THE STORY OF THE ‘NATION’ AND THE
‘NEW
REPUBLIC’
In
the field of journalism, the general weekly and monthly press has tremendous
effect in shaping public opinion. This press is of two kinds–one which caters
to the “intellectuals”, and the other which seeks to attract a large reading
public so that it may become a part of a big business enterprise. Those
weeklies and monthlies which are edited for a limited audience, the
“Intellectuals”, may be called the “idea” magazines. These magazines devote
most of their space to commentary on current problems rather than mere
reporting of them. The idea magazines, in so far as they seek to influence
public opinion, tend often to be committed to certain causes and ideologies,
approaches and attitudes, and may sometimes be affiliated to a political party
or a religious sect. The better known ones in the
The
constantly rising costs of publication have brought tremendous pressure on the
mass circulation press to conform to the majority opinion. And the minority
opinion is gradually cut off from public expression. Hutchin’s Commission on
Freedom of the Press reported that the freedom of the press is in danger
because of the concentration of the press industry in the hands of a few, and
the consequent decrease in the number of people who can express their opinions
and ideas through the press. The commission recommended among other things that
non-profit organizations help supply the variety, quantity, and quality of
press service required by the people. That the Nation and the New
Republic were established with the express purpose of serving this precise
function should make their story interesting to us.
The
Nation calls itself “
The
great prestige the Nation enjoys in the history of American journalism
and thought, is in no small part due to Godkin. His idea was to see his weekly
“instinctively dreaded by every charlatan and scoundrel in the country”. He
announced that the Nation would not be the organ of any party of any
party or sect and would work for the discussion of public affairs and the
diffusion of democratic ideals. One early editorial declared: “Our
criticisms…..may be ill-founded or ill-judged, but are always honest, and they
shall certainly never be withheld; they shall go before our readers, like
testimony before the courts, for what they are worth.” 1 Under
Godkin, the Nation fought for social improvement and worked for the
betterment of labour conditions and of the lot of Negroes.
The
prestige of the Nation, and the influence of Godkin on the elite, were
immense. Richard Dana, Jr., wrote in 1875 to his son who was preparing for a
trip abroad that he would send the Nation to him regularly. James
Russell Lowell told at a dinner that the Nation’s “discussions of
politics had done more good and influenced public opinion more than any other
agency, or all others combined, in the country”. 2 Godkin’s
biographer Rollo Ogden quoted William James as saying about Godkin: “To my
generation, his was certainly the towering influence in all thought concerning
public affairs, and indirectly his influence has certainly been more pervasive
than that of any other writer of the generation, for he influenced other
writers who never quoted him, and determined the whole current of discussion.”
3
Such
was his influence. But the Nation was not without its troubles. It
started with 5,000 contributors and Godkin felt very hopeful of its success. In
the beginning, the stockholders of the Nation gave complete indpendence
to Godkin in the conducting of the paper. But soon dissenting opinion arose
among them, and some did not approve of the policies. In less than a year,
Godkin had to take over complete control, and the Nation association
became E. L. Godkin and Co. During the first year of its publication numerous
experiments, such as changing the title and frequency, were tried to make the Nation
financially self-sufficient, but with no success. By the end of the year,
most of its capital was drawn. Ever since, the financial embarrassments of the
‘Nation’ have been no secret. As Tassin puts it, “It was generally believed
that the end was a foregone conclusion. No matter how ‘uncommon its gift to
make serious inquiry attractive’…….an independent periodical, criticizing life
and literature from only the highest standards of morality and taste and with
no other popular appeal than this, could not long survive.” 4
The
financial troubles were due, at least to some extent, to the lack of proper
management. As Garrison, the Nation’s literary editor under Godkin, said
of Godkin: “He had, strictly speaking, no business instinct, no faculty for
details…..” 5 It would seem that most of the organizations, begun
with no profit motive, fail to practise sound principles of economy and
administrative organization and in the final analysis defeat their own purpose.
