« Commentary Magazine Podcast

Commentary Podcast: Autopsy Podcast on The Weekly Standard

2018-12-17 | 🔗
Today's podcast features an explanation of and peroration on the demise of the Weekly Standard, how the magazine fit into the world of conservative intellectual publishing both now and when it was created in 1995, and the evolution of magazines from keeping a long-armed distance from politics and parties to the present-day demand that they serve as the cheerleaders for movements. Give a listen.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Welcome to the commentary, Benghazi, podcast, I'm John onwards. The editor of Commentary Magazine, a seventy five year old, monthly of intellectual analysis, political probity and cultural criticism. From a conservative perspective, we invite you to join us. A commentary magazine that come with you If you free reads asking to subscribe one thousand eight hundred and ninety five Ford Digital Subscription, two thousand nine hundred and ninety five turn all access subscription, including our beautiful monthly magazine in your mailbox eleven times a year. We've just our January issue, with a wheel workable, important piece by our own, a green Walled on the war on
Asian Americans in both, secondary and higher education with today, of course, as always, a brainwashed senor at her high Abe high John. So we we'll be putting that peace up when you think today, Navy Euro today or tomorrow out warrant Asian Americans very important. Please read it. We'll talk, some more about it on Thursday and nor, often associated high. Now John, steam Rosen, is not with us today, Christine is a then serving as the managing editor for the last year of the weekly standard, which as you probably heard or may have heard, was shuddered on Friday and so we, in an effort to speak as freely as possible about the demise of the standard, I wanted to have an open conversation that Christine was going to have some difficulty participating in so she'll be back with us on Thursday.
So really take her. We're can ever slightly weird format here for the show just for introductory purposes. I am one of the three founders of the weekly standard, which I was the deputy editor of for the first two years of its existence and have been a contributor amateur too, for the last decades very close relationship. I was its movie critic. I was the most prolific outside contributor to the magazine. I have remained and we have, in our pages monthly, here a commentary. We have had Christine's social commentary, column Andy Ferguson, singer writer at the standard, his media commentary, column and a canary who was at the standard from two thousand three to two thousand and eleven Is our media coverage The calmness of the relationships between the standard an commentary are.
Long and old and date back B B. On my generation in my time of course, my Father Norman POD Horace was the commentary for three be five years and when he first in writing and appearing in common framework for one of the and one of the original editors commentary in the mid nineties, forties was bill, crystal the editor of the Standards, Father Irving, who then went on to start, Counter magazine in the public interest in the national interest So these are relations in the what my Father in his making it loosely called the family, this world of New York intellectuals unto the second generations that meant that, the standard commentary, word never rivals were commentaries. A monthly the standard was a weekly standard was started,
A Washington publication and insider publication LAO largely about politics. The commentary has been a publication was for fifty years. Application of the sixty years, the publication of the American Jewish Committee, whose and it was to explain America, the Jews and explained Jews to the Americans. With a lot of other stuff involved as well. But it's an interesting aspect of the conversations that will be having here that you might I think that we should all be rivals, and indeed, for example, that we should also be rivals with national review, but in fact it close intertwined relationships we share a great many ideological leanings, people we, we all right for each other's publication, What made us all different was our temporarily, like, I say, we're monthly standards weekly now to review fortnightly and em
there was more than enough room the conservative intellectual space for all three so The way we're gonna do differently. Is that tat? No enable don't ask me questions about the stamina and will try to answer. Yes, I'm gonna start with what I think is a good summary of what the commentary has been like over the last two weeks now, basically but culminating over the weekend from who else, but the president of the United States, Donald Trump tweets today the follow
