At Last!

Zvika Krieger reads about LibertyWire:

Have you ever been reading Slate and found yourself thinking, "This is great, but if only if were more conservative..."? Then LibertyWire is for you! The new online publication, being launched in mid-August, is billing itself as "a conservative version of Slate." [...] A job listing I found for the new endeavor claims it will be "general interest," along the lines of "Slate, Esquire, Good, City Journal, The Atlantic or The New Yorker" (seriously, City Journal!?) but with an "editorial slant [that] is big tent right-of-center -- as open-minded about what we publish as The New Republic, The New Yorker or The New York Times Magazine, but on the center-right rather than the center-left."

This is a bit bizarre. Slate and The Atlantic are already center-right publications (I know my soon-to-be-former colleagues at The Atlantic don't necessarily see it that way, but it is). Most of The New Republic is mostly left-of-center on economic issues, but always takes time to run things like Greg Mankiw's case for abolishing Social Security (PDF) and rarely if ever countering its conservative views on foreign policy, Roe v. Wade, various Ben Wittes apologias for the Bush administration's abolition of due process, etc.

But the view is that in this landscape what the world needs is yet another dogmatically conservative magazine.

Comments

Yes, but there's a lot of conservative money sloshing around with no place to go; it's not like they can donate to perverted organizations like symphony orchestras.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | August 1, 2008 10:52 AM

as open-minded about what we publish as The New Republic, The New Yorker or The New York Times Magazine, but on the center-right rather than the center-left.

Well, finally! An online magazine for open-minded people!

Now, I personally am center-left, with subtle undertones of libertarianism and a strong nihilistic finish with hints of raspberry, ginger, and wasabi, and an aversion for any philosophic position originally espoused by left-handed writers of Lithuanian origin whose middle names contain the letter Q. Also, I bear great distaste for any political writing that contradicts my pre-existing Weltanschauung.

Beside those minor issues, though, I--like the editors of LibertyWire--am very open-minded.

Posted by James Gary | August 1, 2008 10:57 AM

TNR has "conservative views" on Roe Vs Wade? That's news to me ...

Posted by scritic | August 1, 2008 10:58 AM

Damn straight. The notion that Slate, the Atlantic or TNR are left-leaning is just bizarre; look at this blog-roll. It's conservative dominant. And, I mean, while Slate feints towards being a liberal publication, when every single story challenges "liberal dogma" or is "provocative and iconoclastic" (read: anti-liberal)... what does that posturing mean?

Posted by Freddie | August 1, 2008 10:59 AM

How can anyone not realize the Atlantic is a center-right publication? I am actually very sorry I renewed about 3 or 4 months ago (only did because of Fallows and you) and shortly after I did determined I would not the coming year. The right has so many ways it mainlines it's views that I don't need to be helping support one of the avenues.

Posted by Napoleon | August 1, 2008 10:59 AM

Slate and The Atlantic are center-right publications? As a moderate liberal who is a regular reader of both, that hasn't been my impression. This is a statement requires further explanation.

Posted by GW | August 1, 2008 11:02 AM

How can anyone not realize the Atlantic is a center-right publication?

When I read that "global warming is going to be a good thing" feature they did about a year ago (was that Clive Crook? I can't recall) I sort of thought they'd shifted to center-stupid.

Posted by James Gary | August 1, 2008 11:04 AM

"Slate and The Atlantic are center-right publications? As a moderate liberal who is a regular reader of both, that hasn't been my impression. This is a statement requires further explanation"

They are publication that look conservative to those on the left and liberal to those on the right, and "balanced" to those who work for them. Which is about what they should aim for, in my opinion.

Posted by zaleriana | August 1, 2008 11:06 AM

Ahoy! is there a visual representation of the blogs on the political spectrum for social and economic and foreign policy issues?

Posted by Downtown D | August 1, 2008 11:06 AM

So in this context, what would be the "center" of which the Atlantic is center-right or center-left?

Posted by bgn | August 1, 2008 11:07 AM

Slate is "center-right" in the same sense that the DLC is center-right... which is to say that it's full of Democrats who bash both the Right and the Left, but seem much more enthusiastic about bashing the Left.

Still, we're talking about Mike Kinsley's 'zine, with writers like Tim Noah, Dahlia Lithwick, and Fred Kaplan to balance the likes of Mickey Kaus. By the standards of American media, they're a centrist publication that leans to the left. This speaks volumes about the sad state of American media, but there you go.

The Atlantic is a better fit for the center-right label. But I expect if you sequestered Jeffrey Goldberg, Clive Crook, Ross Douthat, Megan McArdle, and Andrew Sullivan for a week, you couldn't get them all to agree on anything more substantive than a snide comment about what Nancy Pelosi wore to a press conference. This speaks volumes about the sad state of the American Right, but there you go.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 1, 2008 11:07 AM

Ahoy! is there a visual representation of the blogs on the political spectrum for social and economic and foreign policy issues?

