A Bomb in Every Issue: How the Short, Unruly Life of Ramparts Magazine Changed America | By Peter Richardson | The New Press | 272 pages, $25.95
It only took a few years for Ramparts to evolve from an earnest Catholic lay magazine published in the suburbs of San Mateo County to a high-spending, scoop-breaking, muckraking journal whose San Francisco offices were graced by shotgun-wielding Black Panthers and a masturbating pet monkey. This was a frantic transformation, yet still a familiar one. It did, after all, take place in the Sixties on the left coast. And Peter Richardson lays it out in a straightforward fashion in his new chronicle of the magazine, A Bomb In Every Issue.
Of course, the very existence of this book is something of an anomaly. In general, magazines don’t get much of an afterlife. It’s hard to argue that even the most celebrated among them—The Saturday Evening Post, say, or if you’re less of an oldster, Spy—are anything other than obscure.
If Ramparts is remembered today, it is less for its groundbreaking reportage than for its role as progressive journalism’s finishing school. Mother Jones was launched by a group of Ramparts refugees, including Adam Hochschild, in 1976. Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner worked on a Sunday newsprint spin-off, and freely admits to having lifted design elements from that short-lived venture. (Warren Hinckle, who edited Ramparts at the time, didn’t have much regard for this particular progeny. He later described Wenner as a “fat and pudgy kid” whose magazine was one of “the leading merchandisers of … counterculture bullshit.”)
Mother Jones (where, it should be disclosed, I once worked) is still going strong. Its proprietors have managed to smooth the manic peaks of the Ramparts formula for the last three decades: left-looking investigative journalism married to glossy art, a relatively hefty subscription base, and more than a little help from a wealthy circle of advisors-cum-donors. There have, of course, been some tweaks. Mother Jones is a nonprofit by design, not by accident. And the earlier magazine’s expense-account culture, which irrigated its staff and hangers-on with enough screwdrivers to float a new Algonquin roundtable, is unknown at Mother Jones—or almost anywhere else in the industry these days.
But let’s get back to those manic peaks. Richardson’s title is drawn from the headline of a 1967 Time article that took issue with a Ramparts investigation. A “bomb” was the magazine’s lingo for a big story. But Time was certainly comfortable with the double (or triple) entendre, warning that “Ramparts is slick enough to lure the unwary and bedazzled reader into accepting flimflam as fact.”
The supposed flimflam was the magazine’s expose of an obscure think tank run out of Michigan State. According to the article, the organization had played a role in supporting the South Vietnamese government, helping to train security forces and write the country’s constitution.
Time asserted that the article’s salient facts weren’t much of a scoop, having already appeared in books. (Frustratingly, Richardson fails to address this charge.) In any case, this shot across the bow was enough to draw the attention of the CIA, whose director illegally ordered his agents to work up a file on Ramparts.
Such a file, if it had been broadly researched and updated throughout the magazine’s 13-year run, would include an astonishing roll call, with contributions of one kind or another from Jessica Mitford, Seymour Hersh, Todd Gitlin, Hunter S. Thompson, Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Merton, James Ridgeway, Daniel Zwerdling, Marty Peretz, David Horowitz, and I.F. Stone. Oddly rounding out the bunch is Brit Hume, who briefly worked for the magazine in Washington before beginning his television career.
In a way, Ramparts returned the CIA’s favor. Over the years, it revealed that a wide range of liberal and centrist institutions—the National Student Association and The New Leader among them—had been on the agency’s cold war payroll.
Vietnam, however, was the magazine’s principal obsession. Richardson makes an airtight case that a graphic photo spread of maimed Vietnamese children (with text by lefty baby doc Benjamin Spock) sparked Martin Luther King’s decision to speak out against the war. One famous cover showed four senior staffers’ draft cards ablaze, and brought a measure of legal trouble. Another ran the line Alienation is when your country is at war and you want the other side to win over a photo of the art director’s ruddy-cheeked son holding a Vietcong flag.
Much of this was the work of Robert Scheer, still trucking today at truthdig.com, who was brought in as an editor after bellowing his southeast Asia expertise through many a Berkeley bullhorn. Hinckle took him on despite a warning from Edward Keating, the magazine’s original founder, funder and editor. “Never hire anyone smarter than you,” Keating told him. “They’ll try and take over.”
It was an apt bit of advice, reflecting the vigorous paranoia of Ramparts office politics. Eventually, Scheer did take over—but not before Hinckle forced Keating out.
Unfortunately for both Richardson and his readers, Ramparts burned bright and fast. Its later years were hampered by New Left factionalism, soggy thinking, and a decline in outside support. The magazine’s staff was decimated, the publication schedule trimmed, and the glossy paper gave way to newsprint.
This decline and fall is given full attention. But it’s not an interesting death, and readers are unlikely to feel a great loss as the indignities mount. It doesn’t help that one of the key players in the final era is Horowitz, a figure whose current work and political views couldn’t be more sharply divergent from the magazine’s original inspiration. To describe the later years, Richardson draws heavily on Horowitz’s autobiography, Radical Son, and this bildungsroman of disenchantment imparts an unwelcome psychoanalytic flavor to the mix.
- 1
- 2





'Ramparts' is now the 1960s equivalent of those proletariat-themed lefty magazines of an earlier age, such as The New Masses. In spite of the surface glitter of its cast of writers, they remind me of the 'progressives' of an earlier age who thought they were working for a better world, and who were actually working for a brutal and primitive Russian nationalism. One thing we found out about celebrations of revolutionary violence is that groups that do so tend to attract the types of people who are more attracted to violence than to 'revolution'.