end quote the pathetic and dishonest weekly standard run by failed prognosticate, her bill, Crystal parent, edible, who, like many others, never had a clue in parentheses, is flat, broke and out of business too bad may at rest in peace. So there's something there's a well lot there, obviously, but in it is some triumphal ism, which you seen a lot of from people who want this to have been in eighty illogical test that the weekly standard failed, because it failed to provide for its readership and when its readership wanted to hear was programmed stuff and they didn't give him that, and so they failed, because there is no audience Fer a Trump skeptical conservative publication. You haven't seen that just on the programmes side, you seen it from New York Times. Reporters who repeated that, despite reporting to the contrary, that there was interesting purchasing this publication from outside vendor
we see. So maybe you can speak to what what truth or is there? What exaggeration there is there? How much of that is real and how much of it is just an advancing a narrative of a web? The quick dirty story of the holding of the standard is that relations between the standard and its parent company clarity, media, specifically let's say relations when the editorial department in the standard and the business side run by clarity media been poisonous for years for all kinds of reasons, and poison is largely, I believe, all, although all the evidence suggests the poison is responsible for the decision to close the standard. The standard is
publication that loses money, as does commentary, as does national review, as do all journals of opinion, so the owner fill an shuts. Who is worth? I think cancer by conservative estimates close to ten billion dollars for it. To say, I'm tired of losing money. On this. I am tired of losing three million dollars a year is not level in part because the parent did the other big publication of class, free media, the Washington examiner, loses many multiples more than the standard ever did. You have to say, will what is really going on here. The obvious answer you think is stand may the wrong bad. It was anti tramp tramp one they took some hidden. Circulation. They're like out of the conversation, and so they should go away and anxious believes that most well, a
anxious is no fan of Trump from what we can tell he donated, I believe, all five hundred dollars to trumps election effort and there is the very important factoid now we're getting into some really inside family baseball here that standards. Shuddering comes as the Washington examiner is launching a weekly bang Gesine that is going to be distributed nationally and, who pray tell us the editor of the New Washington Examiner magazine, none other then our old colleague, Mandela, sediments Hell's articles have appeared set Adele was no his predecessor on the commentary, blog He was an associated editor here at the magazine. He is right, extensively freshies had to pieces. In the last three months, on the liberal jewish reaction to the Pittsburgh,
shootings and art peace on the Anti defamation league. Very. Orton Pieces he's a clue friend, of ours and close. Colleague of ours. He took this job and he is is, I would say, of four of us Noah Abe and I he would arguably be the most anti trump. So Seth's being the editor gives the lie to the idea that the washing examiner wanted to shut the stew hundred down because it was to anti Trump aside that, after the event populated with has itself about actually protein. That's right along by its writers right will. It has Byron York, who is probably the best pro Trump reporter in America, or like LE aligned with from proportional at Saint America, but it also has Dave Dry,
whose pretty hostile and Phil Klein, who is on questionably, hostile and Carney who was no friend of Trump. These are some of their wine writers right. So it is. So the idea that its it was it was targeted and shot, because the company No longer countenance and Anti Trump magazine does makes sense when the editor of their the magazine that is going to replace the standard, is anti from himself. So some different is going on from this narrative. Briefly, just before we move on from this topic, you mention just what we can just amble up the financial issue and there because the other line of commentary here is that, while this is the market at work, this is his son. This failed
because there was no market place for this product. Ok will first of all. That is. That is not true so the market places the same marketplace. It's always been. There is no question that standard took a small hit, deregulation, five to ten percent problem, because of Trump stuff. However, its website traffic, which is deeply important to clarity, media Cornick Larry me his own men, some weightings, because all the Washington examiner is a web, only free publication. It's where traffic has been up for the past two years. Very respect, doubly up. So so that's That's thing number one about the free market thing number two about the free market is this is so thing very screwy that has happened, which is why I have read: That the standard was murdered instead of shuddered right cause. If, if, if somebody says look, I can't do this anymore
