ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 07, 2014

That's a feature, not a bug

In what Ross Douthat laments, I see cause for celebration:
“The eulogy that needs to be written,” Klein argued, is actually for an entire kind of publication — the “ambitious policy magazine,” whether on the left or right, that once set the terms of Washington’s debates.

With the emergence of the Internet, those magazines lost their monopolies, and the debate “spilled online, beyond their pages, outside their borders,” with both new competitors and specific voices (Klein kindly cites my own) becoming more important than before.

As Klein correctly implies, this shift has produced a deeper policy conversation than print journalism ever sustained. Indeed, the oceans of space online, the easy availability of studies and reports, the ability to go endless rounds on topics — plus the willingness of many experts to blog and bicker for the sheer fun of it! — has made the Internet era a golden age for technocratic argument and data-driven debate.

But there is a price to be paid as well. That price, Klein suggests, is the loss of the older magazines’ ability to be idiosyncratic and nonpandering and just tell their readers what they should care about.... The New Republic as-it-was, the magazine I and others grew up reading, was emphatically not just a “policy magazine.” It was, instead, a publication that deliberately integrated its policy writing with often-extraordinary coverage of literature, philosophy, history, religion, music, fine art.

It wasn’t just a liberal magazine, in other words; it was a liberal-arts magazine.
In other words, a small group of people will no longer enjoy the stranglehold they once possessed over politics, literature, philosophy, history, religion, music, and fine art, to "set the terms of Washington’s debates" and tell readers "what they should care about".

This is supposed to be a bad thing? Are you kidding me?

The New Republic is gone. It would be a good thing for the American Right if National Review followed suit.

Labels:

57 Comments:

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 07, 2014 7:27 AM  

"The New Republic is gone. It would be a good thing for the American Right if National Review followed suit."

Speedily, in our own day.

Anonymous Rosalys December 07, 2014 7:29 AM  

Hip! Hip! hooray!

Anonymous daddynichol December 07, 2014 7:43 AM  

What's the poor old econmics con man Robert Reich going to do? I guess theirs plenty of universities, liberal think tanks and the speaking circuit he can pillage. He will never set up any kind of for profit enterprise. That be far too capitalist for him.

Anonymous daddynichol December 07, 2014 7:43 AM  

What's the poor old econmics con man Robert Reich going to do? I guess theirs plenty of universities, liberal think tanks and the speaking circuit he can pillage. He will never set up any kind of for profit enterprise. That be far too capitalist for him.

Anonymous daddynichol December 07, 2014 7:44 AM  

There's no theirs.

Blogger Cataline Sergius December 07, 2014 7:44 AM  

Does anyone still read the National Review?

Blogger YIH December 07, 2014 7:53 AM  

Cataline Sergius:
Does anyone still read the National Review?
Not since they kicked Derb to the curb.

Blogger Cataline Sergius December 07, 2014 7:59 AM  

In my view the demise of TNR was more of a fit pique than anything else. Hughes bought it as wedding present for his...(*sigh*)...husband.

Now that hubby's political ambitions are as dead as Harvey Milk, the unhappy couple just want nothing more to do with Washington.

Off to the fabulous friendly New York City. And they decided they may as well bring the rag along. It will give them a bit of status in The City. Just like the Sulzburgers!

Blogger Northern Hamlet December 07, 2014 8:03 AM  

Anyone have some recommendations for decent policy magazines, print or otherwise?

Anonymous Susan December 07, 2014 8:04 AM  

Haven't read it since Jonah Goldberg's dad Sidney died. He was a interesting read. As to being surprised at their influence with so few readers, it all boils down to the old saying, "It's not what you know, it's WHO you know".

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 07, 2014 8:06 AM  

I stopped reading the NR a long time ago. Couldn't stand their wishy-washiness, their pandering to Israel, and mostly National Review was run by Jews just like the American Conservative mag and others. NR was never conservative; it was just like New Republic (notice they have the same initials 'NR'). They were never "conservative". Political conservation in America has always been between two blocs of Jews and their goyim hanger-oners.

Now, with the Internet, Europeans get to talk freely and about European culture for European people and restore our culture and civilization without Jew interference or Jewish control or Jewish oversight or Jewish Influence.

WE ARE FREE!!!!

Anonymous Porky December 07, 2014 8:12 AM  

Watching Harvard elites eat each other is fun.


Anonymous Thales December 07, 2014 8:21 AM  

More delicious tears here from AS.

Anonymous Martha Stewart December 07, 2014 8:30 AM  

Its a good thing.

Anonymous Stingray December 07, 2014 8:46 AM  

Northern Hamlet,

Taki's Magazine is good. It's where Derb currently writes. Steve Sailor also writes there.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 07, 2014 8:56 AM  

National Review, Weekly Standard, The American Conservative, The American Spectator, and a whole host of more blatantly "tribal" "conservative" magazines need to go away.