Posted by Downtown D | August 1, 2008 11:10 AM

Isn't this part of the same conservatizing trend with the NY Times, Times, and Newsweek all loading up on right-wing columnists? It will be interesting to see if this particular bubble bursts if Obama is elected.

Posted by Ric Caric | August 1, 2008 11:11 AM

Isn't this part of the same conservatizing trend with the NY Times, Times, and Newsweek all loading up on right-wing columnists? It will be interesting to see if this particular bubble bursts if Obama is elected.

Posted by Ric Caric | August 1, 2008 11:11 AM

And of course, you're leaving, and the Atlantic is replacing you with Ta-Nehisi Coates. I like Coates, he's got interesting things to say, and he's probably more liberal than he's conservative; but he isn't a strong, committed liberal voice, meaning that the Atlantic won't have one. In fact, I'd argue that the only liberal working for the Atlantic in any recognizeable capacity will be Fallows, and it's a rare week in which he writes about politics twice.
But at least there will be one more right-of-center voice out there! /snark

Posted by Warren Terra | August 1, 2008 11:13 AM

So in this context, what would be the "center" of which the Atlantic is center-right or center-left?

I imagine a "centrist" would be one who, eschewing political dogma, dispassionately examines every issue solely on its merits, without undue influence from external sources, and thereby forms is or her opinions.

See also: unicorn, basilisk, griffon.

Posted by James Gary | August 1, 2008 11:13 AM

In addition to the reprehensible goat-blower Kaus, Slate features John Dickerson, Christopher Hitchens, Will "Lord" Saletan and Jack Schaefer, all of whom tend to be rather sympathetic to right wing talking points in the particular areas they write about. Hitchens is a bit sui generis -- a man of the hard left, who has taken on a crusade against Islam and made the ultimate in strange bedfellow alliances. But the fact is that he has spent the vast majority of his time in recent years bashing the left for its lack of enthusiasm for our excellent adventure in Iraq.

Posted by Sir Charles | August 1, 2008 11:13 AM

I think Yglesias hits the nail on the head when he says we need another "dogmatically" conservative maganzine. That's why he can't bear to submit that TNR, is in fact, a liberal paper- after all- they're certainly not "dogmatically" liberal like The Nation, Mother Jones, or The American Prospect.

Posted by Adam | August 1, 2008 11:16 AM

I think Yglesias hits the nail on the head when he says we need another "dogmatically" conservative maganzine. That's why he can't bear to submit that TNR, is in fact, a liberal paper- after all- they're certainly not "dogmatically" liberal like The Nation, Mother Jones, or The American Prospect.

Posted by Adam | August 1, 2008 11:16 AM

When did this blog turn into a whine-fest?

Posted by JohnMcG | August 1, 2008 11:16 AM

How can anyone not realize the Atlantic is a center-right publication? I am actually very sorry I renewed about 3 or 4 months ago (only did because of Fallows and you) and shortly after I did determined I would not the coming year. The right has so many ways it mainlines it's views that I don't need to be helping support one of the avenues.

Posted by Napoleon | August 1, 2008 11:18 AM

How can anyone not realize the Atlantic is a center-right publication? I am actually very sorry I renewed about 3 or 4 months ago (only did because of Fallows and you) and shortly after I did determined I would not the coming year. The right has so many ways it mainlines it's views that I don't need to be helping support one of the avenues.

Posted by Napoleon | August 1, 2008 11:20 AM

Look, the key to understanding Slate and TNR is understanding Kinsley's old joke about just changing the name to "even the liberal New Republic." These publications brand themselves as leftist; the make broad overtures to being leftist; they speak in a rhetorical style to suggest that, of course, they come from the left. But what they publish, by a huge margin, is anti-leftist, anti-liberal. I'm talking the overwhelming majority. It's cultural disdain and contempt for other liberals. They aren't conservative, because they aren't interested in publishing positive conservative arguments. They're just interested in attacking liberals. They're the kid in college whose views naturally skew leftward, but who finds everyone around him to be liberal, and develops a knee-jerk anti-liberalism out of distaste for the crowd.

Posted by Freddie | August 1, 2008 11:24 AM

Look, the key to understanding Slate and TNR is understanding Kinsley's old joke about just changing the name to "even the liberal New Republic." These publications brand themselves as leftist; the make broad overtures to being leftist; they speak in a rhetorical style to suggest that, of course, they come from the left. But what they publish, by a huge margin, is anti-leftist, anti-liberal. I'm talking the overwhelming majority. It's cultural disdain and contempt for other liberals. They aren't conservative, because they aren't interested in publishing positive conservative arguments. They're just interested in attacking liberals. They're the kid in college whose views naturally skew leftward, but who finds everyone around him to be liberal, and develops a knee-jerk anti-liberalism out of distaste for the crowd.

