3 Top Lessons from the New Republic Implosion

112414_COVER.online-1

Now that the pixel dust has (mostly) settled, we can begin trying to glean some lessons from the sudden crack up of The New Republic.

Since its inception 100 years ago, TNR has positioned itself as the journal of American liberalism, when that word was still synonymous with patriotism, freedom and even a hawkish foreign policy.

The magazine cheer-led for Stalin longer than was seemly and opposed the Vietnam War. However, it was also critical of the New Left's excesses and, under contentious editor Martin Peretz, became largely pro-Israel.

It may have been "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One" during the Clinton administration but that didn't prevent TNR from being highly critical of his (and Hillary's) policies.

So it wouldn't be entirely fair or accurate to describe The New Republic as a "liberal" magazine, although that's what a lot of conservative commentators have been doing since this week's Chernobyl-level meltdown.

In a magazine landscape in which The Nation is unmistakeably far-left, and National Review and the Weekly Standard are clearly "right wing," The New Republic sometimes seemed... confused -- a reflection of the particular passions of whoever happened to be editor at the time.

And many of those editors over the years have been quite young.

As have the magazine's writers.

That's why it's likely that the prospect of having a 28-year-old owner didn't immediately strike fear into the hearts of New Republic stakeholders.

Ooops.