Taki's Magazine is ok, mainly for Jim Goad, but it has a few traitors writing for it. Kathy Shaidle loves her some "tribe".

The Unz Review is the best compilation online at the current time.

Blogger Bob Wallace December 07, 2014 9:26 AM  

I bathe in liberal tears.

Anonymous Difster December 07, 2014 9:50 AM  

The rusty gates are being trampled.

Blogger James Dixon December 07, 2014 9:54 AM  

One line:

"The New Republic as-it-was, the magazine I and others grew up reading,"

Tells anyone observant all they need to know about Douthat.

Anonymous Matt December 07, 2014 10:02 AM  

I probably read and enjoyed National Review longer than a lot of you, but I quit the day they fired Derb. There were (and may still be) a few individual authors there who were still worth reading - Mark Steyn and a couple others - but at that point the magazine itself was just another party rag. Purely capital-R Republican rather than actually conservative.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 07, 2014 10:10 AM  

Sobran, Buchanan, Derbyshire. All fired from National Review--tells you something.

Even Rush and Sean Hannity are not conservatives. No conservative in his right mind, would call himself "Dr. Democracy". No true conservative would be for "America" anyway.

Anonymous wEz December 07, 2014 10:17 AM  

Meh. I've read some good op pieces by Douthat, others that are well off the mark imo. That being said, its one of the few columns I can read in the pioneer press here in Mn that doesn't get me completely enraged. Its actually quite refreshing in light of hearing about rampant minority crime, immigration reform, transgender issues, fergeson, blacks shutting down I 35w, etc. Even the majority of fellow whites here are retards regardless of circumstance. Its quite baffling.

Blogger njartist December 07, 2014 10:22 AM  

@ Matt December 07, 2014 10:02 AM
I probably read and enjoyed National Review longer than a lot of you, but I quit the day they fired Derb.

Since late fifties...I quit - canceled my gift subscription - when the NR banned two ads for books critical of Islam.

Anonymous Godfrey December 07, 2014 10:24 AM  

The enemy's gates are broken. His walls are breached. We are inside the fortress.

Anonymous Eric Ashley December 07, 2014 10:59 AM  

That second to last para could describe this blog, and a hundred others.

I've suspected one reason our leaders lacked a greater vision was that such a thing would be ultimately uncontrollable as wells of creativity burst forth. and the leaders might not be in charge anymore.

========

Guess I'm not a true conservative then because i love America.

Blogger Ragin' Dave December 07, 2014 11:03 AM  

I stopped giving a shit about The New Republic after they had Scotty Beauchamp write his hit-piece against the US military. It was nothing but a pack of lies, but it was too good to check for TNR, because the piece restated all of their own private convictions.

Screw 'em. In a culture inundated with ProgNazi agit-prop, one Marxist magazine going down can only be a good thing. Clears the air a bit, it does.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 07, 2014 11:11 AM  

Who needs a "policy" magazine? Nuance is yesterday's man.

Blogger Maple Curtain December 07, 2014 11:13 AM  

"and just tell their readers what they should care about..." MSM types - so arrogant that they don't even notice when they're giving the game away. Why should you, Mr. MSM, tell the rest of us what we should care about? Oh, because you're the well-born, WASP or Jew, and the rest of us are just the plebes who should do as we are told. Thanks, that's cleared up then.

Anonymous PA December 07, 2014 11:17 AM  

"Guess I'm not a true conservative then because i love America."

Define 'America.'

Anonymous Sarcophilus December 07, 2014 11:17 AM  

The New Republic is gone. It would be a good thing for the American Right if National Review followed suit.

My thought exactly as I was still at the top of the post.

Their last gasp was purging Joseph Sobran who was an anti-DC conservative, maybe even libertarian.

Anonymous roo_ster December 07, 2014 11:25 AM  

Stopped reading national review after the derb defenestration. I noted the underbussing of sobran sailer buchanan and others along the way but kept reading. Derb was my favorite and i figured if he was not appropriate for nr neither was i.

Anonymous Axe Head December 07, 2014 11:37 AM  

National Review was a CIA operation....Purgemaster William Buckley worked for CIA, once CIA, always CIA.

Anonymous mothersmurfer December 07, 2014 12:08 PM  

This is absolutely worth the click:

https://twitter.com/urbanachievr/status/540598386702180353

Anonymous DJF December 07, 2014 12:17 PM  

I am surprised that more people did not leave NR in 2003 when they put up an article basically saying that Trotsky was not such a bad guy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207196/trotskycons/stephen-schwartz#!