can't do it. I don't want to support the losses. I don't even like it that much and I can't sell it well, Two big things here. One is that the I trust that the sand leaders, the centred Steve Haze and others have an agreement in principle from an shirts. That they would sell that that This would allow them to find a buyer for the magazine, the price of the magazine, would be one dollar. Why one dollar? Because then, the new owner would assume the liabilities, in other words is since the magazine was gonna lie. A couple million answer taking off your hands was effect. Leah two million dollar savings or ten million dollars over five years, and so that was that was a good deal, so Steve started going. I'm looking for a buyer and
by the way, don't have this from him, I should say he's not violating disclosure agreements. I have put this together, information from a lot from people. He found a firm, essentially to market it to sell it and the people of the fur thought will look if you have this. Rather this kind of revenue, like three million dollars you could poop, look, if you sell it for dollar, that's fine. We can probably get more money for it for him for an sheets because this is a growing concern, like you know, a business that that a business that grosses three million dollars, somebody really my want it, even if it loses money because you can some things here and there and lower the deficit and if you ve known, basically make it really rounding error to somebody who has a significant about money and then at some point this summer work. Down from anxious that at that stage
was to cease firing a buyer. This made. No sense right, though he would cease fire mark as he wanted to keep it right. That's why else it's like this is not for sale, You know someone says this is not for results because they want to keep living in there. In the house. And then came the word that they work darting. This magazine out of this offices of the Washington examiner and then came word that the magazine was gonna, be distributed nationally and suddenly people who you're still was going on, put it all together and said, a ha see what they wanted. It was closed the standard, so they can take the standards active. Subscription list, which is thirty five. Forty forty five thousand people, mostly aid, some free and we assign it to the Washington Examiner magazine to fulfil the balance of the subscript, That is a classic magazine thing. When you fold
when you fold- and you don't have to write checks to all your subscribers, because that expensive you say we are: we are going to incorporate the magazine into Ex publication they will fulfil the rest of your issues. Now the subscriber you are permitted, as you are in the case of any magazine, any time to cancel your subscription, get the remaining balance of the money that you ve paid. But if you, look at this. What they must have thought is this is great like we can get rid of the standard start, our own thing, that's ours and we don't have any people that we in the office that drive us crazy for various reasons, anvil get forty thousand subscribers right at the outset. Which is why one of the missions that I've set myself too is to make it very clear. To every subscriber of the weekly standard that you are under no obligation, financial, personal or otherwise,
Continue your subscription to accept the exam, where you could look at listen Seth as a good guy he's a good editor, he may put out a good magazine, but they don't get forty thousand, drivers for nothing. Why you know That is not the way it works. If that were the way it work, that would be fantastic, they're going to have to earn those subscribers, and my view is that weekly standard subscriber should cancel, get them The charter subscription to the washing Zammit if they want and get for free issues, are six three issues and then decide from there So this is a murder, because somebody what about it somebody would happily have taken it over could have been done. I had two people telling me they wanted to do it. They would not entertain the offer because they wanted to kill the magazine. So this is where you say: ok. Well, it must be about tromp rye. Why else would you do something like this, but then they? hired, Seth and not
I don't know you know Jeffrey Lord, or you know that Damn Bonn GINO or somebody like that to run to run the thing. So it's actually the opposite of the free market work, because if there were buyers that word that were discouraged from from from looking to pilot that might was it was it was about. Letting the market right operate. Well. Here's here's my analogy: you have a building Europe, your Europe, realistic. I have a building on sitting on a site so you say you don't like the building so you're going to tear down the building, selling, the site, your a tear down the building and then you're gonna build another building on the same side. That is smaller. Ok, That is smaller. You have all the costs associated with tearing the first building down and building the second building up, by which I mean We are launching a magazine. You gotta do millions of pieces of direct mail. You ve got to spend a lot of money on promotion.