In
June, 1811, the Nation merged with the ‘Evening Post’ with Godkin as one
of the editors. Writing to a friend about this transfer, Godkin
said, “I had other offers for the Nation, but felt sure in every case
that the paper would, if transferred, die in a couple of years.”
6 Commenting on the change of ownership, Oswald
Garrison Villard the new owner of the Nation said that “just as into no
journalistic enterprise commercial considerations entered less than into the
first launching of the Nation, so they faded away when the Nation passed
into the hands of the present owners”. 7
Now
Garrison, its literary editor, assumed complete editorial control. As Pollak
points out, “Mr. Garrison’s life-long familiarity with the special
qualification of every leading scholar in the country enabled him to assign, without
hesitation, any book to the man best fitted to review it for the Nation”.
8
That
the Nation’s book reviews are among the best should not, therefore,
surprise anybody. The Nation insisted on impartial and informed judgment
of books. Henry Holt pointed out that it was something new at this time to send
a book for review to a man who had special knowledge of the subject. Under
Garrison, the Nation became more scholarly and less polemical.
After
Garrison (1906), Hammond Lamont, Paul Elmer More, and Harold de Wolf Fuller
were successively short term editors of the Nation. Under their
editorship, it lost much of its “verve and flavour” and it expressed the
scholarly zeal of these academicians rather than zest for contemporary
political life.
In
1918 Oswald Garrison Villard assumed personal responsibility for the Nation and
became its editor. Villard graduated from Harvard and for a couple of years he
taught history there. He was a liberal and an uncompromising pacifist. He owned
the Evening Post which sacrificed revenue to principle until he had to
sell it when
Under
Villard the Nation gained much of what it lost after Godkin. And it
began to pay more attention to foreign affairs than before. This was made
possible “with the financial aid of some devoted friends, notably by Mrs. Henry
Goddard Leach and Mr. and Mrs. Francis Neilson”. Frank P. Walsh called the Nation
at this time the greatest mystery in American journalism. He pointed
out that his articles that appeared in the syndicated news columns of papers
with millions of circulation got no appreciable reaction from the readers. But
when his article appeared in the Nation with a circulation of only
27,000, his telephone began ringing and echoing for people who counted most
then. It may be truthfully said that Villard’s personality did pervade the
columns of the Nation. As Lewis Gannett pointed out, “Villard’s
character is inextricably a part of the Nation…Its lonely courage and
its quick indignations are invariably described as Villardian.”
9
Villard’s
Nation did not make a cent either. Villard did not collect any salary.
During the first year of his editorship, he ran a deficit of about $150,000. He
tried to drastically cut the costs. But it did not help too much. And the Nation’s
survival depended, as usual, on private donations. The strain was too much
for Villard, and he sold it in 1935 practically for nothing to his friends who,
he thought, would carryon in his tradition.
After
Villard retired in 1932, a board of editors directed the paper until 1937 when
Freda Kirchwey took over as editor. She continued through September 1955. She
joined the Nation in 1918 and served as managing editor from 1922 to
1928. She continued its crusade against racial discrimination, criticized the
free enterprise system, and remained pro-labour. The new publisher, George
G.Kirstein, reiterated the Nation’s policy thus: “This magazine has been
and will continue to be frankly partisan. Our hearts and our columns are on the
side of the worker, of the minority group, of the underprivileged generally. We
side with the intellectual and political non-conformist in his clear
constitutional right to refuse to conform”. Harold Lasky noted that “on the political
side Miss Kirchwey and her colleagues have made the Nation as impressive
a journal as at any period in the eighty years of its history”.
10
During
the Second World War, Kirchwey sought new support by forming a non-profit
corporation called the Nation Associates. Under Kirchwey, the Nation faced
some other problems. On June 8, 1948, the New York Board of School
Superintendents had voted not to renew its 18 Nation subscriptions on
the ground that the Nation printed articles by Paul Blanshard, critical
of the catholic views on fascism, science, and censorship. Four
school libraries in
This
action aroused deep reaction from those who agreed with Blanshard’s articles as
well as those who did not agree. It was felt that this was a threat to the
freedom of the press. In a message to William Jansen, Superintendent of New
York schools, Archibald MacLeish, former Librarian of Congress, said: “The ban
on the Nation is not only the most arrogant and contemptuous of the
recent challenges to the American principle of freedom of mind and freedom of
expression, but also the most dangerous. It threatens not only the liberal
press but the whole press, and not only the whole press but the educational
system of the country and even its library system...The pretext that
Blanshard’s articles were an attack on religion is palpable nonsense...”
