The Weekly Standard is no more
Before I had my political change, I wasn’t particularly aware of which periodicals and newspapers were on the right. I knew of a couple—the WSJ and the Manchester Union Leader, for example. I knew who William F. Buckley was from TV rather than print, and maybe if you’d said “National Review” to me I could have identified it as being on the right. But then again, maybe not.
And that was about it.
One of the consequences of my political change was that I became familiar with the political stance of different media outlets—newspapers, magazines, and TV stations—to which I’d previously not paid all that much attention. The Weekly Standard was one, as well as National Review and Commentary, which I thought of as the Big Three of non-newspaper print journalism on the right.
Two are still standing, in one form or another. One just bit the dust: the Weekly Standard. Most commentators seem to think it’s because it fell into a very deep and monomaniacal NeverTrump hole, much deeper than either of the others. But I noticed its decline even before that, although I can’t put my finger on exactly when it began. However, I also think the fact that it ultimately turned into a bunch of Captain Ahabs pursuing the Trump White Whale probably hastened its demise.
Prior to that, however, the Weekly Standard had long been kind to me, as was Bill Kristol. So although my own connection with them ended several years ago, I have a soft spot in my heart for them (my favorite piece of the ones I wrote for them is this).
I don’t think the end of the magazine is a good sign for the right. But I admit I stopped reading the publication years ago, not just because I didn’t agree with them—although I definitely have often disagreed with them—but because they became one-note, uninteresting, and unedifying.
It’s been hard times for opinion magazines the last 20 years. (And, apart from The New York Review of Books, none have turned a profit during the work life of anyone employed in one who is under the age of about 70).
The Weekly Standard was a late entrant, founded in 1995. National Review was founded in 1955. The American Spectator was founded in 1967. Human Events, a much scruffier publication, was founded in 1944.
Commentary was founded in 1945, but it did not adopt a starboard perspective until about 1977. As we speak it seems to exist to employ John Podhoretz. The American Jewish Committee disgorged it in 2009 and turned it over to a stand-alone philanthropy whose board is willing to loot the donor money to pay J-Pod an absurd salary.
Pat Buchanan founded The American Conservative in 2002. Buchanan is loyal to his own, and he’s never disowned it, even though it has for the bulk of its run been a crank collection quite hostile to actually existing starboard politics.
The wonks journals (The Public Interest, Policy Review, and City Journal) were founded in 1965, 1974, and 1990 respectively; only the last survives. The American Scholar and The Georgetown Review were once starboard, but conventional academics in their parent bodies have long since seized control of them. The National Interest was once an affiliate of The Public Interest. It’s passed through a couple of owners and was for a time taken over by people who fancy Andrew Bacevich is the last word in topical commentary. The American Interest which was formed by contributors to the The National Interest dismayed over a change in ownership, was engaging when Walter Russell Mead wrote for them; don’t know about now. This last is not starboard, but generically non-left.
The Claremont Review was founded as an answer to The New York Review and is issued by an institute founded by Harry Jaffa. Never understood all the controversy between different coteries of Straussian.
Lookout: Icebergs dead ahead!
Capt Bill: All ahead, flank!
Helm: But sir! Icebergs!
Capt Bill: Damn the icebergs, full speed ahead!
Sadly, the SS Weekly Standard went down with all hands.
Did Moby wear a red toupée?
The Standard cut themselves off from the mother’s milk of opinion: money.
I haven’t read the Weekly Standard regularly for several years, but I used to like them a lot (not every piece, but a good many). Even at this point, when I check out their articles, I still find some that are worthwhile for me. By the time of the 2016 election, they had fallen down my personal pecking order already, so I kind of have to take folks’ word for it that a big part of their folding has to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s sad to see that kind of thing happen to a publication for which one has a soft spot.
Hm, my comment disappeared. Oh well.
