The liberals apparently can travel through time now

[The Laughing Man]

I Remember It Like It Was Next Week (Reason Online)

In the latest issue of Harper's, Lewis Lapham has a long, tiresome essay on the "Republican propaganda mill"--which, to judge by one of the accompanying graphs, includes the foundation that publishes Reason. (No wonder we find ourselves praising the president so often.) Lapham briefly mentions but otherwise ignores ideological divisions on "the right," lumping together "the Catholic conservatives with the Jewish neoconservatives, the libertarians with the authoritarians, the evangelical nationalists with the paranoid monetarists, Pat Robertson with the friends of the Ku Klux Klan." According to Lapham, all are part of the same conspiracy against decency and compassion, bound together by a common "resentment" (of what, exactly, he doesn't say). It tells you something about Lapham's acuity that he sees George W. Bush as a faithful disciple of Barry Goldwater. The main thrust of the piece is that all conservatives are stupid and closed-minded, with the possible exception of Irving Kristol.

Perhaps the most revealing part of the article is the paragraph where Lapham pretends to have heard the speeches at the Republican National Convention that does not open until a week from today. Referring to "the platform on which [George W. Bush] was trundled into New York City this August with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the heavy law enforcement, and the paper elephants," Lapham writes:

The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal--government the problem, not the solution; the social contract a dead letter; the free market the answer to every maiden's prayer--and while listening to the hollow rattle of the rhetorical brass and tin, I remembered the question that [Richard] Hofstadter didn't stay to answer. How did a set of ideas both archaic and bizarre make its way into the center ring of the American political circus?

True, the issue is dated September, but I got my copy in early August, and Lapham must have written those words in July. Didn't it occur to him that his readers might notice he was claiming to have witnessed an event that had not occurred when the magazine went to press? Evidently, Republicans are not the only ones Lapham thinks are stupid.

[bar Jonah]

:rilol:

[BeHereNow]

What proof do you have that he didn't travel into time?

[bar Jonah]

What proof do you have that he didn't travel into time?

As an Open Theist, I don't believe time travel is possible. That's good enough for me.

[Benster]

I think you should sit back and wait 'til you catch up with us liberals who have heard the speech already, and then decide if he was wrong.

Watch out with Lapham. He's a pretty smart character, Definitely one of my favorite Yalies, just ahead of John Kerry.

[Xavier]

What proof do you have that he didn't travel into time?

OVT or not, It might not be logically possible to time-travel.

[BeHereNow]

OVT or not, It might not be logically possible to time-travel.

But I think Jinx would have a difficult time proving that "the liberals" can't time travel. I'm challenging him to prove it :)

[anthrogirl]

http://harpers.org/ 26 Aug, 2004

<H2>Back to the Future

© source where applicable

http://harpers.org/ 26 Aug, 2004

Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004. Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004.
Sources
I was most impressed to read of Lewis Lapham's ability to travel in time in "Tentacles of Rage" [Essay, September]. As far as I can tell, on the day I received my copy of Harper's Magazine, the Republican convention had yet to take place, and living in New York, I think I would have noticed. Admittedly, the pablum will be predictable (barring some unforeseen event), but it seems awfully sloppy of Lapham to discuss feelings he had while watching something he has yet to watch, simply in order to put some additional feathers on one of his rhetorical barbs. What is most appalling is that he chose an actual piece of journalism, rather than his accustomed punditry, for this rather silly fillip. This doesn't exactly give me faith in his understanding of what it is reporters actually do.

On the other hand, if he has in fact traveled in time, I would appreciate it if he could let all of us subscribers know the outcome of the forthcoming election.

Matthew Ostrowski
Brooklyn Lewis Lapham responds:

As Mr. Ostrowski properly notes, the rhetorical invention was silly. The mistake, however, is a serious one, and if I'd had my wits about me as an editor, I wouldn't have let the author mix up his tenses in manuscript or allowed him in page proof to lapse into poetic license. Both of us regret the injury done to the magazine and apologize, wholeheartedly, to its readers.

© source where applicable

</H2>

[Twilly Spree]

Thanks Anthro!

[The Laughing Man]

Lewis Lapham responds:

As Mr. Ostrowski properly notes, the rhetorical invention was silly. The mistake, however, is a serious one, and if I'd had my wits about me as an editor, I wouldn't have let the author mix up his tenses in manuscript or allowed him in page proof to lapse into poetic license. Both of us regret the injury done to the magazine and apologize, wholeheartedly, to its readers.

So now he's refering to himself as two separate people???

[Twilly Spree]

Did everyone know that since I'm liberal I can fly and turn water into beer using my mind powers?

[anthrogirl]

Lewis Lapham responds:

As Mr. Ostrowski properly notes, the rhetorical invention was silly. The mistake, however, is a serious one, and if I'd had my wits about me as an editor, I wouldn't have let the author mix up his tenses in manuscript or allowed him in page proof to lapse into poetic license. Both of us regret the injury done to the magazine and apologize, wholeheartedly, to its readers.

So now he's refering to himself as two separate people???

Jinx...

.....nevermind.

[Ben Franklin]

OVT or not, It might not be logically possible to time-travel.

Hey...! I've experienced time travel personally...! Whenever I forget some kindness my wife asked of me, I go right back to the same argument we had 6 months ago...! It's amazing...!

[elysian]

"Can libertines (why misuse a perfectly good English word, "liberal" when the word "libertine" is more accurate) time travel" is a rhetorical question. If they were doing it how could we prove it?

Dennis Kucinich alone is not enough proof for reincarnation, though he bears an uncanny resemblance to Marshall Applewhite of Heaven's Gate notoriety. Applewhite could have faked his death, bought some "Nice and Easy" hair color and voila- now he's the notorious Congressional representative from the northeast corridor of Ohio.

It could happen.

Or maybe not.

One would think if they could go back in time they would have disposed of the nefarious "Blue Dress."

[Captain Ochre]

Lewis Lapham responds:

As Mr. Ostrowski properly notes, the rhetorical invention was silly. The mistake, however, is a serious one, and if I'd had my wits about me as an editor, I wouldn't have let the author mix up his tenses in manuscript or allowed him in page proof to lapse into poetic license. Both of us regret the injury done to the magazine and apologize, wholeheartedly, to its readers.

So now he's refering to himself as two separate people???

The writer at Reason may have misattributed.
It's hard to know until we're able to access the September issue of the magazine.