11
An
ad hoc committee to fight the ban was formed with MacLeish as the chairman.
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt joined the committee as a member. One hundred and seven
prominent names signed “an appeal to reason and conscience” in which they
opined that “If the suppression of the Nation...is allowed to
stand...the consequences to the schools, to the press, and to the vitality of
American freedom may well be very serious indeed”.12 An art auction
was conducted to raise money for lifting the Nation ban. Contributions
from all parts of the country were sent for the same purpose. It is interesting
to note what a contributor from West Virginia wrote in response to an appeal
for funds. “I read the Nation” he said, “faithfully each week,
and rarely agree with anything you say. But I thoroughly enjoy it just the
same...I enclose my cheque to be used in any way you see fit, to make it
possible to continue publishing articles that I cannot agree with.” 13
Even the Catholic Record said that the action of the superintendent “was
somewhat hasty, and ill-considered”.
It
is one thing to complain against censorship; it is quite another to practise
complete freedom of expression. The Nation which stood for years as the
champion of free press, fell much short of liberal expectations when it not
only refused to print one of its critics’ comments but filed a libel suit
against the writer and the New Leader when the critic’s accusations were
published there. This rather unusual action on the part of the Nation caused
considerable commotion within and outside the Nation circles.
Miss
Kirchwey justified the Nation’s action thus: “Every journal with a sense
of editorial responsibility exercises discretion in accepting and rejecting
letters for publication. Custom and common sense dictate certain criteria which
are used in passing on letters as well as articles, and among these none is
more universally recognized than the condition that such material must not be
libellous or defamatory.”14 She went on to say that the accusation
that the Nation is committed to the service of the Soviet government
(which in essence is the comment of the critic) is the most damaging “in a time
like the present”. This argument was not convincing even to those who were
closely associated with the Nation. Reinhold Niebuhr and Robert Bendiner
resigned from the Nation expressing their disapproval of this policy.
Commenting on their resignation, Time observed that “it was apparent
that most liberals seemed to think a liberal publication should be a forum
where differences of political opinion could be aired and debated, and that a
court of law was only for people who have no other way to talk back”. 15
In
1955 Kirchwey stepped back and Carey McWilliams took over as the editor.
McWilliams reiterated the policy of the Nation thus: “In the future as
in the past, the Nation will be consciously addressed to a special
audience. It is an educated intelligent audience, anxious to get the real
facts, intensely interested in the free discussion of ideas on their merits,
highly allergic to special pleading, propaganda, and double-talk. The Nation
of today may not enjoy the same prestige as it had under Godkin or Villard, but
there could be little doubt that it is still the leading liberal journal and
has considerable influence and respect.
It
was never big in terms of circulation. It started with a circulation of 5,000
and by 1928 it reached 40,000. Currently its circulation is reported to be
23,143. It is physically unimpressive, and the advertising income has always
been very meagre. It had to depend mostly on the generosity of those who were
sympathetic to the cause for which it long stood. But the influence of the Nation
far out-proportioned its limited circulation. Millions of Americans who did
not read the Nation received its opinions from editors, clergymen, from
lecturers, and a host of other points of diffusion and refraction of ideas.
This
influence is due mostly to the intrinsic worth of the contents. Many an
original idea first saw the light of day in its columns. It is in the nature of
any original idea that it cannot be instantly assimilated. It has to be
interpreted and reinterpreted so as to reach the popular level. And it would
seem that the Nation supplied in a most concentrated form the essence of
contemporary life and its significance, while many other media have provided an
interpretation of it for mass assimilation. This would be obvious from a look
at the back numbers of the Nation and its contributors.