Just wanted to bring it to your attention, neo.
kolnai:
I’m away from home and just on my smartphone till later tonight, so I can’t check right now to see if it ended up in the spam folder. I’ll try to do that later, and liberate it if I can
I think Bill Kristol’s crazy and very public anti-Trumpism, both in editorials in the magazine and in his other public statements, contributed heavily to this, despite what John Podhoretz says. We can find never-Trump opinions anywhere; why go to The Weekly Standard for them?
There were some good writers working for them still, and I hope those people land jobs promptly.
It’s by Max Boot, so most here will dismiss it out of hand, but I think this is on the mark:
I wasn’t reading Neo or the Weekly Standard in 2010, so I missed this post that she linked.
Once again, we are reminded that James Madison was perhaps the shrewdest observer of political life and secular prophet that graced our nation’s founding.
“It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm… Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people…”
Maybe posts like this are one reason people quit reading the Standard enough to pay the bills.
Neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring in my opinion.
And no real news or analysis, just what ifs (I gave up reading Hot Air for much the same reason, except for occasional pieces by Jazz Shaw).
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jonathan-v-last/what-if-democrats-have-to-impeach-trump?itm_campaign=dy_rec&itm_medium=widget&itm_source=article&itm_content=item_3
“And then there’s the added problem of precedent. One of the reasons Republicans pursued the Clinton impeachment even in the face of bad polling was that they believed that not impeaching a president guilty of perjury was likely to lead to more perjury and bad acting by future presidents.
The same logic will apply if Trump is guilty of even more serious crimes. A Congress that does nothing in the face of such acts would be essentially giving up its authority to oversee the executive. Laws that are not consistently applied are not laws at all. If the House did not take up impeachment against a president who committed crimes, then impeachment would essentially disappear as a functioning part of the Constitution. Forevermore, there would be no way to impeach a president who is also a criminal. And this fact could embolden future bad actors who happen to occupy the White House.”
Well, that boat sailed a long time ago.
Please, sir, tell me which laws ARE being consistently applied to (a) elites and the hoi polloi; (b) Democrats and Republicans; (c) “journalists” and “bloggers”; (d) big ticket donors , cronies, etc. and the people who ultimately pony up the money that they are spending and spreading around.
This is a worth-while post, but I doubt any Congress-persons will heed it, even if the Standard weren’t tanking.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/k-c-johnson/why-arent-republicans-more-vocal-in-supporting-title-ix-reform
in the mid 80’s I fell in love t]with th New Republic. A magazine of Opinion that had both liberal and conservative opinion( although it was predominantly lib with Michael Kinsley as Editor). as that magazine began to deteriorate with Glass and Lane and Peretz selling it off, I began to read the Weekly Standard. I subscribed from the beginning and received both until the early part of this century. Alas as Kristol became more bizarre I cancelled two years ago and will not miss its demise.
the one bit of new I did learn today is that it was sold by Rupert a few years back. maybe had he kept it , it might have survived.
I’ve been reading posts from the Washington Examiner whenever I go over there to read one of Byron York’s pieces — I will take him over Kristol any day; they are running a better publication, with more interesting articles, than does the Standard.
“… they became one-note, uninteresting, and unedifying.” – Neo
Shutting down the latter to feed the former is not a bad business decision.
Nobody is entitled to keep a job, just because they have it now.
Or as Kevin Williamson might say: The Standard writers just need to move where the jobs are.
PowerLine had a comment on the Standard, which echoed my own thoughts after reading Podhoretz’s post at Commentary:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/weekly-standard-rip.php
“Honestly, having read Podhoretz’s piece, I am not sure what he thinks happened.”
I was interested in what the PL commenters thought, and these are representative, and somewhat more specific than most, which are primarly of the “good riddance” persuasion:
Darwin Akbar av1922 • 2 hours ago
I met someone at a Freedom Center event who told me she’d signed up for the Weekly Standard’s post-election cruise in 2016 several months before the election. She said that it was quite the cruise in that 95% of the passengers had voted for Trump and spent the whole time fighting and arguing with Bill and the NeverTrumpers.
