The general gestalt sense in paleo and even mainstream circles has been that TAC is trying hard to appeal to establishment critics of conservatism, left, right and center. It is no longer discernibly paleoconservative and employs non-conservatives.
Recently, The American Conservative (TAC) brought Noah Millman on board as a blogger. By Millman’s own admission, he is not a conservative. I thought this was an unfortunate move at the time and was already preparing to comment on it, and now I see I was not the only one distressed by his addition. Millman’s fellow blogger Rod Dreher has already felt the need to address the issue. In fact, I “borrowed” the title of Dreher’s post for this article because it helps make my case. The short answer to “Has TAC gone liberal?” is no. The better question that requires a longer answer is “Why does this perception persist?”
First some background for those who may not be familiar with The American Conservative. TAC was founded in 2002 by Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodoracopulos (usually referred to as Taki for short), and Scott McConnell. It was intended to be a platform for Buchanan style conservatism in contrast to the neoconservative paradigm that dominates other mainstream “conservative” magazines such as National Review, The Weekly Standard and arguably to a somewhat lesser extent The American Spectator. As a Buchananite publication it was reasonably expected that TAC would distinguish itself from the neocon oriented mainstream publications specifically in the three main areas where Buchanan style conservatism differs from mainstream “movement conservatism,” namely:
1.) consistent and comprehensive opposition to mass immigration
2.) opposition to so-called free trade, especially sovereignty infringing free trade agreements such as NAFTA, and support for fair trade practices and
3.) opposition to foreign interventionism and support for an America First foreign policy.
The economics of running a small niche publication, however, are not favorable absent one or more generous patrons and/or a large donor base, so TAC has experienced some major disruptions over the course of its publication. I am not privy to all that has gone on or continues to go on with the internal politics of TAC and likely wouldn’t repeat them publicly if I was, but after 2007 Buchanan and Taki were no longer formally affiliated with TAC, although TAC still runs Buchanan’s syndicated columns.
What TAC now suffers from is a serious identity problem. Is it a Buchananite alternative to the neocons rags meant to appeal to main street right-wing populists or is it a “thoughtful” critique of mainstream conservatism meant to appeal to insiders and smart guys, left, right and center? Or is it, as I would argue, not doing a good job of being anything to anyone?
Today what’s left of TAC’s Buchananite audience views it as insufficiently sticking to its roots, based on a number of incidents, some of the more important ones which I will recount here.
In 2007, In the midst of one of TAC’s financial crises, along comes Ron Unz, the current publisher, to bail them out financially. Unz, unlike the famously immigration restrictionist Buchanan, had a decidedly mixed record on immigration. Unz, a Californian, had opposed California Proposition 187 designed to deny social service benefits to illegal aliens. Four years later, however, he sponsored California Proposition 227 which was designed to decrease bilingual education in the state’s schools. At the time Unz’s purchase of TAC was understandably greeted by much skepticism on the paleo right. This skepticism appeared to be warranted when Unz published in the March 2010 issue his now infamous in restrictionist circles front page “His-Panic” article in which he argues that Hispanic (a grossly imprecise word to begin with) immigrants are not disproportionately responsible for crime. (Unfortunately for the famously brainy Unz, he got his figures wrong.)
TAC was already on shaky ground in paleo circles because the magazine commissioned John Lukacs, a significant and respected figure on the right but one with well know opinions on the subject, to review Buchanan’s World War II revisionist book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. The review was predictably not favorable. The reaction (see here, here, here, here and here for example) was not so much about the fact that TAC printed an unfavorable review of their former founder’s book, it was that they commissioned the review from someone they knew would review it unfavorably due to his track record on the subject. This was interpreted by many as unfair to Buchanan if not deliberately provocative.
There have been other dust ups between TAC and the paleo right as well. TAC was criticized in paleo circles for running a very PC preening rant against the British National Party by Peter Hitchens, the more conservative brother of the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens. They were also criticized (read the comments) for their handling (again, read the comments) of the death of Joseph Sobran. I could name other issues as well, but you get the point. TAC is viewed for many reasons by its Buchananite core as insufficiently hewing to the direction of its founders.
But some of TAC’s frustrated core has continued to stick with it likely because it is the only game in town. TAC remains one of the few identifiably conservative political magazines and easily the most visible one that consistently advocates for non-intervention in foreign policy. Chronicles Magazine has consistently advocated non-intervention as well, but it deliberately eschews horse race politics and issues coverage so it isn’t really an equivalent counterweight to National Review and The Weekly Standard in the same way a policy centered magazine like TAC is, no disrespect to Chronicles, which I like, intended.
Aside from the specific issues raised above, the general gestalt sense in paleo and even mainstream circles has been that TAC is trying hard to appeal to establishment critics of conservatism, left, right and center. What began as a criticism of mainstream (neoish) conservatism from the paleo right, has morphed into a smart guy criticism of mainstream conservatism and the rubes who support it that isn’t always discernibly conservative. The less charitable would also suggest that this lack of a discernibly conservative perspective is a deliberate attempt to distance itself from its Buchananite roots and ingratiate itself with establishment smarts. Now I don’t entirely endorse that view of the magazine, I’m just suggesting that it is “the general gestalt sense in paleo circles.” I would also suggest that TAC has done a lot to bring this perception upon itself.