Convinced
of the essential worth of the Nation, the foremost authorities in many
fields gathered to the support of the editors of the Nation, solicited
or unsolicited. And those who joined its circle remained there throughout life.
Among them is the scientist and philosopher, Chauncey Wright, of whom William
James wrote: “If power of analytic intellect pure and simple could suffice, the
name of Chauncey Wright would assuredly be as famous as it is now obscure...no
specialist could talk with Chauncey Wright without receiving some sort of
instruction in his speciality.” Others of the number were the philologist,
William Dwight Whitney; the jurist, Francis Wayland; the art critic, W. J.
Stillman; the psychologist- philosopher, William James, and that encyclopaedic
mind and the most original thinker of America, Charles S. Peirce.
The
New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly in 1914 with the financial
assistance of Mr. and Mrs. Willard Straight. Croly had studied at Harvard and
edited a magazine in the field of architecture before he became the founding
editor of the New Republic. In 1909, he published The Promise of
American Life, which received wide attention. Having been attracted by this
book, Mr. and Mrs. Straight, who were considering how best they could use their
millions for public enlightenment, sought the acquaintance of Croly and fell in
with his view to start a national weekly. The New Republic depended
completely on the support of the Straights until Mr. Straight died in 1918. But
Mrs. Straight who married Leonard Elmhirst, continued to support the ‘New
Republic’ for almost forty years.
Croly
edited the New Republic for 14 years until he suffered a stroke in 1928.
As Charles B. Forcey wrote, “the story of the New Republic in its early
years...is in a large measure the story of Herbert Croly”. 16 Croly
Was a staunch liberal. As Harold Lasky described him, “he sought to use the
nationalism of Alexander Hamilton to secure purposes that Jefferson might well
have approved had he lived a century later. He wanted a strong and positive
federal government which would use its power to bring business to heel, and use
the full power of Washington to experiment so as to mitigate the Consequences
of social inequality”. 16
The
New Republic has as its subtitle, “a journal of opinion”. It was intended to be
anti-dogmatic, and to help promote public discussion of contemporary political
problems, and literary and artistic issues. It was “to prick and even goad
public opinion into being more vigilant and hospitable, into considering its
convictions more carefully”.
Under
Croly, the New Republic was fortunate to have men of outstanding merit
to materialize these promises. Walter Lippman, Walter E. Weyl, Alvin Johnson,
Francis Hackett, to mention a few, were among Croly’s early associates. As
could be expected, the magazine which started with a circulation of 1,000 had a
circulation of 15,000 within one year of its existence and 43,000 in 1920. The
first volume itself contained the correspondence of some of the best and most
controversial minds in America at that time–Graham Wallas, Arthur O. Lowejoy,
Josiah Royce, and Lewis Mumford. Among the contributors during the first year
of its publication were John Dewey, George Santayana, Norman Angell, and R. B.
Perry.
Croly
worked closely with President Wilson during the First World War. This gave the New
Republic some kind of political influence. For one thing, it was widely
read and analysed in the Wall Street circles. The New Republic experience made
Lippman one of the vital authors of the famous fourteen points of President
Wilson. But Lippman left the New Republic shortly after the war. Croly’s
uncompromising faith in his ideas and the conviction that his work as an editor
was only a means to a larger end created difficulties to the New Republic. After
the war, he opposed the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations; the
paper lost forty per cent of its circulation.
In
the early Twenties there was a marked increase in the number of columns devoted
to cultural subjects. A number of distinguished British writers like H. G.
Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Virginia Woolf were added to the list of
contributors.
Croly
retired as the editor in 1928 and died in 1930. After Croly the New Republic
was run by a team of editors rather than by a single one. In 1930 the
famous ‘Washington wire’ column was added. The New Republic’s analysis
of the Washington scene and the voting records. of the Congressmen and the
Senators is justly famous. And its literary pages are some of the most
illuminating in America. It is interesting to note that in the years of the
Great Depression, while the circulation of the ‘mass’ magazines plummeted, that
of the New Republic rose.