Those folks were The Weekly Standard’s subscribers. How many renewed their subscriptions?
Kyle Butler • 3 hours ago
For me the headline might as well be “Fake Conservatives Outed and Rejected”. If they couldn’t get behind the most conservative shift in the country since Reagan because the guy driving it posts some mean tweets, they never really believed in it to begin with. I wasn’t pro Trump in the primaries, but once he got the nomination and those battle lines were redefined, you can bet I got on board. The alternative is the Clinton crime syndicate and creeping socialism. Is that what these RINOs prefer? And it’s been damn nice having someone fight for the cause for a change! Even if it is clumsy fighting.
Nevyan • 3 hours ago
The Weekly Standards problem was entirely business model related — they were trying to provide Never Trump media content in a market saturated by CNN, MSNBC, LA Times, New York Times, Washington Post etc ad naseum.
Get woke, go broke.
Lem Motlow • 3 hours ago
To me the present state of the nation is like a house on fire, and people like William Kristol and George Will are hectoring the firefighters, because the water from their hoses isn’t pure enough, their flame-retardant foam may stain the siding, and they are trampling the flower bed. Only two conclusions seem reasonable: either they have such an overblown sense of propriety and decorum as to be seriously neurotic, or they really don’t care that much if the house burns to the ground. The only other explanation would be that they really don’t think that the fire, i.e., leftism, is that much of a threat. But I’ve read them both for decades, and I certainly didn’t come away with that impression. I guess the best one can take away from their Trump-induced hysteria is that life is endlessly surprising.
Cronustitan • 4 hours ago
The Weekly Standard marginalized itself by making its NeverTrump-ism personal. Trump has advocated conservative policies (tax cuts, deregulation, judiciary, etc.). From a policy perspective, there is very little daylight between Trump and conservative policies. The Weekly Standard hammered Trump constantly, but it was petty bickering over personality. In lieu of regrouping and thinking, they went all in on the over the top rhetoric attacking Trump. They lost, and it as a stupid and useless bet.
simon • 4 hours ago
Kristol actually tweeted, during the Kavanaugh hearings, that he would vote to reject the guy. Amazing. And to think that he was once one of my intellectual heroes.
mbpuckett simon • 4 hours ago
I know the feeling.
After Trump and the hysteria he’s provoked, I’ve concluded that 95% of the Americans I used to think were smart are in fact obtuse morons.
* * *
Indeed.
At this time, there is not a single comment lamenting the demise of the Standard of today, although a number of ex-subscribers were saddened when they reached a tipping point and felt they had to bail on the mag.
(side note, replying to one of the above:)
Sam Browne [replying to ] Lem Motlow • 2 hours ago
Wow – well put. I think they don’t appreciate the seriousness of leftism in power, as life will continue to be just as good for a DC conservative columnist, regardless of whether Hillary or Trump won. They are hopelessly out of touch with their readership, for whom the consequences of a Hillary presidency after 8 years of Obama in office, were of the gravest importance.
If the owners of the magazine found that, in its unprofitable condition, it was worth more to them as an annex to the Examiner, then that’s a rational business decision. Keeping it as a pet is not sensible.
I hope to see some of the good writers employed elsewhere soon.
It’s by Max Boot, so most here will dismiss it out of hand, but I think this is on the mark:
No, it isn’t. Boot’s pretending there’s an audience of subscribers for what The Weekly Standard has been selling the last 3 years and change. That fiction may be what keeps him going. Liberals who want emotional validation from soi-disant conservatives replicating their memes can get that by reading the Washington Post editorial page.
Max Boot and David French are vending a product no one wishes to purchase. David French’s editor keeps people on staff for old time’s sake and Boot’s employment is a reminder that philanthropies have no owners and some of them have boards which have been suborned by the staff.
Politicians, unlike pundits on patronage, need their audience. You can see the constituency for Boot-Frenchism in the career of Mr. Frosted Flake of Arizona.
