Talk:The New Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Owners and Editors[edit]

Peter Beinart is still the current editor and will be until Franklin Foer takes over next week. Aren't we jumping the gun? Also, the article currently states that Martin Peretz is "[t]he current owner." In fact, there are four. From today's NYT: "But the magazine is financially stable, its owners say, in part because there are now four of them. Roger Hertog and Michael Steinhardt, successful New York financiers with an interest in policy and media, were enticed in 2002 to share in The New Republic's glories and seemingly inevitable losses with its longtime owner and editor in chief, Martin Peretz. More recently, CanWest, a Canadian media conglomerate bought a share as well." [1] DRE 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Mort Kondracke executive editor at some point? His entry says he was, starting 1977.

Kondracke was executive editor, but that is a subordinate position. Kalimac 17 Aug 2006

New Republic[edit]

The notion that TNR is liberal is simply bizaare. Liberal Republican, maybe. Left of center? If Pat Buchanan is the center, then perhaps. 72.88.63.106 05:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you read the TNR often but it is quite obviously a liberal (center-left) magazine. Signaturebrendel 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"New Republic" has its own disambigulation page (presenting this magazine and the Star Wars thing), this page should therefore either not mention the Star Wars article, or (what I would strongly urge), the disambigulation should be done away with and "New Republic" should forward here. The magazine is surely far more widely known than a very obscure segment of the Star Wars universe. --Marlow4 11:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and support your idea. —thames 13:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree we should get rid of the mention of the Star Wars article. However, I'm not so sure that more people know about Even The Liberal New Republic vs. the Star Wars New Republic (which has several orders of magnitude more readers). Makgraf 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing[edit]

I removed the words right-wing from the description because TNR is not a right-wing publication. TNR has always been a pro-choice publication, and is also for legalizing same-sex marriage. These are not right-wing causes.

This page needs a lot of work. Anyone, like myself, who subscribes to the New Republic would know that its politics are liberal. Herbert Croly, the magazine's founder, is often credited as one of the first American liberals.

Basil Fawlty

That's a generalization. Andrew Sullivan, former TNR editor, is a right-wing ideologue who is gay and pro-choice. Bds yahoo 17:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not only aren't they "right-wing", but they're a pretty canonical example of a center-left magazine. So much so that they were cited, along with The Nation, as the archetyipcal example of a moderate liberal magazine in an old Phil Ochs song. --Delirium 05:48, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Many liberals to the left of TNR would probably like to paint the magazine as neoconservative or right-wing simply because of the magazine's stance on the Iraq war. There is a difference between being hawkisly left and being neoconservative or right-wing. Jersyko 01:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


Re "Liberal" and an old Phil Ochs Song. Well, it is true that, back in the days of the old Phil Ochs song, the New Republic was indeed a liberal magazine. With such prominent progressives as Henry Wallace serving in its editorship, the New Republic was decidedly progressive in those days. However, that was in those days. Over the past few decades, under Mr. Peretz, the New Republic has in many respects made a 180-degree about-face-----most obviously on U.S. foreign policy. It strikes me as wildly inaccurate, and I think it risks confusing readers, to describe right-oriented pundits like Fred Barnes or hawkish Charles Krauthammer as "liberal." There may be some very special sense of "modern liberal" that could be applied to some of the leading writers for TNR in recent decades, but the change from the old liberal days is quite dramatic. One day, out of the blue, subscribers noticed that TNR had gone overnight from newsprint to a slick cover and that suddenly it was supporting U.S. military adventures, etc.
(I didn't write the above paragraph, btw, although I agree with it.) TNR is only "centre-left" in comparison to the mainstream of US politics, which compared to mainstream politics in other developed countries is far to the right (with the exception of the British Labour Party, which under Blair has become a centre-right party). In the interests of making this article NPOV, it seems to me that any characterisation of TNR as centre-left is a markedly US-centric assessment of its general political perspective. Lexo (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should recognize the limits of how internationally "NPOV" you can make 1-3 word ideological descriptions. They are extremely useful within the context of one nation's politics, but their usefulness falls off almost like a cliff when you get beyond that nation's borders. We should have a markedly U.S.-centric assessment of one of the oldest U.S. political opinion magazines. In fact, it's necessary to fully cover the topic of an opinion magazine. Come to think of it, isn't "left", "right" and "center" assumed to be within the context of each nation's politics? Quite obviously they mean something different as times change and as you move from country to country. I'm not sure we even need to say "in terms of United States politics" because to be consistent you would have to say that (change the nation in the phrase as needed) every single time you used the term anywhere in Wikipedia to describe anything. Mostly national standards must be understood to be part of the definition of "liberal", "conservative", "right", "left" and "center." There is no international standard. It would seem to be useful in any article on political parties and magazines to mention somewhere low in the article where that subject falls on other ideological spectrums, but that purpose is poorly served by comparisons and best served by simply describing what the subject is for and what it's against. That does the job neatly and serves readers of every nation. Noroton (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Classically" Neoconservative?[edit]