About
the end of World War II, the magazine sought to make two experiments. The first
was to procure a wider audience “through an enlarged magazine, the use of
illustration, an increased reportorial staff, and other changes”. The second
was to change back to the single editorship of Croly’s time instead of the
group editorship. The second one gained precedence and made the first one
impossible. Henry Wallace, Vice-President from 1941 to 1945, was taken in as
the editor in 1946. He, however, resigned after a short time to contest the
Presidential election in 1948. His extreme left wing associations made the New
Republic somewhat unpopular.
Time
magazine, reporting Wallace’s resignation, commented that
the New Republic would not soon forget the year of Henry Wallace. In his
reign as editor, Time noted, the weekly had more than doubled its
circulation to 100,000–and reportedly lost more than $500,000. 18
Michael
Straight, son of Willard Straight, joined the editorial staff during the Second
World War and succeeded Henry Wallace as the editor.
In
1953, when the financial support derived from a family trust was withdrawn, the
New Republic had to face, for the first time, serious financial
difficulties. The publication was continued despite a loss of $ 1,600 a week.
An appeal was made for aid from its readers. It was met with a
remarkable response not only from the subscribers but also from such leaders as
Adlai Stevenson, Paul Douglas, and Paul Hoffman. However, these difficulties
were circumvented when the wife of the publisher, Gilbert Harrison, who is now
its editor, fell heir to a third of the $ 35 million estate left by her
grandmother.
In
1957, the American News Co., New Republic’s long-time news-stand,
decided to drop it because it was “not edited for mass circulation”. Its
circulation was not greatly affected because for the most part, it had been
mailed to subscribers rather than sold at the news-stands. Today with its
circulation of 27,000, the New Republic does not enjoy the same kind of
prestige that it used to, but it still has considerable influence.
Neither
the Nation nor the New Republic made any attempts to be popular
or to entertain. They are not directed by a profit motive, but fired by a zeal
to serve the liberal cause. Both of them seem to have taken cognizance of the
fact that, in so far as they are ‘idea’ magazines, their direct audiences are
essentially limited. To serve a limited audience at a time like this when
publication costs are prohibitively high, is an extremely difficult thing. And
this accounts for the fact that of the many frequent attempts, only a few
magazines of this kind have survived. Printed on heavy grade newsprint, they
are physically unimpressive. But this does not seem to matter much, since their
readers are those who are least attracted by the physical attractiveness and it
is doubtful that they would add to the list of their readers by changing their
physical format without changing the content.
As
their circulation is limited, so is their income through advertisements very
meagre. The survival of an ‘idea’ magazine, it would seem, depends to a great
extent on public support. The Nation and the New Republic illustrate
two ways in which such support may be obtained. The Nation has been
financially dependent for a greater part of its life on a group of people who
are sympathetic to its cause. The Nation Associates and the voluntary
contributions of many Nation readers keep its publication going. For the
most part, the support of the New Republic is not collective. It has for
many years now had a publisher who has the means to maintain it. The Straights,
at one time, and now the Harrisons, took their job as a public service and so
they utilized their money. But the kind of support, collective or individual,
seems to make some difference to the content of the publication. The Nation,
since its inception, has had a socialistic base which gives it continuity.
This base will continue to exist as long as it needs the support of those who
believe in that ideology. The New Republic does not seem to have a
similar base. It has tended to emphasize or reflect a mood rather than a
philosophy. This is obvious from the number of shifts it has made in its
policies.
If
‘idea’ magazines require public support for their survival, they seem to be in
the same plight as the other magazines which are constantly appealing for
public patronage and enlarged audiences. The survival of an idea magazine
depends also on the existence of a group of persons sufficiently large and
capable of providing the necessary financial help. Therefore, not all groups
can have the means of publishing their ideologies. But, in so far as the ‘idea’
magazines constantly appeal to the intelligentia and contain the correspondence
of the egg-heads, it is to be hoped that, whatever may be the ideological base
of such a magazine, it will still serve the greatly needed function of free and
public discussion of contemporary political and literary problems.
