COLUMN: Losing its conservative edge

From: Daniel Fienberg's, "The Fien Print," Fall '97 From: Daniel Fienberg's, "The Fien Print," Fall '97In the nicest possible way, I wish I could hate The Red and Blue. I wish every reading of that 108-year-old bastion of campus conservativism filled me with anger, ire and outrage. Once a month, I embrace the very possibility of a major philosophical difference with the magazine. Today, The Red and Blue is a publication in transition, trying desperately to re-invent itself with improved writing, a fresh new design and a new position on (or off?) the political spectrum. The problem with that is bumpiness of the transition. For over a year, the Student Activities Council has been funding a magazine at a crossroads without getting any real demonstration of which path it is leaning toward. Was the September issue some kind of indication, then, of the future? With a splashy color cover, redolent of a mid-'80s Details fashion spread, copious pictures of smiling editors having fun, an officer in a lacy bra and numerous pictures of campus hot spots, the editorial board seems to be making a calculated effort to prove something. But what? This dilemma needs to be addressed because as long as The Red and Blue is being well-funded by SAC, the magazine should at least make a stab at finding a target audience. A sure recipe for failure: Take a slightly rebellious stance or world view. Use the stance to become relevant. Keep playing the same tune over and over, hoping that through repetition you can make your point and therefore yourself more prominent. Decide your prominence is not enough and attempt to branch out to the mainstream to become popular. Attempt to make everyone happy even if you are failing to make yourself happy. Watch people cease to care and move to other venues for the gratification they used to get out of you. Panic. Adapt. Return to point A again, and, no doubt, repeat. To be honest, that blueprint is really based on nearly 20 years of watching the "real world" adventures of MTV. All discussions of Kennedy's politics aside, that may be the first and last time anyone attempts to compare The Red and Blue to MTV. But still? "Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth." That's what Franklin Roosevelt said. I learned from reading The Red and Blue's "Words of Wisdom" section, the monthly page that may as well be called "Random Quotes by Random Ideologues Taken Randomly Out of Context From Bartlett's Book of Quotations." But Roosevelt's words make sense. After all, how many times does the campus' "non-partisan journal of ideas" need to run the same articles on randomized housing, the failures of University President Judy Rodin, the bastardization of feminism or the civil rights movement or the paucity of "dead white males" in our liberal arts curriculums. These points may well be true, but the editorial board must not have much faith in them. Allowances must be made for The Red and Blue since it only comes out only monthly. Most of the relevant topics at the beginning of a month have been resolved or forgotten four weeks later. Shouldn't this give the magazine a chance to write more balanced features? If The Red and Blue is truly as "non-partisan" as it claims to be, the extra time shouldn't make stories stale and unoriginal. It should provide additional perspective. Because most of its articles are based on events that have reached a certain resolution, the resolution should be reflected in a well-rounded discussion. It is this perspective and depth that has generally been lacking. Every month brings the same articles. Occasionally, the authors have a different point of view that makes them stand out, but the opinions espoused don't change. They still take a conservative tone that would generally raise my ire. But after enough repetition, it ceases to have any bite. It is not that they have "transformed a lie into a truth." They've just run the opinion into the ground. Even newer articles suffer from the same basic problem: While a "point/counterpoint" article has a purpose, what new issue on abortion was raised by the recent pair of articles? Someone needs to ask these questions before the magazine goes to press. Editor-in-Chief David Kalstein is making an admirable attempt to bring better student writers into the mix. The diversity of the outside writers is also a plus, even if their opinions do not mirror this variety. The new layout has certain benefits, though it should be noted that taking an already grainy photo and blowing it up 10 times does not make for aesthetically pleasing viewing, especially not when it's done five or six times per magazine. "The UA still has not provided a tangible mission statement to this publication," charges the editorial on the second page of the September Red and Blue. Perhaps before accusing the Undergraduate Assembly of a lack of principles -- no matter how valid the charge -- the editorial board needs to look inward to see if it could give a statement of principles. And there certainly are choices. Be conservative! Give voice to to the all-too-silent right wing of Penn's student body. Say you are doing it, and stand out proud. I'll probably be offended, but I'll look forward to it on a monthly basis. Or be Centrist! But find a way to reflect multiple points of view. Make sure people will care about what is being written. Be new, fresh and entertaining, but make it relevant to the student body as a whole. Don't tell us what we already know. Whatever the decision, make it now. Don't be boring. Don't make people wonder why you exist at all. Because, at some point, you may have to defend yourself to someone holding the purse strings. And right now, you sure don't want that.