show of contempt. Even old Reader's Digests are preferrable to fill in the time.

I suppose it depends whether you like your 'information' filtered through Time's ever present ideological spectrum. Since I don't, especially, I will not be shedding any tears when this agit-prop outlet finally simply disappears. And Time is not an 'opinion journal' as Mike alleges. It is an 'opinion journal' masquerading as a 'news magazine'. Sailing under a 'false flag as it were. Yes it does contain 'opinion' pieces, but they are virtually identical to it's supposed 'news' stories, except they have 'Opinion' as headers. And, of course, the 'opinion segments' actually have a semblance of 'balance', which is also convenient for differentiating them from the 'news', that Time presents .

I am old enough to remember when Time was not what it is today. I think Roger might be as well. Time indeed changes all things. In this case not at all for the better.

So, no, I don't think Roger was being 'harsh'. Accurate perhaps, but not 'harsh'.

"The tide of history is moving irresistibly in our direction. Why? Because the other side is virtually bankrupt of ideas. It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate. It has spent its intellectual capital."

That was 1985. Since then, liberals tired of losing elections have jettisoned some stupid ideas, rebranded others, and waited for the other side to make mistakes. They've listened to the arguments of the other side, and taken into account some of the legitimate criticisms against liberal orthodoxy. I have no idea how long the game is going to go on, but in the great game of political thought, I would imagine that its a tie ballgame, or pretty close. Not that you would know that from interacting with others on this blog. With the exception of social issues, in which honest disagreement amongst intelligent people is still apparently acceptable, you had better be a (neo)conservative on economic matters and foreign policy, or as you might as well believe that the earth is flat, or that bloodletting cures a range of diseases. The same arrogance that kept liberals out of power for years, and that CONTINUES to keep the far left far away from power.

BTW, the New Republic has a similar article on WF Buckley's disillusionment with contemporary "conservativism."

"you had better be a (neo)conservative on economic matters and foreign policy, or as you might as well believe that the earth is flat, or that bloodletting cures a range of diseases"--Markus

Not to be pedantic but as I understand it, 'neo-conservatism' is not,as a theory, very concerned with 'economic matters', except as they relate tangentially to the implementation of 'foreign policy'. As far as this neo-conservative thinks anyway, 'economic' matters are completely subject to honest debate from whatever perspective. I have no cast-iron favorites in that horse race. Whatever 'works', works for me.

dougf, for many people like markus, who value the appearance of reasonableness more than the reality--"neoconservative" is a convenient way to sneer without dropping the cloak.

Historically, to the extent that "neoconservative" means anything at all, it concerns people who abandoned liberal orthodoxy and dogma on means, but not necessarily on goals. (For example, they think Arabs being free is good. Cozing up to the Soviet Union to get there? Not so much.) They were some of the first modern "liberals" to actively get behind the idea of the need for a free market, but their reasons were that that it worked better than any alternative--when facts were faced. They have the same opinion about universal health care that markus has about their economic views--not very high. But in fact, this aspect of "neoconservatism" hearkens back to John Locke and Adam Smith's brand of classical liberalism: Freedom cannot be free unless property is protected, because a mass of men without any means will surrender their freedom for bread. Modern liberalism somehow perverted this idea to skip the decline of Rome and jump straight to the bread and circuses.

Markus, it's not the disagreement that is my issue with you. It's that you make the same arguments over and over. Arguments that were tired and stupid and worn out when I was a child. Then tomorrow, after having been answered by someone that hasn't seen your front of reasonableness crack yet, you come back and continue as if you have not been answered.

All of the above is also a good summary of why I don't bother with Time or Newsweek.

Markus, ole pal, your politics are "reasonable" like life is "peaceful" under a dictator. In both cases its a "yes, but" proposition.

The one principle I've been able to detect in your writing is that the world is unfair (granted that's half of the fundamental insight).

Actually, for that to be a principle it would have to be, "the world should not be unfair".

And, for sure, as Steve Mitchell said, that's Time Magazine's big breakthrough, too. And who disagrees with that principle? No one. It's in the prescriptions for a cure that you and Time run into trouble.

I, for one, would subscribe to a magazine like Time if it did it's job well: solid new, investigations, and feature articles that were well researched. It would be a joy and make my life easier if that were the case. As it is, I let my very cheap subscription lapse in 1994 because of one too many ridiculous science articles. I figured the rest of the magazine was probably no better and that I was simply filling my head with garbage. I can't say if it was ever any better but it seems a good bet. Some professions have sunk into incompetence due to misguided credentialing and I suspect journalism is one of them.

Time presents the mainstream news like the nightly news hour with Bryan Williams. This is fine but I feel as though it is targeting a baby-boomer audiance. I think The Economist gives a much better description on world events and science articles as well as popular literature and arts. I do not think that science articles are junk like the previous writer has written, none the less if a science article is poorly written, you may have found it in Time.

Carl Rove was on the plane crawling around, he was obsessed, he propositioned me ....

to the extent that "neoconservative" means anything at all, it concerns people who abandoned liberal orthodoxy and dogma on means, but not necessarily on goals. (For example, they think Arabs being free is good. Cozing up to the Soviet Union to get there? Not so much.) They were some of the first modern "liberals" to actively get behind the idea of the need for a free market, but their reasons were that that it worked better than any alternative--when facts were faced. They have the same opinion about universal health care that markus has about their economic views--not very high. But in fact, this aspect of "neoconservatism" hearkens back to John Locke and Adam Smith's brand of classical liberalism: Freedom cannot be free unless property is protected, because a mass of men without any means will surrender their freedom for bread

I think that may be true in a sense. However, we must consider that at least some (but not necessarily all) of the political acts taken in like with the Neoconservative philosophy haven't really panned out. If you take a look at the policies recommended by the AEI and PNAC (and their projections), they had a couple huge misses. As such, I think that they will probably experience a serious reduction in their influence for the next few cycles (Much like the democratic congress after their performance in the 80's). I don't think that the problem was necessarily the philosophy, but rather the implementation and the appearance of the implementation as tied to the current administration. In fact, I think that we'll probably see the same sort of decreased influence among the Christian Coalition.

Simply put, at the very least, this administration has soured the general public on anything closely tied to them as a political philosophy. We can debate the contributing factors (MSM etc), but at the end of the day... the policies (particularly the projections by the NeoCons) haven't fit the reality. Iraq hasn't been the cakewalk they predicted, the Iraqis haven't embraced democracy, or at least they haven't yet embraced the responsibility that is incumbent on the citizens of a democracy. The experience in Iraq has not spurred the growth of Democracy in the M.E. In fact, many so-called experts believe that its hurt the growth of democracy there.

A number of republicans seem to be breaking ties with both the Christian Coalition/Religious Right philosophies and the NeoCon policies. This seems to be backed up with the current folks who appear un the running for the 08 Red Ticket. It also seems to fit with the upset that the Right got in Nov '06.

Sadly, I don't think the philosophy was terribly out of line. I think, instead it was the poor implementation and the even poorer communication from the administration. Not to mention the continuing MSM pressure and the bizarre errors that have been magnified by the press (the CIA thing, the PATRIOTACT issues, the 'protracted' War, etc etc ad nauseum). That's not to say that NeoCon's might not make a comeback, but I think they'll have a few years at least to regather their forces and momentum.

From an economic perspective, the usual position identified as NeoConservative tends to fit with traditional conservative views (and IMHO tends to work). In essence, we're talking about tax cuts for growth, even at the expense or acceptance of a Federal Deficit. In a pre-9/11 world, I think this would have been sustainable. However, in the face of 9/11, the subsequent recession, the huge jump in Oil prices, the war in Afganistan and Iraq (which we hoped to pay for with oil, but have instead furthered the debt) etc, the deficit has grown much faster than even the NeoCon philosophy can absorb. Beyond that, wI think a pre-9/11 Iraqi invasion may have worked in the way the NeoCons thought (greeted as liberators, quick takeover by a democratic government, rebuilding and success). However, after 9/11 and Afghanistan, there were a lot more variables including a far more active and vocal Al-Queada which was able to use the situation to grow inter-sect anger and chaos.

I think that the overall problem was that Bush et all failed to adjust the plan based on the events and their fallout. They seem to have moved forward on the original agenda set forth and the changes made it a much greater risk.

In the end, I think that had the NeoCon agenda been pushed pre-9/11 or if the agenda had been modified by the Administration, the NeoCons might have retained their power. As it stands, I think they'll be tarred by association with this current mess for some time to come.

Don't take anything I fail to comment upon as either agreement or disagreement. However,

"...the deficit has grown much faster than even the NeoCon philosophy can absorb..."

There is no "neocon philosopy". "Neocon" ideas are typically taken from a wide variety of philosophies and ideas, with an eye towards isolating what works or does not.

For example, the deficit is in free fall compared to the worst predictions of anyone--against all expectations of the so called "realists". Practical people know that anything that gets money into private hands and the economy and removes government (or otherwises removes bureaucracy) from the loop fuels economic growth. Tax cuts are one of the more obvious ways to achieve such results. That doesn't mean that tax cuts have no counter-untuitive short-term effects, or that they affect the economy directly, without regards to other things.

The inability to distinguish spikes in the economy from recession and turmoil, and then blame the recession and turmoil on the tax cuts, is the *kind* of nonsense that drove certain liberals into rejecting liberal dogma in the first place.

March 15, 2007: Time Magazine doesn't need a redesign

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post