The Nation: Under Review

 

 

     The Nation, as one of America’s foremost opinion journals, is certainly not shy of making its political affiliations known. Commonly referred to as “the flagship of the left”, the magazine thrives on its reputation as a liberal news resource and any first time reader will be able to recognize its ideological carriage simply by scanning through the article titles.

     Or at least this was my experience; when first visiting the website I was immediately struck by the headline "Re-Elect the President". The article itself however, is perhaps not quite as blatant as the name might suggest.  While firm in their electoral stance, proposing that a victory for Romney and Ryan would “validate the reactionary extremists” and “represent the triumph of social Darwinism, the religious right, corporate power and the big money donors who thrive in a new Gilded Age of inequality”, the editors express their fair share of qualms with Obamas record, criticizing his reluctance to overhaul reform on immigration, the environment, Guantanamo, etcetera.  The negative focus effectively pivots back and forth between the two candidates, with Romney still ending up the much less desirable with the final verdict being “we can’t afford a Romney/Ryan victory”. Balanced perhaps, but is it fair? Within the article exists many assumptions, it prophesizes of what terror is surely to strike if Romney is voted in, and the authors on numerous occasions attempt to speak for all progressives, suggesting that they “have a profound interest in the popular rejection of the Romney/Ryan ticket” and that progress on any cause they care about would be unimaginable under Romney’s presidency.

       In another article I encountered, cleverly titled “The Enemy of My Enemy Is My President”, author Robert Scheer examines the turbulent relationship between Obama and the proverbial Wall Street “fat cats”, “swindlers” and “hucksters”, and submits that Goldman Sachs animosity toward the president indicates that “he must have done something right.” He then explains that the top five banks had once supported Obama heavily, contributing some 3.5 million to his 2008 campaign, now reduced to a mere $650,000, meanwhile giving Romney 3.3 million; clearly evidence of dissension.  What is also clear is Scheers disdain for the banks, attributing “‘The fat cats’ sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration is obviously less a reflection of actual financial pain they endured these last three years than it is a mark of bankers’ uncontrollable greed”, visible in reviewing the annual earnings of Goldman CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein who got $12 million last year in stark contrast to 65.8 million in 2007 when “Goldman was happily constructing toxic security bundles.”

      Ultimately, The Nation is a leftist’s organization whose political agenda strongly informs what staff they hire, what content they publish, which determines who their subscribers are and who advertises with them.  By no means are they a neutral entity, but they also are not in the interest of fabrication. They merely present information, usually widely available, and spin it whichever way best supports their reputation and often the results are quite presuasive.