Do all that that this fantasy that they'll just simply get the standard subscribers to let lay back and x whatever it is they throw at them? If you need to launch it, you have to launch it. You have to you, have to put real money and then costs associated with shuddering the weekly standard paying people through the end of the year for doing severance Cobra Care benefits, all sorts of stuff like that, so Europe, you're, incurring a bunch of costs I bet you need not have incurred. They could have by the way fired everybody at the standard and how It says to have him run the standard, but then that still wouldn't have been there thing and they on their own thing, because they did not like Steve and they didn't, like it, old, crystal whom they had kicked up stairs two years ago and and replaced with Steve some of that. Is that ecological, illogical, no doubt
a lot of it. His personal most of it is personal in that kind of weird bureaucratic way that the suits look. Something and say what wider why are they free from our control? They should we tell them So we should also be said that intellectual life in America, at least seven about elsewhere, probably elsewhere is, is a philanthropic endeavour in seems like this, and also in universities, as this is an argument from the left that this is the fruit is claiming on ironic argument was that the free market at Work- in other words the free market, sometimes fails, and you have to sometimes prop up all those same people wouldn't have a problem with, for example, tenured, professor, it's who are protected from the marketplace in order to advance its ideas, and that's that's philosophy, or rather fellow philanthropy, and market economics in those two things can exist simultaneously right. Well, you know, intellectual magazines lose money. So how do they support themselves? Comment,
It supports homes supports itself, we have a network of of don't who who supply supply. The money that we need to run annually, who are gender, send philanthropic, like minded, and we salute them and are incredibly They fall to them every moment of every day that we do our work the standard was honestly the different model, because it was owned by two for profit companies. News America on by Rupert Murdoch started the magazine a ninety ninety five and then it was sold Tipp anchises clarity media in two thousand and nine. But it was stood when we took the magazine to Rupert when we took the idea to Rupert and met with him in a Jew May or June of nineteen ninety five may of ninety. Ninety five to two pitch the magazine and with us at his house, was
less him ahead of news. America publishing group returned to lessen said: let's try to make sure we don't lose too much money on this. That's all he said, and in fact they draw up a budget that weak, ah that called for a three million dollar expenditure in ninety ninety five, and we spent two point: nine eight million dollars in the first year of the standard and basically that was the general proposition was it should lose three million and that a company the head Billy, of dollars in in earnings was nothing. You know it's like as I think I said, nor the blog post. I wrote about this. It was like the money that is spent on the craft table serving lunch to the people who were making avatar. You know I mean
a Ming avatar, so you spend three million dollars on the crafts table and some may be drivers and the craft table like in the Hague in it in the world of Twentieth Century fox them. You know, which is the largest part of news corporate the time like the standard, barely even showed up: as a as a right. You know it was a rounding air of rounding air. Never you talk a little about the founding, a partial response to the accusations about the bad, the standard not being sufficiently pro tromp in that, and that is responsible for its its haven't, been shuddered in your blog posts. You talked about how to standard was. Never doubt. The idea was never to tell a party line right back when that we might have been many Gingrich party line.
Can you talk a little bit more about that, but that the idea of that and indeed sure its founding sure? Well, you know some of this also goes to commentaries own history, because some of this charts the course of the evolution of the connection tween american politics in them an american intellection and american publishing self. I let let me go back. So if you go back in the annals of american publishing. Magazines intended for the intellectually minded, they were very much forced from politics very much divorced Rachel Lankans. American mercury was sort of one model of an intellectual magazine, meaning a magazine published by of serious thinker notion was all politics was garbage, all politicians were were foolish or for evil, and- and you know you just-
eat it was like when we was a sewer and you didn't go near it. The more ethical publications like partisan review and others that term. That kind of flourished in the nineteenth areas in the nineteen forties thought there was no difference between the two parties effectively. Both parties were corporatist and you know that in the thrall of the of the of them. Upper classes and had nothing to do as you know, was just corrupting to have anything to do with them and that point might serve, went on through the fifties and then came. The big t change, I think, which was the nomination and election of John F Kennedy to the presidency because Kennedy brought coterie of Harvard the actual into the White House, and suddenly there was a definitive can between the into
actual life of the country and the health and standing of a particular, presidency and a particular party and from there on there was a kind of war. Intellectual started, integrating themselves into really largely the demo Attic party, although of course you had the Strauss Cm Harry Harry Jaffa wrote berry waters, conscience of a conservative or wrote parts of burglars conscience of a conservative serve serious scholar. Professor intellectual convict, the person, but nonetheless William. We, of course who was in degraded himself into the republican Party. As of sane voice, trying to keep the party from like going Berkshire in getting really dangerous and being foolish