Posted by Freddie | August 1, 2008 11:26 AM

Personally, I'm just amused that conservatives seem to want to copy so many things that they think are liberal.

We've just had another story about a conservatives version of Starbucks opening, and who can forget Fox News' dismal effort to duplicate the Daily Show?

Of course, to be perfectly fair, we have the embarrassment of Air America on our side of the fence.

Posted by Andrew Lias | August 1, 2008 11:26 AM

I think the problem for these people, time and again, is going to be reality's well known liberal bias. I'm a little befuddled about where they get the idea that Slate is so left wing. When I think of Dahlia Lithwick, Emily Bazelon, Emily Yoffe, John Dickerson - I can't say that my first impression has anything to do with an overarching ideology.

That's very different, for instance, than my impression of the Atlantic. I tend to read the blogs on the Atlantic more than the magazine, but Sullivan wears his ideological identification on his sleeve, as do Yglesias and McArdle. Ambinder does his best to fake an impartial tone, and typically ends up overcompensating in the conservative direction.

Posted by Margaret | August 1, 2008 11:27 AM

Don't confuse the tilt of the Atlantic blogroll with that of the magazine itself.

Posted by Anonymous | August 1, 2008 11:31 AM

When did this blog turn into a whine-fest?

Yes. Jack Welch and Murdoch changed everything. The other big owners of corporate media have followed suit, and then the Sulzbergers decided to support neo-con foreign adventures. We're just going to have to accept it: there is no big liberal media any more. Let's hope the web is enough.

The dream that a rich guy like Soros would ever invest in a big media enterprise is empty. It will be many moons before there's a dominant liberal big media organization again. I'd like to move that we remove complaints about the media from our repertoire. Can I get a second?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 1, 2008 11:39 AM

I think the print Atlantic tends to publish a minority of articles that tilt right with the goal of being iconoclastic or "thought provoking", but I usually ignore those. (Not because of ideology. Because they're not very good.) What remains is generally quite enjoyable. I think Fallows alone is worth the subscription.

Posted by Kevin | August 1, 2008 11:43 AM

we have the embarrassment of Air America on our side of the fence

The "XYZ... but conservative!" reminds me of the flood of "Christian pop-culture" knockoffs that exist. There needs to be a "Conservative Slate" just like there needs to be "Christian Goth Rock."

You can't decide one day that you're going to beat your opponent by doing exactly what they do but making your own version of it. It's why there will never be a "conservative daily kos" or a "conservative ActBlue." Conservatives aren't the sort of people drawn to sites like Daily Kos. Liberals aren't the sort of people who are going to listen to generic "liberal" talk radio. Conservatives who are the sort of people who would like something like Slate are already reading Slate.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2008 11:47 AM

The Atlantic's short pieces are consistently either neutral or Conservative.

The Atlantic's longer pieces are more varied, but few of them are actually intended to express any viewpoint.

Posted by Warren Terra | August 1, 2008 12:37 PM

We've just had another story about a conservatives version of Starbucks opening

I was hoping this was some sort of snark.

Sadly, no.

To think, all this time I had no idea about the political implications of one's choice in coffee shop. Live and learn.

Posted by Phaedrus | August 1, 2008 12:46 PM

For the past 50 years, the M.O. of movement conservatives has been the push the center rightward while maximizing a "no enemies to the right" strategy, and to a large extent they've succeeded.

Senate Republicans with conservative interest group scores above 80 and liberal interest-group scores below 20 (e.g., Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, John Warner and - ahem - John McCain) are routinely called "moderates." The Washington Post editorial and op-ed pages, purveying the comments of Hiatt, Krauthammer, Will, Gerson and Novak, are commonly labeled "liberal." And so on.

"Center-right," as defined by conservatives today, embraces all rightists except overt white supremacists and anti-semites, people who obsess about black helicopters and Bilderburgers, conservatives who aren't sufficiently hostile to gays and immigrants, libertarians who are too vocal about civil liberties and drug legalization, and the craziest fundamentalists (but only after they've been outed).

Posted by allbetsareoff | August 1, 2008 12:47 PM

Don't confuse the tilt of the Atlantic blogroll with that of the magazine itself.

Goldberg and Douthat both write for the magazine. Which one of these articles in the current issue is left or center left?

American Murder Mystery

Why is crime rising in so many American cities? The answer implicates one of the most celebrated antipoverty programs of recent decades.

by Hanna Rosin
Is Google Making Us Stupid?