Insofar as it supports a strong US policy? TNR may have some neoconservative authors and influences (e.g. Andrew Sullivan), but it is hardly classically neoconservative -- the "classic" neoconservative mags are Commentary and The National Interest. Contrast their "Iraq'd" blog with anything at The Weekly Standard. I'm deleting this line--"New Democrat" is a far better description.--Max power 22:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whatever TNR's stance on Iraq now, it was on its knees for President Bush in the months leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and during the first few months of occupation. Its position then -- that American security was achievable through refashioning the world in the image of the United States -- was indistinguishable from that of the neoconservatives. I suspect it is changing its position now because (1) it wants to see a Kerry victory, because of concerns about Bush's mishandling of Iraq and because it is socially left, and (2) it is hemorrhaging moderate readers on the left and right. Bds yahoo 17:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't know that your characterization of their position on Iraq--even prewar--is quite fair. See, e.g., their March 3, 2003 issue. I can see some differences between what is stated there and the Bush administration's official pronouncements, what they were writing in Weekly Standard, etc. The term "neoconservatism," as the Wiki article points out, is not without controversy. In the current political discourse, it seems to mean both everything and nothing. The only commonality in usage seems to be favoring the war in Iraq, which TNR did--not "classically," but rather making a liberal case for it. TNR has also favored such neoconservative "refashioning[s of] the world in the image of the United States" as the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, for much the same reasons as in Iraq. TNR also takes a strongly "pro-Israel" line, which resembles more strongly the line taken by Commentary, etc.
Even assuming, however, that their positions on Iraq and Israel are indistinguishable from the Project for the New American Century or Commentary or whomever you choose as a proxy for neoconservatism, I don't think that those two make the magazine neoconservative, let alone "classically" so. It might be fairer to say that they have taken neoconservative positions on several major foreign policy issues...although, as I have stated, I have a problem with the word.--Max power 17:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What distinguishes Neoconservatives is their stance on foreign policy. It is not normal for a "center-left" magazine to support a preemptive war in Iraq. It's not even normal for a "center-left" magazine to have a pro-Israel stance. Just read about the editors. Peter Beinart is a member of Project for a New American Century. Look at the article on Walter Lippmann. The New Republic seems to have a strong association with Neoconservatism, I really don't think "center-left" tells the whole story. CPS 04:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

just a quickie: i realize that we're talking encyclopedia here and not journalism, but when a source makes an accusation, such as the editor puts his religious affiliation ahead of his nationalistic commitments, shouldn't at leat SOME kind of balancing be sought? otherwise it's borderline defamation. some nut might even hunt the poor jew down. (ODS)

Not only does a neocon's stance on foreign policy distinguish him, but also his reasons for his stance. It is certainly normal for a center-left magazine to support a preemptive war in Iraq if the motivation is, at least in part, to promote social justice and human rights. Why does this not comport with a (liberal) veiw of promoting social justice and human rights in the United States? While some neocons might also hold such a belief, the distinction between neocons and liberal hawks is that this motivation is a primary motive for a liberal. See, for instance, Beinart's Fighting Faith article for an example of such a distinction being made in the text of the magazine. Anyway, even assuming "center-left" alone does not tell the whole story, "neoconservative" certainly does not fit. If anything, "hawkish" should be added to the description, but not neocon. Jersyko 21:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
If neoconservatives support the war in Iraq for reasons other than their own vision of social justice and human rights, what are they? CPS 01:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jersyko seems to have hit it closest to the mark here. TNR's editorials have been consistent with a center-left world view of reluctant-warriorism; applying US military power only when necessary to the service of improving or protecting the human condition. Few neocons will toe this line. In early 2003, TNR supported the invasion of Iraq principally on the grounds that 1) Hussein was a threat, inevitably if not immenently, to regional stability because of a WMD program that was still widely believed to covertly exist under the noses of the ever-frustrated UN inspectors and 2) the war represented the application of American power towards doing the world a favor by eliminating a genuinely horrific fascist regime, thereby following in the footsteps of historical struggles against communism and facism. Similarly, TNR supported late-1990's US involvement in the Balkans to prevent genocide when the neocons were scoffing at what they regarded as Clintonian global meddling.
Admittedly, the PLO's (disastrous) siding with Hussein in Gulf War I and the fact that Hussein was sending checks to the families of suicide bombers that struck Israeli civilian targets did not likely put him on Martin Peretz's birthday gift list.-Lachrym 00:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groening[edit]

The article currently states that Simpsons creator Matt Groening "wrote for TNR" in the "Trivia" section at the end of the article. A search of TNR's archives, however, reveals no pieces written by Groening. Perhaps his contribution, if any, was limited to illustrations, maybe a magazine cover? If so, the wording in the article needs to be changed. I am unable to confirm that Groening has done any work for TNR at present. - Jersyko talk 17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was a cartoonist for them, but I don't have any data to back that up. Makgraf 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In flight magazine for Air Force Once?[edit]

I remember this sticking out as an interesting fact presented in Shattered Glass. Does this still stand.. eevn if it no longer does .. I think it should be mentioned.