One
characteristic of the ‘idea’ magazine is the supreme importance of the editor for
its success. It is Godkin, Villard and Kirchwey who made the Nation what
it was. And it is Croly who shaped the New Republic. In the periods when
no such outstanding persons were there to edit, both the Nation and the New
Republic suffered. It is true of ‘idea’ magazines alone, it would seem,
that the personality of the editor is reflected in their pages.
Apart
from the frequent financial embarrassments to which they are subject and the
extremely modest number of persons to whom they have direct appeal, ‘idea’
magazines seem to suffer from one more limitation. Since they always have an
axe to grind and a philosophy to uphold, their treatment of problems may be
coloured, and their readers be misled rather than informed. This, however, does
not seem to be a serious problem, since those who read these magazines are
‘intellectuals’ who are presumably competent to take the content on its merits.
One
distinct feature of the ‘idea’ magazine is the contributors’ attitude to it.
They tend to identify themselves with the magazine, and remain faithful to it
sometimes all their lives. The reason for this is simple. The main attraction
for one who writes in an ‘idea’ magazine is his faith in the cause, and this is
more potent and effective than any other inducement. The best and most
controversial minds have found expression in the columns of the Nation and
the New Republic. The distinguished galaxy of men who were associated
with these magazines during their long lives, joined them, invited and
uninvited, because they believed in the principles for which the magazines
stood.
There
seem to be some significant differences between what has been said of the Nation
and the New Republic and those that are edited for mass circulation.
The ‘idea’ magazines tend to challenge the reader, while the mass
circulation magazines seek to conform. The former are idea-centered while
the latter are reader-centered. The ‘idea’ magazines seek to influence
public opinion; the mass magazines try to reflect public opinion.
Because of these differences in approach, the personality factor (of the
editors and contributors) and the prevailing conditions of life and literature
become more and more important as the physical attractiveness, form, and style
become less and less useful for the ‘idea’ magazines. Ont he contrary, physical
attractiveness, readability, and handiness become more and more important while
the role of the editors and the contributors becomes less and less significant
for the mass magazines. Moreover, the ‘idea’ magazines are more in danger of
all kinds of censorship since they challenge the prevailing notions than those
whose objective is to conform to them and to reflect the majority opinion.
The
influence of such magazines as the Nation and the New Republic through
the years seems fortunately to be far out of proportion to their limited
circulation. Their influence was felt even by those who never heard their
names. As a matter of fact, our culture and civilization have grown up from the
ideas thrown out by a few and understood and appreciated only by a few, but
through them reflected and diffused in all directions to become now an integral
part of our way of life. There can be little doubt that, where ‘idea’ magazines
exist, the climate of political and literary opinion is enormously influenced
by them. The significant ideas advocated by these magazines would be spread,
acknowledged or unacknowledged, by editors of other magazines, by clergymen, by
teachers, and by leaders, and from a hundred points of diffusion and refraction.
That there are no more than a few of such magazines is, indeed, the tragedy of
our times.
1 The
Nation, vol. II, p. 166.
2 Ibid
p. 76.
3 Life
and Letters of Edwin Lawrence Godkin, New York, Macmillan
Co., 1907. 1,221.
4 Tassin,
Algernon. The Magazine in America. New York, Dodd, Mead, 1916. p.225.
5 Fifty
Years of American Idealism; the New York Nation 1865-1915.
Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1915. p. 58.
6 Fifty
Tears of American Idealism. Quoted from Gustav
Pollak p. 42.
7 Ibid
p. 49
8 Ibid
p. 49
9 The
Nation, 171 : 82, J1 22’50.
10 The
Democracy in America, Viking Press, New York, 1948. p. 650.
11 The
Nation, 167: 29. July 10, 1948.
12 Time,
p. 58, Oct. 25, 1948.
13 The
Nation, 167: 199. August 21, 1948.
14 Nation
172: 504-5, June 2 ’51.
15 Time
57: 55, May 21, ’51.
16 New
Republic 131: 17, Nov. 22, ‘54.
17 The
American Democracy, p. 650.
18 Time
51 : 64, February 23, 1948.