Blogger Ghost December 07, 2014 12:20 PM  

National Review also fired Mark Steyn for one of the funniest gay jokes I've ever read. The only one person there who I still enjoy reading is the Charles Cooke. Although I did appreciate Kevin Williams exposing of Lena Dunham's molestering ways, NR is too quick to kowtow to the SJW demands. Coulter, Derbyshire, Steyn all sacrificed for the liberal rules. If vox dot com isn't shamed into firing their middle-east expert for thinking there was an actual bridge between Gaza and the West Bank, or a guy who thinks 50% of the population should be stripped of sure process rights, hell, if they can't be shamed into firing Matt Yglesias, why the hell did Jonah fire their best writers over SJW nonsense?

All of those complaints aside, if they need to be destroyed one at a time, I'd rather start with the neocons at weekly standard.

Anonymous Discard December 07, 2014 12:21 PM  

Sarcophilus: I quit National Review when they dumped Joseph Sobran for his heresy on Israel. It wasn't for his views on Washington D.C. or libertarianism. The magazine, to justify itself to unhappy readers, published an entire special issue titled "In Search of Anti-Semitism". I was not mollified. I guess they needed the backing of Big Jewry more than they needed subscribers.

Blogger Ghost December 07, 2014 12:35 PM  

Ugh. Typing without glasses. Due process, not sure.
Also, that mangled sentence should be, "the only person there I still enjoy reading is Charles Cooke."

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 07, 2014 12:39 PM  

I'm surprised Joe Sobran got any time at all at National Review, being a long time writer for American Opinion and Review of the News.

Anonymous Dave December 07, 2014 1:19 PM  

Well they've cancelled the December edition so now what to do? However will we get through the holidays?

Blogger Hunsdon December 07, 2014 1:37 PM  

NR: standing athwart history, whispering, "Not so fast, guys."

Blogger rcocean December 07, 2014 2:08 PM  

National Review stopped being any good years ago when it fired Coulter and supported the WSJ agenda on immigration. It should have merged with "Commentary" years ago.

Blogger YIH December 07, 2014 2:09 PM  

Axe Head:
Somewhat in Buckley's defense, he was already retired to ''executive editor'' (figurehead) when Peter Brimelow (over immigration) Sobran and Buchanan (over ''anti-semitism'') were purged. And dead when Derb was canned.
Although it was indeed Buckley that founded NR with the explicit desire to read out ''anti-semites'' (such as the Birchers) from the right.
Over time as the Tribe was welcomed in, as usual, they promoted their fellow tribals and pushed out their enemies, err, I mean gentiles.

Blogger rcocean December 07, 2014 2:09 PM  

Never understood the Derb love. He's just a boring English contrarian, not a conservative. I guess when you're English its hard to take American politics seriously, and you regard it as a game.

Blogger rcocean December 07, 2014 2:11 PM  

People are giving too WFB too much credit. Per the Rusher biography he wanted to sell NR to Murdoch in the early 1990s, only to be talked out of it by Rusher. Murdoch wanted to turn NR into what the Weekly Standard soon became.

Anonymous AlteredFate December 07, 2014 2:18 PM  

It was, instead, a publication that deliberately integrated its policy writing with often-extraordinary coverage of literature, philosophy, history, religion, music, fine art.

Pretty much sums up why I read this blog.

Anonymous Quartermaster December 07, 2014 3:27 PM  

Steyn is listed among authors at NRO, but nothing has been posted by him since December of last year. My understanding is that he was dropped because of the Mann suit and Steyn went out on his own when NR threw him under the bus so they get could get out from under. Steyn is not likely to lose, and the coward Rich Lowry is going to have egg on his face again.

I was just about to give them some money, then the defenestration of the Derb occurred and my wallet closed. I've since been banned by them for daring to defend myself in the comment area against come Roman Catholics trying to smear me.

I've come to the conmclusion that being dropped, or banned by those idiots is a great honor.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 07, 2014 4:22 PM  

Cataline Sergius: "Does anyone still read the National Review?"

Instapundit links them from time to time, so he must.

I don't often follow the links, but when I do the stories are consistently worthless. Which raises the issue, "why is Glen Reynolds reading this, let alone linking it?"

Instapundit's a bright guy, whether you agree with him or not. He does things for reasons.

Maybe he's covering himself? I notice from time to time he'll accuse someone of antisemitism, or make other Tribe-friendly gestures. Not often enough to suggest that he wants to run with the persecuting hounds; just often enough to not be the nail that sticks up and gets hammered down.

The occasional National Review link is a pretty good way to say, "I submit to TWMNBN; don't hurt me," because National Review is vacuous enough that it doesn't imply you stand for anything else.

Anonymous Sophie KT December 07, 2014 4:23 PM  

"The New Republic is gone. It would be a good thing for the American Right if National Review followed suit."