but even then even the sixties. You had these kind of rum quixotic in Actual games online runs for office right, so Buckley ran for New York and Norman Mailer us for mayor renewed, like there was a high, thing where people started playing foot you're playing games with this? Ok, so this then Reagan comes along and nineteen eighty and then much of what we looked at as NEO conservative movement literally went into government. I mean, when my father was editing. This magazine me Still his writing staff disappeared because they went into the state department. They went through the defence Department, they went into the cultural departments build who was somebody who could had some trouble getting book reviews published in commentary and break the national endowment for the humanities, and you know- the hot. So suddenly, oh you have that, but here the difference
we then, and now I'm gonna get to the hold. This is like, so this but all happen. People are to bring themselves into a ball. This man fathers, son in LAW, Elliot Abrams, was assistant secretary of state, international organizations and then for human rights and for Latin America, and ninety eight to my father could easily with no sense of hesitancy, turn round and a peace for the New York Times magazine on how Ronald Reagan was betraying NEO conservatism, because that was what intellectuals were supposed to do. They weren't supposed to be mouthpiece for a presidency. Aura of you went in worked, you are who you were but its eat out, but Thou was, he wasn't was too, but he did not view it as his role to cheerleader Because all of his friends were working there, it was all that man to him more. The ideas that were being expressed end
concerns that he had, which I think work. I think history has proved wrong. Headed, but nonetheless, here like that. Irving was like that every everybody was like that. Ok, and let's go to the other ledger, which is the Republic, the most important political magazine in the country at the time democratically align magazine where it had its power and strength, was in its failure. Told the orthodox line of the Democratic Party. So what if ass, the Democratic Party from inside the Democratic Party in an effort to keep an honest, say, don't footsie with the sandinistas. They are called in August the American left nearly discredited itself, by aligning itself with with the car this party don't do, that don't attack is real. Israel is a democratic country in the Middle EAST that is a friend of ours. Don't go
so wobbly on nuclear, where It means that you say that it's ok to make any really want to with the with the Soviets and keep your highbrows standards again the attack on them. That was then growing in the universities against western culture and stuff like that, and that too between the Democratic Party and liberalism, classically and liberals air, not classically understood that liberalism understood as the word liberal night haze, that was but gave the new report its power, who was the best writer Avenue public? In the nineteen eighties chart, crowd, hammer Charles Crown Amber who was now thought of as the great conservative intellectual icon of it. I'm. So when we started the weekly standard in ninety nine before we started with the thought that the Gingrich Revolution, was a new era and american politics equivalent to the progressive.
Error that began in nineteen fourteen with the election of well, I mean it say Teddy Roosevelt was also, but but what Mr Watson's election and what then was the New Republic was started. So we thought well, we need to start a magazine. It will be for this era. What didn't? What what the New Republic was for the progressive era and it never to us that our purpose was to be properly Damnedest for the Gingrich revolution. It was that we were going to fulfil, the classic the actual magazine, job of keeping our owned of attacking the other side's bad ideas and keeping our own side honest and try, to make sure that it wasn't corrupted by power, so from the very first issue. As I said, there was a meeting a Grover Norquist office. I think still takes place every week and some be distributed, a pretty nasty parity
of the magazine, the first issue on the grounds that it was insufficiently supportive of Gingrich bill tells a story about how in his office in nineteen o six Joe. His son told me in his office, there was this big plastic rat and he got it. Somebody from the dull campaign mailed. To him because I think on this week with David Brinkley. He said he. Think Doll was gonna, win and joy for saying that he thought the Clinton was gonna win. They sent him a rat so this week. Of course, we The present United States happily referred to his tail turn. Lawyer as a rat bill got, that was just normal. That was just what what we, the magazines role, was then
Bush comes along and a lot of what Bush thinks, thought and wanted and believed was congruent. What the magazine believed and Bush was but this presidency was remarkably ideologically consistent with a few. You know with a few weaknesses, you D, W W. Excuse me. And so that can ruins men the magazine was more supportive than it might otherwise have been. There becomes one centre, is ferocious flow. Silly anti Obama. Just as we were, I think. Right at me was ferociously anti Obama. Many attacks on Obamacare every Euro tax on foreign policy tax on everything, but then I'm comes along and general tenor of the standards approach on Trump from Ill to Steve to various other people- and they were people on staff- were much more supportive, including Fred Barnes. Bread, humor contributing editor. Also, feeling this way, but it was
his personal moral packaging Laws and the ugliness of the way that he ran made here unfit to be president. So it sounds a little bit like there is something there to the ideological, logical explanation. David Brooks, I believe, has only Mass rape Brooks Column, and you know I should stop and say we should talk a little about the original masthead. Just to give you a sense of what the standard turned out to be why one should warn it so much I mean this is twenty three years ago, but here's what the standard was and could always be, the master was Bill Frederick Send me at the top than we had Richards are the the managing editor F writers were Andrew Ferguson, David Brooks Chris Caldwell Tucker Karlsson, Matt lay Bash Matt Reese are worth a reporter.
Was Naomi Rau about to be confirmed. As a judge to the Dc Circuit Court of Appeals Pierre work the contributing editor Bob Kagan was a contributing editor. Todd Limburg was a contriving, editor bread, humans, trembling, editor and Charles cried Hammer- was a contributing editor that was one astounding, assemblage of talent and innocent, place and you know, most of those people have left a lot of them, went onto you, know, different pastures and some of them have changed. Their ideological tolerations and all that in the new people have started very impressive younger writers and other writers and new people. Magazines or about what they publish not about the views yes, but in the end, thereby assemblages of articles one week after another after another and the standard
set a very high bar for a weekly, then Nth can Can you too, through its very last issue? I said David wrote that they are the powers that be we're trying to impose some new voices on them who did comport more with what republican audiences have come to expect from the commentary class here, but that was before some of that was before tromp like someone, is very wanted right, what they wanted to lower the magazines voice because they didn't understand it, because these being counters in Denver morons. I hate to support it. This way, but guiding Ryan Mckibben, who had already, who would who had but he driven a nuisance, Britain, Denver into the ground and then took the what took this cockamamie idea that in answer to tat of a network of sixty five print papers called the examiner papers, a grimace share, newsroom and all this. So they had these papers
for the place and then the two thousand and nine recession yet so they got rid of that and then they would then they had the washing examiner, which was they were handing out for free in Washington, with a staff of sixty two local reporting and sports in this and then the other thing and then they decided to kill that so they just fired forty people at the same time, and then they went web only and it was gonna be like politico, so, basically every Every financial decision- and thought decision that they made has come a cropper and they turn the stair and they were like. You know you need a podcast. Your podcast should be hosted by thus die and your website should be run by the guy runs the pipe we're going to take over the website and we're going to run at four you'll be separate from because they wanted their fingers on it because it was independent and they couldn't and it, and it wasn't so much there conservatives so they will want to hide.
Our conservative talent, You know, there's levels of conservative tell it like. There's conserve talent, that's that's not of the intellectual pedigree the standard and that's what they liked. That's what they. Wanted to sort of you. To pull the standard down to their fought level. So the biological part- and this I think, is key, though, is this before trumps victory bill In particular and others, you know they were eminent figures and mostly thought very highly, and very happily, by most people on the right, who were also a lot of people who are reserving their judgement until the election, the she comes Trump wins the election and I think
had been in the guise of clarity thought. Well, we don't know to be worried that hill. You know we will have to be feared, many more. We don't have to be afraid of these guys, these anti trump guys they lost We hate them anyway, because Dave they. We now Dave. They ve been a thorn in our side, doing whatever they wanted to would not being part of the clarity. You know internal clarity, media world and and now we ve got no reason to let them go on the way they want to go on the oddity was then they defend a straight. A bill to some degree, emanate big. They took the reins of the magazine way from they gave them to steed haze. Why cause answered liked Steve Hazy, watching when television but still if anything, more aggressively anti trust. And so that so that and another by the way. Another sign that the Holding couldn't be about Trump really, because and
its had appointed an anti trump person to be built successor. However,. I think, as time went on this it's that they were maybe not in step with me. You know parties, vanguard and mood certainly gave rise. Mckibben of clarity, media, the bureaucratic Frank to say: let shut this whole thing down. So there is some talk that the the finality here is going to culminate in the deletion of the website entirely into the archives, which would be an act of historic vandalism do we think that there's gonna be any potential to save the content of that website? I see no reason other than just the worst kind of peak. For that to happen, I mean I could to my we would hosted.
You know. Commentary would happily host the archives of the weekly standard. I think there are, institutions act institutions that save magazine archives. That would probably take it. They just to agree to sign it. They haven't down. Yet that's you twenty three years of material. There are other places it will reside, resides for example, on on nexus. The contents of the magazine, not the website which has published a lot of it material aid himself has written stuff that was web only for the standard and if the archives aren't saved, that stuff will vanish because it wasn't sent to nexus of course, it's expensive to access and access and difficult to access and excess. So you know, if you want the hour I was readily accessible, someone's gonna have to host them and make them available and its
expensive untold. It's like ten bucks a day to keep the archives up. You know at Amazon, web services or whatever So we'll see what happens there, I mean it would seem. Almost like a good tool active intellectual vandalism much. You know. Their plausible deniability, on the argument they may that they needed to get rid of the standard for as a business matter. There there's no plausible deniability for like giving the. Giving the archive to rid the world of tackles any record of its exactly right. So does not say anything about about publishing. A meeting is a strictly about the standard in this business relationship deserve rotor eccentric. It is such a dick entered thing. That's happened that has no parallel. I mean I've been thinking about this for days, I've talked to people about it. There's no! Parallel to this no parallel to the no? We don't want to sell it. We just want to close it. You know
and we're not even an entertain, offers to buy it now never heard of that. So You have to say it singular and unusual, and because of the singularity and unusual illness of it, that that's. What's that? A typical lady of it makes it very hard to it into this larger narrative about conservatism. From that's a wheel narrative we know this. For in our marrow. I know this on twitter. You write something you get. You know that the the vile nature of the responses that I've gotten over the weekend to things that ivory tweets him the blog posts that I've written about what into the standard is a mark of happens when you don't could get along to go along in the Republican Party, and it is much worse than getting the rat from the bottom toll campaign. It's really really horrible and it is this you know,
be with us or die. I mean a magazine, nobody cared about a red last. Ninety six hours have been pretty much all about it. Well, That's what I'm saying you know it's! It's a very big your thing like why you want a voice, she'll, be stilled What does that say by your intellectual self confidence that it that you that you relish and and delight in the fact that a voice that support Thirdly, you don't care about no longer speaks It seems to be the opposite. You know gloating over the death of the standard, is a sign that he sees things burs. His saddle, they bother him. He doesn't like that. They exist, he wants them to go away and his people, one of the four. Things that I kept getting people saying things like this wasn't a murder was a suicide. You offended your readers and your readers hated you, and now they don't. We do any more and I,
You should the I hate you in and I'm like Ok, so tell me what magazines you read because of Christian nine percent of people who were smileless have never looked at the standard. Never read anything this, I don't know anything about the standard. Whatever you can say about trumps per Small phalanx of support, the you know, intellectual backing of of It is not important to them one way or the other side, but I get that when I go on television. Is that people say well, you know you clearly have defended Trump at every turn you cabin. I you have you didn't talk about Russia and twenty. Sixteen like they must impose believe son you that they assume you share, because you're part of a contingent as its Earth will the two of eyes had to us: have the snow, and I both so we go in amazon- were pretty critical of Trump but then occasionally will say things like iron of the Russia thing is developing or you have done
stand why someone might say thus in such about climate change whatever, and then you at the you know your boy trump, you know at one side, you're gay people saying you know you should all you should die because you're, not supportive enough of Trump and, on the other say get your boy trade, our raw Oh you love Charlottesville right. They that young, I defended image rosville like you can actually say that, but you assume that I did because other people, like you, did by the way you know if you had said five years ago to none of that. The weekly standard would be shudder, but also that the ditch I am full ism would be, would come from the right worth in the left. I mean that's, that's the other that the left has been far more Gracious are appreciative? Well, really classic thing: they there's! No there's! No! There's no conservative like a dead conservative right, so the weekly stammer, whose now Mccain to them
there is a certain right. It's like you know, oh dear God, the right can no longer support this, because their mind is closed. How horrible this is, you know, that's what I nothing ever. Nothing ever became the standard to certain liberal voices like its leaving leaving the scene. You know- no such word was ever spoken kindly of it before I've seen two things, one that praising it coming to praise it not bury it. In order to make a point about present conservatism and also to who say that this is a deserved fate for an institution that back the Iraq war and that has blood on it. Right- and that is a that's a real thing I was asked about that and on imports. Like do you regret the Iraq war wave, your regular support of the Iraq war? That's like areas of admission, right, and I know you know- are for
contributor MAX boot has now rescinded the his support for Thee Och WAR, along with everything else, he ever believed, so the the fact of the matter is that, as I said like you know, you all were all your intellectual responsibility readership as the editor of a magazine or the writers of magazine, is to tell the truth? As you see it at the time with the facts that are at hand at the time, and there a great deal of opinion. I could say that the Iraq was a mistake. I we could argue otherwise, and I would argue otherwise, but it's a You know, but I mean it. I wouldn't say that what I had to say about it was a slight slam: dunk in any way shape or form nobody said, something that he didn't believe and nobody argued things from a position.
