Be careful with Dissent. On balance its politics are right-wing-social democratic (it was the only journal on the US Left with contributors who supported the invasion of Iraq). Some contributors are genuine radicals, but at this point they’re few and far between.
I don’t really mind it taking articles from people who supported the war, even though I didn’t. I think that’s a debate that should be had on the left, without the ritual denunciations that have characterised it so far.
However I do take your point, in the sense that all political publications should be read critically.
Aww, fanks, Veep (blush).
I’ve penned a li’l guide for you on dolphinarium. I want you to go through it all and tell me who one should back, Hari or Cohen.
Jon Anderson (Splintered Sunrise) has already weighed in on Hari’s side.
I find all this call for a debate on the war puzzling. we had one. those in favour of the war were defeated, both logically and in the court of public opinion. The government invaded anyway. Now its all gone pearshaped they spend most of their time accusing anyone who opposed the war (and actually did something about it) of being fascist appeasers. Few are taken in.
Well, there’s no problem (especially on the trot left) in revisiting old debates, is there? People have been doing “What was the class nature of the post-revolutionary Soviet Union” for like 80 years after all!
But this isn’t a ‘debate’ at all. Anymore then Bush’s recycling of far right historiography on Vietnam is a ‘debate’. In the post above you refer, correctly, to the strange obsessions of some people with pompous liberal journalism, in this blog you seem to take it seriously. Its a little bit confusing.
Thinking that the Hari/Cohen “feud” is a load of bollocks, is not the same thing as thinking that serious political debates should be held (or that members of certain political factions have the right to declare them “over”). One is not the same as the other. I hope this relieves your confusion.