If the owners of the magazine found that, in its unprofitable condition, it was worth more to them as an annex to the Examiner, then that’s a rational business decision. Keeping it as a pet is not sensible.
Ca. 1985, all opinion magazines were part of the philanthropic sector bar perhaps The New York Review of Books and The Atlantic. I don’t think Harper’s has been able to break even in 40-odd years. Saturday Review began circling the drain financially around about 1970. Their income streams were insufficient during a time when market-dominant metropolitan newspapers were quite profitable. They had patrons like Martin Peretz and the MacArthur Foundation keeping them in business.
Art Deco:
Yes, it’s my understanding that almost all or perhaps all political magazines (and many magazines as well) are supported not by subscriptions but by sponsors, sometimes even a single very wealthy sponsor.
whenever I go over there to read one of Byron York’s pieces
Yes, he is about the last person I read at NR. When Lowry fired Derbyshire over this article published elsewhere. I was done with NR. The Trump hysteria issue was when I cancelled. I agree that NR will probably fade away.
The Spectator published Codevilla’s piece “The Ruling Class, ” which predicted Trump’s rise if anything did.
I was a subscriber of TNR for years and gave gift subscriptions to my kids but that was when it was mostly balanced.
In 2006, Derbyshire placed in the New English Review a silly and vitriolic attack on a book penned by one of National Review‘s salaried editors. The appropriate response would have been, “You work here, right? Not anymore.” Lowry did nothing. In 2012, Derbyshire published a somewhat realistic, mildly insulting reflection on race relations in Taki’s. Lowry fired him immediately. That Lowry cut him was a legitimate exercise of discretion. However, what some of us took away from these incidents was that you could say anything you God damned please about social conservatives (including attacks on NR employees) and everything fine. You say something irritating to the sort of bourgeois twit who fancies himself a tribune of American blacks, you’re out.
Another oddity about NR is that they have provided employment for 14 years to one Jason Lee Steorts. Steorts is despised by the magazine’s most attentive readers in large measure because he was permitted by Lowry to remove Mark Steyn from the magazine’s roster of contributors, after having published an inane and humorless attack on one of Steyn’s pieces. This in spite of the vociferous support of Steyn by NR‘s publisher. Steorts’ witless complaint was that Steyn had made reference to a couple of jokes told by Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, and Dean Martin that treated the subject of homosexuality playfully; evidently Steorts fancies only solemn deference will do. Why does Lowry allow his magazine to be disfigured in this way? No one knows. Another curio is that Steorts holds the title ‘managing editor’ at NR but apparently lives in Utah.
Lowry has failed for about 15 years now to recruit anyone engaging to write for NR other than Kevin Williamson, and Williamson’s an ass for reasons already discussed on these boards. To some extent it’s the market. However, NR used to have a stable of academics who contributed occasional pieces: Thos. Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Stanley Kurtz, and Mackubin Thomas Owens to name a few. They drop away due to attrition and aren’t replaced. They had satisfactory humor writers at one time, all pretty much gone. It’s pretty much a damp rag. And, of course, they have to provide regular space for David French, because, well, they got column-inches to fill or something.
I was a subscriber of TNR for years and gave gift subscriptions to my kids but that was when it was mostly balanced.
It was during the years running from about 1980 to 1991 a dissident liberal publication, favoring the Democratic Party but taking exception to a number of liberal shticks prevalent at that time. In 1991, Peretz appointed Andrew Sullivan as the editor, and the publication grew curiouser and curiouser as it’s reportage and commentary was corrupted with the detritus of Sullivan’s self-obsession. Peretz finally replaced Sullivan in 1996 with the late Michael Kelly, who was as much a square shooter as any prominent journalist in the last generation. He then fired Kelly after seven months when editorials and commentaries approved by Kelly hit Peretz’ third rail: they chastised MP’s bosom pal, Albert Gore. Shortly afterward, they were humiliated by the Stephen Glass scandal.
