
More than 40 million Americans work without any paid time off. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews.)
Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
This is a banner week for The Nation, and for two of our most essential voices – Columnist Katha Pollitt and Editor at Large Chris Hayes. Both are in the news this week for milestones that reflect the best of The Nation: incisive commentary and thoughtful debate.
Last night was the debut of All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, Chris's new nightly program on MSNBC. From his early days writing at In these Times to his reporting for The Nation and his tireless work as our Washington, D.C. Editor from 2009-2011, Chris has always gone "all in” as a reporter. Up with Chris Hayes reflected some of the best in TV news, with Chris and his producing team accomplishing something that was no small feat: holding thoughtful, lively conversations about real issues in a way that was also engaging and fun to watch. Guests genuinely enjoy being on his show, and his work at MSNBC points the way to a new model for how cable news can inform debate.
Chris sparked some controversy last week in describing the lengths he goes to each week to ensure diversity among guests. Also worth noting, though, is the extent to which Chris brings new voices into the conversation. A typical Up panel was as likely to feature a grassroots organizer, a scholar or a Walmart worker as it was a political operative or a TV pundit. Chris has assured viewers that he will continue to focus on tough issues, from emerging labor struggles to poverty, even in the competitive 8PM nightly timeslot. We're rooting for him, and we’ll be following along at the show’s new hashtag, #inners.
This week, I am introducing a new feature to my blog: incorporating material from The Nation Archive, where you can access 148 years of America’s independent journalism on politics and culture in digital form. For subscribers, The Nation Digital Archive contains thousands of historic articles, essays and reviews, letters to the editor and editorials dating back to Volume I, Number 1 on July 6, 1965, and all fully searchable. I hope you’ll enjoy the pieces that we move in front of the paywall—which I think are a testament to the extraordinary legacy of The Nation.

Attorney General Eric Holder, who recently said that some banks are too big to prosecute. (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst.)
Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
This week marked the tenth anniversary of the Iraq invasion and the beginning of a war that The Nation opposed fiercely and early on. Running scores of articles and editorials against the misguided mission, our writers sought to create an intelligent dialogue around the issue and provide alternative policies to move us forward in a more peaceful way.
The Nation’s first editorial on the subject ran on June 20, 2002: “War on Iraq Is Wrong.” In clear and certain terms, the editors outlined the glaring weaknesses in the administration’s argument for war and its obtuseness over the consequences of invasion. “If the United States proceeds alone or with only tacit support from others, Iraq’s collapse into anarchy cannot be ruled out,” warned the editors. “Democrats and Republicans, and all citizens with civic courage, must challenge a policy that poses a clear and present danger to international and American interests.”
In an open letter to Congress on September 25, 2002, the editors continued their informed criticism of the overthrow of the Iraqi government. Though the passage of an authorizing resolution seemed a foregone conclusion, they urged the members of Congress to speak out and stand together against the invasion. The silence of party leaders in the face of a simple, clear, and strong case against the war was troubling and The Nation demanded that our representatives act in the interest of the country, rather than fall prey to egoism and power politics. “Reject the arrogance—and the ignorance—of power,” urged the editors. “Show respect for your constituents—they require your honest judgment, not capitulation to the executive. Say no to empire. Affirm the Republic. Preserve the peace. Vote against war in Iraq.”

Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari.)
Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
The budget proposal released by Congressman Paul Ryan this week relies on an alarming $5 trillion in cuts, the majority of which take a hatchet to our healthcare system and other essential services.
As Bryce Covert reports, this most recent iteration is bad for nearly all but the wealthy, but it would do particular damage to the interests of American women. She shares shocking statistics of women’s dependence on Medicaid and Medicare—making up the majority of beneficiaries of both programs—and shows how slashing discretionary spending will hurt a number of programs that women are enormously reliant upon. “Women voters roundly rejected [Ryan] and his running mate in 2012,” writes Covert. “This budget does nothing to address their needs and works against the most vulnerable among them.” For many of those reasons, NETWORK, the same Catholic social justice lobby that opposed Ryan’s economic extremism in the fall, issued a statement challenging the latest iteration of his austerity agenda.
“Reasonable people might ask: What is Paul Ryan thinking?” writes John Nichols, noting the marked similarities between this budget plan and the economic roadmap from Ryan’s failed vice presidential run. A rehash of old proposals cloaked in rhetoric, the new Ryan budget is a “Bumper-Sticker-Slogan Budget”: one that was roundly rejected by American voters in 2012 and does not stand a chance of passing Congress this time around. So what’s his angle? The limelight. Ryan was posturing for the base, just in time for the Conservative Political Action Conference, which started Friday with an opening speech by none other than the House Budget Committee chairman himself.
The budget proposal released by Congressman Paul Ryan this week relies on an alarming $5 trillion in cuts, the majority of which take a hatchet to our health care system and other essential services.
As Bryce Covert reports, this most recent iteration is bad for nearly all but the wealthy, but it would do particular damage to the interests of American women. She shares shocking statistics of women’s dependence on Medicaid and Medicare—making up the majority of beneficiaries of both programs—and shows how slashing discretionary spending will hurt a number of programs that women are enormously reliant upon. “Women voters roundly rejected [Ryan] and his running mate in 2012,” writes Covert. “This budget does nothing to address their needs and works against the most vulnerable among them.” For many of those reasons, NETWORK, the same Catholic social justice lobby that opposed Ryan’s economic extremism in the fall, issued a statement challenging the latest iteration of his austerity agenda.
“Reasonable people might ask: What is Paul Ryan thinking?” writes John Nichols, noting the marked similarities between this budget plan and the economic roadmap from Ryan’s failed vice presidential run. A rehash of old proposals cloaked in rhetoric, the new Ryan budget is a “Bumper-Sticker-Slogan Budget”: one that was roundly rejected by American voters in 2012 and does not stand a chance of passing Congress this time around. So what’s his angle? The limelight. Ryan was posturing for the base, just in time for the Conservative Political Action Conference, which started Friday with an opening speech by none other than the House Budget Committee chairman himself.

Attorney General Eric Holder. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite.)
Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Friday marked the 104th International Women’s Day, a celebration of advancements made by women in social, political, and economic spheres. Take, for example, the wild success of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, a powerful businesswoman and self-proclaimed feminist who just published Lean In, her book of personal reflections on leadership, women in the workplace and individual growth. The controversial debut has inspired criticism from the likes of Maureen Dowd, Melissa Gira Grant, and Jodi Kantor, but Nation columnist Katha Pollitt gives her own reading and argues that feminists were far too quick to judge Sandberg’s motives for writing. Pollitt also reminds us that International Women’s Day represents an opportunity to discuss the ongoing need for action and advancements in human rights around the world.
Veteran journalist and author Ann Jones opens up that dialogue with a compelling look at Afghan women facing an uncertain future. As the US withdrawal looms large, she speaks to female advocates in Kabul who are carrying on a fierce, lonely fight for women’s rights in the face of President Hamid Karzai’s government, and without much help from the United States. Talking to lawyers and social workers, psychologists and students, she reports on what they have gained in the past decade, and what they stand to lose—or keep—with 2014 on the horizon.
2014 will also mark the twentieth anniversary of the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), a conference that established women’s rights as central to development efforts and institutionalized the policy accepting a woman’s right to control her own body. Barbara Crossette explains the decades-long backlash to the agreement led by a coalition of anti-abortionists, anti-LGBT activists and anti-feminists. She reports on conservative religious and social forces at work aiming to roll back these advances, and warns that the people most wary of the coming anniversary are the strongest supporters of the rights of women and gay people.


