30 / CHRONICLESnwho saw the U.S. Constitution as anhuge money-making scam), and thenindefatigable John Reed (the onlynAmerican buried in the Kremlin wall).nWhen this “progressive” hodgepodgenof a magazine began appearingnin print, it was received with mixednemotions. The magazine was not quitenleftish enough for the real radicals,nand, in the opinion of WillardnStraight, it was a little too high-brownfor almost everyone else. The magazine,nhe complained, was filled withntoo much opinion and not enoughnfact. ‘Tighten up the tone of the papernand give it a sugar-coating to get itnacross even with the semi-intelligentnreader.” It is tempting to suggest thatnthe editors took Straight’s advice bynappealing to the “semi-intelligent”nprogressives who constitute the majornpart of the magazine’s readership. Innlooking back over the early issues, it isninteresting to compare the editorialnwisdom with the actual course ofnevents. TNR had been appearing fornthree years when the October Revolutionnof 1917 occurred. Many of thenstated goals of the Communists werenin harmony with American progressivesnand liberals. For over 20 years,nTNR would be a defender of the revolution,nand despite its close connectionsnwith Teddy Roosevelt and laternWoodrow Wilson and even later FDRn(after first denouncing him as too conservative),nthe magazine would alsonrecommend Communist candidatenEarl Browder for President in 1936.nThe author recognizes this closenideological affinity, and, though hencontends that the Communist Partynnever directiy influenced the magazine’sneditorial position, he admits thatn”its unabashed romance with the SovietnUnion attached it firmly to the partynline in the international sphere.” Onenof the less savory episodes in the romancencame during Stalin’s show trials.n(You can find the back issues innany good library, and microfilm willnpreserve their infamy down to the lastndays.) TNR managing editor BrucenBliven was a little concerned about thenpolitical impact Stalin’s actions werenhaving on the Communist causenworldwide. In “A Letter to Stalin”npublished in TNR on March 30,n1938, Bliven makes several suggestions.n”Soviet court procedure in mostntypes of trials is admirable,” Blivennstates, but he suggests that Stalin use anstyle more compatible with the Anglo-nSaxon and Roman tradition. “It maynbe unjust of the Americans, for example,nto suspect that torture is used innthese eases; but in the United Statesnthere is a nationwide and long continuedntradition of police brutality, ofnextorting confessions by torture innevery sort of case from petty larceny tonmurder. It is inevitable that this countrynshould look with suspicion uponnconfessions obtained in secret hearings,nhowever plausible these confessionsnmay be on their face.” Blivennalso suggests that Stalin “publish everynscrap of documentary evidence” innorder to vindicate his integrity, that henabolish the death penalty (that’s somensuggestion for one of the world’s greatestnmass murderers), and that he createna “legal Opposition.”nBliven concludes with a revealingnnnstatement. “I am profoundly convincednthat nothing you could do fornthe USSR by remaining in office for anlength of time could be as great anservice as the demonstration thatnamong 190,000,000 comrades no onenis indispensable, that those foreignncritics who lump together ‘Hitier, Stalin,nand Mussolini’ have been altogethernwrong.”nFortunately, the magazine wouldncome to lament its former position onnthe Soviet government. It would havento do some more lamenting in thenfuture. In the 80’s, of course. The NewnRepublic moved a tad to the right, bynits own admission. If it did not learnnfrom Stalin, and it did not learn fromnMao, the magazine finally learnednsomething from Ho. In an issue dedicatednto the 10th anniversary of the fallnof Saigon, some of the editors regrettednthat they took the wrong side on thenVietnam problem.nIt’s a littie late, now that freedom isngone, and millions have been reeducatednto their graves. As a leadingnjournal of opinion opposing the warnand a supporter of McGovern, TNRnmust bear a good deal of the moralnresponsibility.nIn repentance, perhaps, the magazinendid a long and well-reasonednpiece on the foolishness of our agriculturalnpolicy, and Fred Barnes wrote anscathing article on National PublicnRadio’s news program All Things Considered,nentitied “All Things Distorted.”nExperience keeps a dear school, asnPoor Richard advised, and the “fools”nat TNR have learned a few hard lessons.nBut instead of saying “I’m sorry”nand shutting up (and shutting down),nthey continue to advise Americans onneverything under the sun. The President’snrecent misadventures over Irannand the contras—about which TNRnis sputtering in uncontrollable indignation—nproceeded according to anscript which might have been writtennby the magazine’s global democrats.nOn most social and ethical questions,nthe present magazine is worse than itsncom-symp predecessors. Gay rights,npornography, and stuffy avant-gardennovelists were not exactly HerbertnCroly’s cup of tea. TNR may havenmoved to the right on some issues, butnon most questions it is as wrong as itnever was.n