Still, and partisan politics aside, the WS had some really superb writers and very interesting columns that were a pleasure to read.
I hope those writers will be able to land on their feet.
As for the complaints about “National Review”, no it’s not always consistent (but does it have to be?), keeping in mind that for me, Andrew McCarthy is irreplaceable…and there are others besides who are consistently worth reading (including—yes—Kevin D. Williamson smart, well-crafted columns, even if he does play the contrarian from time to time….).
Should also mention William A. Jacobson at “Legal Insurrection” for his thoughtful, intelligent commentary…
“Commentary Magazine”, too, has some superb writers.
I think the common denominator here is that they are “the good guys” insofar as they write/fight for the right causes, for Truth and Justice (yes, I know, I know)…but are NOT hyper-partisan (AKA they are generally sane), which for me is important.
(One’s mileage may of course vary…)
Having said all that, I can’t figure out how any of these publications are able to stay solvent in the Internet era (except, perhaps, for those who have a “rich uncle” keeping them afloat, which does not augur well in the long run).
Oh, and yes “The Spectator” (in both its UK and US versions) is terrific.
“I didn’t leave the Weekly Standard; the Weekly Standard left me.”
Just one man’s opinion here: I am still a subscriber to TWS and have been for a number of years. Their dislike of Trump was never a problem for me as I do not see why reasonable folks can’t disagree, and this is no reason to leave a well written magazine. I do think the format and quality has changed, and not for the better. With Kristol’s departure, the subject matter of the articles and the regular features had, to my eyes, undergone a subtle but noticeable shift, and I do not necessarily mean politically. I noticed more articles on things other what I had come to expect from TWS. I wanted political current events and reviews of right-leaning books, not more articles concerning culture on a very high level that I really could not relate to. For example, a recent issue had a lengthy piece on a team that made wording decisions for a well known dictionary. The authors had a point to make here, but the article was long and boring. It must have been important to someone, but this was not the reason I subscribe. This is not an isolated example. TWS has always had these, but they have seemed to increase in frequency. A regular feature in every issue is a piece that runs ten to twelve pages, a tremendous amount of space for a publication of this relatively small size. It is difficult to maintain interest for something this length regardless of the subject. In general, I found myself flipping through an issue more and reading less. Were TWS not folding, I would still keep my subscription active, but I am disappointed with some of the recent changes.
Thanks for this, quiet conservative: “Their dislike of Trump was never a problem for me as I do not see why reasonable folks can’t disagree, and this is no reason to leave a well written magazine.”
A sentiment heard less and less here. Which is a great pity.
Just one man’s opinion here: I am still a subscriber to TWS and have been for a number of years. Their dislike of Trump was never a problem for me as I do not see why reasonable folks can’t disagree, and this is no reason to leave a well written magazine.
I haven’t examined The Weekly Standard in some time, but I’m familiar with the NeverTrump mentality. When you consistently accept the assumptions and framing of the political opposition at a time when that opposition is systematically dishonest, I’ve no use for you. David French was attempting to make the case the other day that Trump was properly in jeopardy for felony charges in violation of campaign finance law in re a non disclosure agreement with a blackmailer. (NB, campaign finance law violations are seldom subject to criminal penalties if your name is not ‘Dinesh D’Souza’. I disagree with Steven Sailer. I don’t disagree with David French. David French is an attitudinizing pettifogger who works the other side of the street. Screw him.
And, no, their writing was never particularly impressive. Just satisfactory. They had a few contributors I made it a point to read, like David Dalin.
Art Deco –
In my comment which evaporated, I believe I referred to David French as a “purse-lipped, puritanical scold.”
I was being too kind, but one must pick and choose one’s adjectives. Adequate invective for French would require actual physical gestures of disgust and repulsion in addition to thirty or forty commas.
I won’t try to repeat what I said about TWS, but French is just something else entirely. The guy makes my skin crawl and my soul shrivel like a prune.