Similarly, Robert Scheer's anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist cohorts thought they were working for revolutionary Third World nationalism, and appear to have in retrospect actually been preparing Western leftist opinion for an equivocal view of the most reactionary religious force in the world of the post-'Ramparts' era, i.e., militant Islam. Here at home, 'Ramparts' thought it was endorsing community control, anti-racism, and self-determination, while it was actually giving credibility to a group, the Black Panthers, adept at playing white liberals and leftists as cover for criminal enterprise - something not mentioned in the review. ('Ramparts' writers could have learned more about the Panthers from studying the methods of the Mafia, another ethnically-based institution, but without the large political statements, than by reading Lenin. They were too stupid, in their narrowly political way, to grasp the comparison.)
The magazine folded before it could rationalize 'boat people' and the rise of the Khmer Rouge. I wonder if the book discusses the case of Ramparts as a cautionary, rather than exemplary tale of trendy children of the bourgeoisie who grasp many small truths, while being blind to larger ones.
Posted by Mark Richard on Thu 12 Nov 2009 at 05:31 PM
I wonder if there are any parallels to be drawn between the leftist radical culture of the 60's and the neo-con radical conservative culture of 90's onward. Magazines such as the American Spectator and The National Review plus think tanks like the Heritage foundation have twisted themselves in circles defending the suspension of habeus corpus and proliferation of torture for the sake of freedom. Defending unaccountable war policies and funding while demanding fiscal responsibility. Defending spending everything to protect American lives from threats abroad while attacking attempts to protect Americans from starvation or influenza as nazi socialism. We are seeing an approaching tide of apostasy from that side of the intellectual coast.
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/11/the-evolution-of-blogging-an-interview-with-charles-johnson/
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/11/10/recovering_republican/index.html
It's fitting that the American right the leftist radicals retreated to in the 60's became as untenable a radical movement in the 90's.
What one can learn from that is that we should avoid things which encourage a monoculture of thought. There will always be a tendency to see one's side as wholly right and the other as wholly wrong within us, but when we let that become a barrier to listening to our critics, we become immune to criticism.
And, right or left, that is a dangerous thing to be.
Posted by Thimbles on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 12:32 AM
Hi Mark:
For the record, the book gives careful attention to the relationship between the Black Panthers and Ramparts, including the dark half-mystery of Betty Van Patter, a Ramparts administrative employee who briefly worked as a bookkeeper for the Panthers in Oakland before her unsolved murder.
The book makes it clear that both the magazine and the Panthers benefited (financially and otherwise) from their association, though at times it was uneasy. (The review does glancingly mention the time that Panthers essentially occupied the Ramparts office, which almost led to a shoot out with the San Francisco police.)
Richardson, as is usually the case in his book, doesn't tell his readers how or what to think about the story he's told. But there's plenty of grist on the pages to raise a range of questions about how well considered the association was.
Posted by Clint Hendler on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 11:11 AM
Three quick points.
1. Time magazine was correct that Scheer's MSU story had already appeared in print. The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions published his pamphlet before the story ran in Ramparts. I mention the pamphlet in the book, and I assume that's what Time had in mind. I believe Henry Luce (the man, not the monkey) was associated with the Center.
2. The occasion for Time's article, "A Bomb in Every Issue," was "The Children of Vietnam" photo-essay, the same one that persuaded Dr. King to oppose the Vietnam war publicly. That ran in January 1967. The article also mentions the MSU story, which ran in April 1966.
3. Scheer didn't force out Hinckle, who left to start Scanlan's after Ramparts filed for bankruptcy in January 1969. But later that year, Scheer was ousted by Horowitz and Collier.
Posted by Peter Richardson on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 11:40 AM
Hi, Thimbles
The false equivalence here is zany. 'Ramparts' didn't just oppose 'conservatives'; in fact, Republicans and conservatives weren't much of a political factor in the 1960s. The magazine's principal enemy was mainstream liberals; it was still debating whether to oppose George McGovern in 1972 as insufficiently left-wing. They regarded themselves as to the Left of the Democrats, even in a Bay Area context. The magazine's presidential candidate in 1968 was Eldridge Cleaver of the immortal Peace and Freedom Party. He got 25,000 votes.
By instructive contrast, The American Spectator and the National Review were broadly pro-Reagan in the 1980s, pro-Gingrich in the 1990s, pro-Bush in this decade - in other words, on the right-wing side of the consensus center of American politics. If votes are any indicator of where 'the center' of American politics lies, that is.
Can you imagine a bloody cartoon in the National Review celebrating the shooting of Ronald Reagan or Gerald Ford by transforming their faces into those of pigs? That was the scheme of the cartoon running in the Black Panthers' magazine after Robert Kennedy was shot, and the Panthers in their media incarnation were almost a creation of 'Ramparts' magazine. There is a silly strain in leftist politics that says something to the effect of "I've got the Khmer Rouge to my political left, and the Republicans to my political right, so I must be in the center." The American Left a history of paying dearly for its difficulty in accepting that conservative themes and ideas are widely accepted in this country; give them a good election cycle or two, and they kid themselves into thinking they finally have that uncritical majority. 'Ramparts' burned itself out through radical-chic posing after 13 years. 'National Review' has lasted for 54, I believe. Which do you think looks ephemeral?
Posted by Mark Richard on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 01:05 PM
Thanks to author Peter Richardson for his comments. (For those who might be wondering, Henry Luce was the name of Hinckle’s occasionally-masturbating monkey. These people had a sense of humor!)
The article’s text has been corrected in regards to Hinckle’s departure. Apologies for the error—in my defense, I can only say that the catalog of Ramparts bankruptcies and staff-infighting is numerous and Byzantine enough to confuse almost anyone, save Richardson.
Posted by Clint Hendler on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 04:57 PM