Disingenuous to scratch, the backs of the people in power or anything like that, and we There is, of course, have the right to judge that when they dissent from where you come out on these things. They just subscribe again. You know, I'm in all publications all we can do is do our best, and you know, and the market place in. That sense tells you and it's an interesting thing about commentary is opposed to the standard commentary has found itself for real, since that I can't explain in a month healthier position. Of its circulation and and readership and it was in twenty. Sixteen I don't think we ve trimmed our sales in relation to anything or that we
you know, I mean it just think how little what we right or what we ve published here directly concerns from himself since the election we did. We know we did it a special issue on where Trump was on the policies that he had laid out in the campaign and one of the things that we found after a year was that he was here as a point no, it makes all the time that he was hewing far closer power see terms, except on trade, to stand republican orthodoxies than we than we had anticipated right? So I dont know why that is the standard did take ahead. It was always in a different position, though I think I know where that is because the intellectual infrastructure was there to support a traditional republican agenda and the populist agenda had no infrastructure. There was nothing but her
What, but I would say this that commentary is a non profit five or one see through to the end of the year. Please but a commentary amazing that comes lashed donate. We would very much appreciate donation tax the civil donation to help. Continue doing what we do. But we, we are a non not for profit. That means we dont endorse candidates. We don't you know we don't we don't speak for parties, we don't do anything like that and in our marketing we always throughout the Obama years, felled ourselves at a terrible disadvantage because the standard national view and others say what this to learn how to defeat Obama, red is to see how to put Republicans and power we. Thus it will show you the roadmap back to a proper republic governance- you know like that, and we couldn't It is those words we couldn't use those terms, so we have to do it all. You know I have to say support conservatism, all of that
an hour in writing and what we did. We couldn't speak too who? What rip the Republican Party should do? What the Democrats party shouldn't, do and why the Democratic Party was bad. Republican party was good in the wake of this election that liable, What d ya think turned that marketing lie? ability ethic was a liability creatively turned into a benefit and the standards on the other, the aware of either way, because the one thing promise was that it had the inside ear. The ear of the White House. It had the ear of the hill it does have. The year did have the ear of the hill, but the hill wasn't gonna walk around saying it had the year of the hill, because then that would piss off the White House. Its astounding to me that Naomi Rau got nothin, the Disease Circuit Court, big as she was on the standards mast head once I mean
I'm not kidding met mulvaney as chief of staff. He called the president a terrible person. Well, I know, but in the early going when the only got appointed the yes or regulations are in the White House. I was the only way she did. This is that in other standards, masthead isn't isn't available online. As you know, they Just they were banning people. You know you remember this. They banned Elliot like Trump Next Elliot you ban and was looking at personnel files to make sure that people you now worm were were as friendly to him as he won, but there's only so much you can do it in late twenty. Sixteen, access Hollywood tape. Everybody was getting off the ship right. Well, you you one of the drop out of the race forget about that. I I, you for reminding us, Sir,
Oh it's a terrible day and I two things to say, one of which is the weekly sub standard, the incredibly delightful pop culture, podcast d, by standard online enter Jonathan last and long time, standard staffers, though now they're, watching free beacon, staffers, VIC Madness. And sunny bunch is being reconstituted it when the law- Billy Weekly Substandard, it will be the weekly sub beacon and if you go Itunes. You can subscribe to the weekly Sub Beacon our goal, Ricochet which hosts us as well. Here you can do. Email me at John POD, Hornets at Commentary magazine dot, com, J, O H, M ports at college. Magazine, dot com, and we, if Europe, if you are a standard subscriber and want to show you some
or it for the host standard like magazine, you can go to. Please go there and I guess the file answered I should make us Christine Rosen- is joining the commentary staff in February as a full time. Writer join, Noah on the body can t write magazine and so at this, he said with that. That's a glad tidings for us sad tidings today for american intellectual life, so far, even know. I'm John put words.
Transcript generated on 2019-12-12.