However frequently it was carried on AF1, I think the phrase is more cliche than factoid. Andersem 03:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals[edit]

After identifying a couple more notable scandals at TNR, I created a "Scandals" section. I'm not wedded to this organization, so feel free to put it back under "History" or squash it under a single heading or whatever. Cheers. — BozoTheScary 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNR Conservative Summit in DC???[edit]

No mention of TNR Conservative Summit in DC???--Gkklein 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I believe you're thinking of the National Review, the other TNR, not The New Republic ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Thank you very much--Gkklein 04:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYT Article on cutbacks[edit]

The New York Times has an article on cutbacks at TNR. (New Republic Cuts Back, but Bulks Up Its Image) The article should be updated to reflect this. I don't know when I will have a chance to do so myself. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the relevant info. On a different note, please don't post such a large amount of copyrighted text on Wikipedia. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "controversies" section should be incorporated into the history section[edit]

Especially as these controversies recede into history, it seems appropriate that they be combined into it. I see no reason to cut back on the information in "Controversies" (if anything, a bit might be added), but it seems to present a clearer picture of the history if the information is included there. I'll do it myself if I don't hear an objection after, say, a week or two. Are there any downsides to merging those sections? Noroton 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since there seems to be another one emerging now (re: 'Scott Thomas'). Alcarillo 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prevaricator"[edit]

I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia policy, but isn't it POV to identify Scott Thomas Beauchamp as "freelance writer, soldier, prevaricator" in the notable contributors section. Althought the Army has determined the stories to be false, my understanding is there's still some controversy (I'm pretty sure that TNR still stands behind the story). And even if the story is false, putting "prevaricator" in the same context as his occupations seems a bit odd, as it seems to suggest that he's a "prevaricator" in a much more fundamental way than just having made one or two false statements. Presumably not everything he says is a lie, lots of people (everyone?) have said false things, but we shouldn't necessarily label them as a liar. Especially since there still seems to be dispute as to whether or not he did lie. Does anyone else agree? 71.116.89.88 06:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing endorsement[edit]

How can New Republic have endorsed Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman in the 2004 Democratic Convention? Bill Clinton served his two temrs ending in 200! Does the writer mean Al Gore instead of Bill Clinton, or is the date in error, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.10.205 (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern liberal[edit]

Recently two editors have removed the term modern from the intro. Just to clarify: Modern liberal means social liberal or left-liberal (what Americans usually just call liberal). This is opposed to "classic liberal" (which is usually called "libertarian" or often "laissez-faire conservative" in the U.S.). "Modern liberal" is the most commonly used term to distinguished the type of liberalism that is dominant in the U.S. today, from classic liberalism or other forms of liberalism. It is the most accurate and precise term that can be given. While for an American audience the term "liberal" by itself is sufficient, as the term is only applied to modern liberals here, I was thinking of an international audience, who may like some clarification on what brand of liberalism we are talking about. Signaturebrendel 04:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert this either way, but could you please provide one or two links that show people outside the US saying this? There are a number of terms that Wikipedia loves but are never used elsewhere, and I've never seen "modern liberal" used in British newspapers or whatever, so I'm kind of skeptical.P4k (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, from seeing the term used in The Guardian, liberal is often used to describe social liberalism as well. I have print sources for the term "modern liberal;" one being John McGowan's American Liberalism (University of NC Press); come to think of it, perhaps it is not neccessary for me to specify the type of liberalism, since this is a U.S. magazine - thus, one would expect the term liberal to mean modern liberalism, since that's what's understood as "liberal" in the U.S. Signaturebrendel 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the term "liberal" to "centre-left." TNR tends to be more pragmatic and less easily categorized into an American liberal or conservative paradigm, though on average it tends to drift slightly left of the centre. --24.7.71.43 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "modern liberal" is a pragmatic "ideology" (as matter of fact, one may argue that it is the ideology's most prominent feature) & the mag is quite obviously (and proudly) "liberal." Considering the stances the magazine takes on taxes, health care, gay marriage, etc... is fits into the "American liberal paradigm" quite nicely. But your edits gave me an idea, why not have it say "Center-left, liberal" - that makes it crystal clear that we're talking about neither classic liberalism nor social democracy (which too many people confuse with modern liberalism). Signaturebrendel 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think a neologism I might use is "paleoliberal" -- this would be in the mold of (for example) Thom Hartmann in "What Would Jefferson Do?", and I think his characterization of progressive ideas as "common sense from the radical middle" is somewhat descriptive of TNR. I also note some striking similarities (along with the expected stark contrasts) between TNR and Cato Institute, which also draws heavily on Jeffersonian ideals -- albeit intermittently. WNDL42 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation[edit]