TAC has, in its critique of American foreign policy, frequently published liberal critics. First of all, let me be clear that I do not object to conservative publications publishing liberals as long as they have something productive to add and especially if they are subject matter experts. The reason TAC was needed in the first place is because mainstream conservatism, especially its interventionist faction, is an unserious intellectual wasteland that lacks breadth of opinion and doesn’t tolerate, let alone engage, dissent. Part of battling this choir preaching monopoly could well include giving voice to liberal critiques of mainstream conservatism. But in the dichotomous world that is the state of our current political debate, one must do this carefully and judiciously. Both sides are guilty of viewing everything in terms of the Red Team and the Blue Team, and inclusion of too many people from the other team can quickly get you written off. The media is already full of leftists more than willing to bash conservatives. I often get the feeling that TAC is more about heckling mainstream conservatives in some sort of mutual “At least I’m not one of those people” admiration society with liberal know-it-alls than it is about presenting authentic conservative alternatives to the neoconservative ideological foolishness that passes for conservatism these days. What is desperately needed is a credible and identifiably conservative venue that will criticize modern mainstream conservatism from the authentic right. TAC, for whatever reason, has muddled its voice in doing this. Are there no right wing critics out there who pass TAC’s editorial muster? (For the record, Jack Hunter was doing a good job of repping the paleo right at TAC, but he has gone on to be the official blogger of the Ron Paul campaign.)
TAC has muddled its voice both by its frequent associations and by the frustrating style of some of their bloggers. (I commented on this muddled voice problem in a previous essay.) I have on many occasions had to defend the conservative credentials of crunchy con Rod Dreher (I have often described crunchy conservatism as paleo light) and paleocon Daniel Larison from accusations by mainstream conservatives that they are David Frum or Ross Douthat style moderates. It is a testimony to the lack of intellectual depth and diversity among mainstream conservatives that I commented on above that I have to explain crunchy and paleo conservatism to these yahoos and distinguish it from David Brooks style moderation, but it is also testimony to the fact that Larison and Dreher often sound like Frum or Douthat or Brooks style moderates. They deliberately or not often seem to be pitching more to establishment smarts than main street paleos.
When I link to a Daniel Larison post on Iran for example, to counter some alarmist claim made by a conservative interventionist, I will often get one of two sorts of responses. Either something like “Daniel Larison is a moderate and TAC is flirting with the Code Pink crowd” or “American Conservative! That’s Pat Buchanan’s rag! They’re all a bunch of racist, anti-Semitic blah, blah, blah…”
This brings me back to my original contention that TAC isn’t “doing a good job of being anything to anyone.” The fact that the addition of Noah Millman makes people ask “Has TAC gone liberal?” is precisely why the addition of Noah Millman is a problem. It seems to confirm the former perception that TAC is in flirting with the left, but it will never satisfy the PC thought police who will never forgive TAC for its former association with Pat Buchanan. I honestly don’t believe that very many knowledgeable people actually think TAC is becoming a magazine of the left, but as a “thinking conservative” magazine is their message getting muddled and potentially decreasing its impact?
I admit that I don’t know a thing about the magazine publishing business and the ins and outs of keeping a niche publication like TAC afloat. But I can’t help but believe that there are more populist and traditionalist conservatives out there in the heartland yearning for a voice on the inside than there are establishment insiders to be convinced that not all conservatives are brain dead Fox News watching robots. TAC needs to pick its audience and be what it was intended to be, a Buchananite alternative to the neocon rags, and stop playing to the audience of Ross Douthat wannabes who could meet in a phone booth.
The temptation to be 'respectable' is perennial for ideological journals, especially those with intellectual pretensions, but it is possible, with effective leadership, to resist. Consider 'National Review' (NR) and 'Modern Age.' I suspect that very few readers of IC have even heard of 'Modern Age,' even though it was founded by Russell Kirk in 1957. It is firmly traditionalist and no liberals appear in its pages. NR set the mold for what I'll call adaptive conservatism. Buckley strove to make NR a 'respectable' conservative journal, excommunicating Ayn Rand, the John Birch Society, and others from the ranks of the Right. TAC seems to me to be heading in the same direction that NR took decades ago. Of course 'Modern Age' is part of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and thus far more highbrow than TAC, but it is committed to traditional conservatism. It and (much of the time) "Chronicles" do the best job of standing for paleoconservatism these days. Don't expect TAC to tack back to such a position.
It has been suggested to me by a couple of people that I may have been unfair to Ross Douthat. Douthat is kinder to mainstream conservatives than Frum or Brooks and is an improvement over Kristol who he replaced. It was the whole "reformist" "Grand New Party" thing I was referring too.
I label neoconservatism/the 'Grand New Party' sort of thinking as 'right-wing liberalism.' At bottom those folks don't belong with conservatism.
Pundits like Millman have plenty of venues, and TAC is a rare oasis of paleoconservative thought. (Full disclosure: I hate the term "paleoconservative.")
We have let every Tom, Dick, and Cheney get away with an Alice-in-Wonderland definition for conservative. Andrew Sullivan argues same-sex "marriage" is a conservative goal. Self-described "conservative" Lindsey Graham insists we must scrap the 4th and 5th amendments in pursuit of the overblown war on terror. Rick Santorum measures a candidate's conservatism by how much he would sacrifice American interests to advance the Likkud party. Newt Gingrich says we need more Third-World immigration, and would reward those who are here illegally.
And all agree that a policy of perpetual war is mainstream conservatism.
I feel like I'm stuck in an Twilight Zone episode.
Can't we have just one publication that promotes small-government and the preservation of Western culture?
Try "Modern Age," especially for the preservation of Western culture.