What's missing from the internet debate that is replacing the old policy/criticism mags is good editors, concise writing, intellectual rigor and professionals. There are some such operations online, but they are few. The kind of professionally run, nicely edited journal that could legitimately be called rigorous and compelling will reemerge on line because smart and curious people tire of the overwhelming childishness, poor writing and bad thinking that passes for discussion and commentary on the Internet.

Anonymous Axe Head December 07, 2014 5:04 PM  

There is no defense of Buckley. He purged the Birchers, the Randians, Revilo P. Oliver, etc etc etc. He was a "No friends to the right, no enemies to the left" Masterpurger. CIA Psy-op?

Anonymous Amok Time December 07, 2014 5:30 PM  

I hate being told what to do!

George Armstrong Custer

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 07, 2014 5:42 PM  

Sophie KT: "What's missing from the internet debate that is replacing the old policy/criticism mags is good editors, concise writing, intellectual rigor and professionals."

Subscriptions to The Occidental Quarterly are cheap.

Sophie KT: "There are some such operations online, but they are few."

And, to the extent that the Jewish mass media and academia can exclude them, they are disreputable. That is, the radicals have the facts and the correct arguments, but if you cite them you delegitimize yourself: you will be attacked just for having read the wrong people and knowing their facts and their arguments. On the other hand if you stick to "respectable" sources you can keep your social standing and your job, but you have to write drivel, because the "respectable" stay that way only by excluding important truths and consistently implying agreement with dishonest dogmas backed by money and the taboos of the academic tribal moral community.

(Vox Day is part of the unrespectable source game: it seems to be OK to use his demolition of the false claim that religion is the cause of most wars... provided you pretend not to know, or actually are ignorant, of who wrote that demolition.)

Sophie KT: "The kind of professionally run, nicely edited journal that could legitimately be called rigorous and compelling will reemerge on line because smart and curious people tire of the overwhelming childishness, poor writing and bad thinking that passes for discussion and commentary on the Internet."

What's "compelling" practically is money and power in the service of Jewish ethnic aggression, unfortunately. And there's nothing "nice" about it.

As for a dichotomy of the established Jewish policy/ criticism magazines on one side, associated with "good editors, concise writing, intellectual rigor and professionals," and on the other side, " the overwhelming childishness, poor writing and bad thinking that passes for discussion and commentary on the Internet," that just doesn't square with experience.

Arguments that are intellectually "compelling" and that hold up no matter how much you hate the author aren't coming from sources like the National Review, in large part because the sorts of people that would be up to producing such arguments get purged. "Compelling" arguments come from people like Kevin MacDonald, whose books would have been torn to pieces by Jews in academia long ago, to rapturous applause -- except that they can't be.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 07, 2014 7:23 PM  

There's another possibility. The New Republic may be changing because there was no choice. Jews, regardless of their lack of qualifications, have a mysteriously awesome way of getting included in "the conversation," getting lucrative big advertisers, and hiring famous names. Goys sink to the bottom in Jewish-dominated environments, except when some goy faces are wanted to put a gentile appearance on a Jewish agenda. Without the advantage of Jewish ethnic networking, Chris Hughes may have faced the alternatives of doing something different or passively accepting downward social mobility. If so, he chose the "try something" option.

Anonymous Bah December 07, 2014 8:09 PM  

NR is so dumb that they allow their political enemies, the Leftists, to decide what is acceptable behavior on the Right and who should be allowed to write for their magazine.

That alone is reason enough to ignore those worthless idiots.

But also the content sucks.

Blogger Anthony December 07, 2014 11:06 PM  

The New Republic died years ago - more than a decade. At least through the 80s and early 90s, it was a liberal magazine that was willing to publish thoughts not approved of by the Guardians of Orthodoxy on the left. But some time in the 90s or early 2000s, their readers (and donors) became unwilling to listen to any ideas which challenged the leftist orthodoxy. TNR died then. What's happened this week is the corpse being disposed of, and the few remaining maggots no longer being able to feed on it.

Anonymous Itzburg December 08, 2014 12:10 AM  

"What's "compelling" practically is money and power in the service of Jewish ethnic aggression, unfortunately. And there's nothing "nice" about it."

Envy much?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 08, 2014 8:13 AM  

TNR had a purpose but that evaporated in about 2004 after the capture of Saddam. Beinert the hack frequently went on the Hugh Hewitt show prior to the Blunder in Mesopotamia where he sold out the Left. Then in 2004 with Israel safe he was able to switch to being loyal opposition to the "War."

As for the quitters they should go join NR and then begin the purges.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 08, 2014 9:44 AM  

Mr.MantraMan: "As for the quitters they should go join NR and then begin the purges."

Good idea. That would at least be funny to watch. And it couldn't make NR worse.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts