To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (56818 ) 9/4/2002 11:17:41 AM From: The Philosopher Respond to of 82486 This is an interesting article from a traditionally leftist site on the difference between writing on the left and writing on the right. Compares the dulness of the Nation with the exuberance of the Weekly Standard. I've never read the Standard, have read the Nation for years (and agree with their criticisms), but this article makes me want to try the Standard.slate.msn.com It notes the dramatic shift since the 1960s, which I have noted earlier, and discusses how some left wingers have deserted the left on specific issues such as abortion and Clinton. I loved this paragraph: How the anything-goes drug-and-sex party that the cultural left threw in the '60s segued into an Amish wake featuring stern readings from the joyless work of Barbara Ehrenreich, the scoldings of Todd Gitlin, and the catechisms of Richard Goldstein is anybody's guess. Would Emma Goldman dance with these folks? Or would she make a beeline for the house on the right, which looks like a brothel in comparison to the one on the left? I await the Powers sequel. I agree -- I find it hard to dance with the contemporary left, too. And this, IMO, hits the mark squarely. Of course, lefty journalism needn't turn right to improve itself. But Powers hints that the source of The Nation's illness is the Stalinist impulse to prescribe proper attitudes toward culture, art, and journalism. A Nation writer who, say, wants to use humor or wit to make his point mustn't abuse gays, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Ralph Nader, foreigners, women, the infirm, working stiffs, Indians, Mohammed (but Jesus is fair game), whales, or any cultural stereotype. This leaves him just one angle from which to compose his point: Stupid White Men. Such is the state of left journalism that Michael Moore has made a career out of painting and repainting this mono-mural.