CanWest implemented major changes to the magazine in order to increase circulation. One of the changes was to file to remove itself from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

Though this may be true, it's speculation. In the cited source, the magazine's publisher offers another reason entirely. Beginning with the "decline of 41 percent since 2000", the tone of this section expresses a PoV. The paragraph after the circulation table should probably be removed.

DRE (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Recent Nation/Alterman article...[edit]

...states, that, as did 'Commentary', this publication long ago moved right to a Neo-Conservative stance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Events (ca. December 2014)[edit]

As someone quite unfamiliar with The New Republic who had sought out the Wikipedia article in order to learn more about it, I was surprised to see that all five paragraphs of the article's introductory section concerned, or alluded to, events of the last weeks. I find it remarkable that a century-old publication is introduced to those curious to learn more about it with such content. Is there no more enduring achievement, impact, or import that can be placed in a position of such prominence? I presume that either the answer is 'no' or that certain parties have co-opted the article for less than objective expository purposes. Gaussgauss (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The New Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The New Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The New Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use "neo-liberal" for New Republic[edit]

Some of the earlier comments bring up the variety of liberalism this magazine advocates. The term for it is and has been "neo-liberal". It's not quite the same as just "liberal" or "center-left". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.153.129 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberal is just a sneer word used to make lazy ad-hominem attacks. The last time anyone called themselves a neoliberal was the 1950s. It is a term of abuse applied to others in an attempt to link them to 1940s economists widely despised on the left as right wing cranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:5C4A:FA00:B518:9C3C:7C78:D871 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington[edit]

In the last sections of the article, it is told that the magazine moved to New York. Nowhere it is told where it was based before that move. It seems to have been based in Washington for 100 years, or wasn't it? Bever (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The New Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political views[edit]

I noticed some synthesis issues with that section which I've removed, but would like to point interested editors at this set of edits, that seemed to also remove some good independent sources like NYT and added more TNR sources. I don't have the time to read the sources now. —PaleoNeonate – 00:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the political views section since it had only primary sources and one weak secondary source. adding the text below (including some that I copyedited for clarity) in case others want to improve upon it.
== Political views ==
In The American Conservative, Telly Davidson described its support for Bernie Bro and Millennial Marxist movements and attacks on Hillary and the Democratic establishment from the left.[1][undue weight? – discuss] In May 2019, The New Republic published a roundtable on socialism where three of four contributions were favorable, while the owner and editor-in-chief, Win McCormack, wrote a more dismissive piece.[2]
In February 2019, staff writer Alex Shephard wrote that "it doesn't make political sense to put bumpers on hypothetical policies, which dampens voter enthusiasm. Pragmatism doesn't track as a legislative argument, either".[3]
In June 2019, staff writer Alex Pareene wrote: "All the while, Democratic leaders continue to campaign and govern from a crouched, defensive position even after they win power. They have bought into the central ideological proposition, peddled by apparatchiks and consultants aligned with the conservative movement, that America is an incorrigible 'center-right' nation, and they have precious little strategy or inclination to move that consensus leftward—to fight, in other words, to change the national consensus; the sort of activity that was once understood as 'politics'".[4] Superb Owl (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Davidson, Telly (August 31, 2017). "The New Republic's Super Buzzy, Lefty Upgrade". The American Conservative. Retrieved December 21, 2019.
  2. ^ McCormack, Win (2019-05-21). "Socialism in No Country". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Archived from the original on July 30, 2019. Retrieved 2023-03-26.
  3. ^ Shephard, Alex (February 27, 2019). "The Overdue Death of Democratic "Pragmatism"". The New Republic. Retrieved December 21, 2019.
  4. ^ Pareene, Alex (2019-06-20). "Give War a Chance". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Archived from the original on June 20, 2019. Retrieved December 21, 2019.

Weird article[edit]

This article is a deeply embarassing hack job. I do not feel well and objectively informed. Some kind of ideolocial battle about the political tendendies of the magazine seem to take place in the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:1C37:8400:6805:3F27:CC5F:9D2F (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cover pic[edit]

Can we have a newer cover pic? This one is over 10 years old… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:6422:BB99:A758:D3D4 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_Republic&oldid=1194334769"