Recommended reading:

SullyWatch has an excellent posting about the National Review, paleo- vs neo-conservatives, the history of the right over the last couple of decades, and more.

We agree with pretty much all that's there. However, as part of this discussion, some observers (not SullyWatch) have proclaimed the Weekly Standard to be a reasonably decent conservative magazine - at least in comparison to the National Review. We beg to disagree. Back in the late 90's, the Weekly Standard was one of the fiercest advocates of impeaching Bill Clinton (and we've got the old magazines to prove it!). They've engaged in some pretty wild stuff over the years (e.g. Fred Barnes predicting that when the Panama Canal reverts to local control, the locks will jam, all hell breaks loose, the U.S. will have to step in), and show no signs of moderation. Sorry to say it, but there aren't any reasonable conservative publications out there. At least there are none that reject the crackpot economic theories of Steve Forbes and Larry Kudlow, the coercive social policies of Marvin Olasky, the pre-Enlightenment world view of Antonin Scalia, the "progress goes against Nature" perspective of Leon Kass, and the Napoleonic geopolitics of any number of prominent administration figures.

posted by Quiddity at 3/25/2003 02:39:00 PM