What the Internet is doing to our brains

by Nicholas Carr
What Rumsfeld Got Right

How Donald Rumsfeld remade the U.S. military for a more uncertain world [Web only: Video: "Donald Rumsfeld—The Change Agent"]

by Robert D. Kaplan
The 11 1/2 Biggest Ideas of the Year

A thumbnail intellectual history of the year. [Web only: Video: "Where Ideas Come From": Interviews with David Lynch and Donovan ]
Electro-Shock Therapy

With the Chevy Volt, General Motors—battered, struggling for profitability, fed up with being eclipsed by Toyota and the Prius—is out to reinvent the automobile, and itself.

by Jonathan Rauch
Re-Thinking Jeffrey Goldberg

Intrigued (and alarmed) by the new science of “neuromarketing,” our correspondent peers into his own brain via an MRI machine and learns what he really thinks about Jimmy Carter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bruce Springsteen, and Edie Falco.

by Jeffrey Goldberg
Distracting Miss Daisy

Why stop signs and speed limits endanger Americans

by John Staddon
Mr. Murdoch Goes to War

Or maybe its Virginia Postrel's article.

Actually more than a couple of them are bad articles first and center right second. The article on traffic signs was remarkably evidence free. The author states that there are fewer fatalities per mile in the UK and makes the jump that its due to traffic signs. There many differences in the driving environments in the UK and the US, yet since his intuition is the problem is signs he just sort of asserts that they are the problem. It's an amazingly terrible article. It's conclusion is that there is too much regulation based on the preconceived notions of the author. It is the poster child for why I didn't renew my subscription, and won't renew my many gift subscriptions.

Posted by crack | August 1, 2008 1:03 PM

Sir Charles:

Hitchens is a bit sui generis -- a man of the hard left, who has taken on a crusade against Islam and made the ultimate in strange bedfellow alliances. But the fact is that he has spent the vast majority of his time in recent years bashing the left for its lack of enthusiasm for our excellent adventure in Iraq.

It's incorrect to say Hitchens has taken on a crusade against Islam. He was for defending the Bosnian muslims when many on the hard left, say Chomsky and Cockburn, and the callous center James Baker, Pappa Bush - admired by Obama - were for letting them get slaughtered. Oh, and he had a bestselling book bashing religion.

Hitchens is anti-dictator, meanwhile many on the left make excuses for dictators as long at the US doesn't like them. I see Bosnia as a big turning-point. Many on the left feel the US governement can't be a moral force and humanitarian invasions are just cover. Can any government be a moral force?

Thing is Hitchens is eloquent and knowledgble and rhetorically fillets his opponents on the left which is why they hate him so much.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10157

Sir Charles, you don't know what you're talking about.

Kinsely is left. Weisberg is left. I think of Slate as leftish even if Kaus is a douche.

Posted by Peter K. | August 1, 2008 1:59 PM

The Atlantic still runs interesting or challenging articles. Editorially I certainly agree it's center-right. I have no problem with that - only with its increasing militarism. Recently there was an article titled something like "The plane that would bomb Iran." The expected reaction of its readers, I think, was "cool!!!" I didn't have the stomach to read it.

I recently saw an article on Atlantic online by Glenn Reynolds, which induced vertigo and a brief moment of nausea.

Lately Atlantic seems to be running articles composed primarily of rightwing bloggers, which is, er, NOT interesting.

Posted by nobi yuno | August 1, 2008 2:16 PM

Peter K, you are taking a diminishingly small group of people and claiming they are "the Left." That is not an intellectually honest thing to do. Your definition would basically leave out the Clinton administration, which makes no sense.

The only good thing about the Atlantic is that Matthew Yglesias blogs for it. Once he leaves...

Posted by bob | August 1, 2008 4:45 PM

I've been on vacation. Could somebody explain where M.Y. is going and why?

Posted by Walter Crockett | August 1, 2008 6:11 PM

What the world needs is a good Transhumanist magazine.

Crockett: Matt's going to hell, as usual. He's going to some never-heard-of-it think tank and blog over there - hopefully using blog software that will allow him to ban me before I convince his new bosses that he's really a no-nothing college kid.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 1, 2008 6:35 PM

I don't generally attribute political opinions to conjunctions. Must everything be politicized now-a-days ?

Posted by Marshall | August 3, 2008 4:28 AM

I don't generally attribute political opinions to conjunctions. Must everything be politicized now-a-days ?

Posted by Marshall | August 3, 2008 4:30 AM

Wow. I definitely don't understand what is the magical dividing line anymore between "liberal"/"conservative" according to you hip beltway types. Ross and Reihan will never move further right than "kinda conservative neoconny globalist center-right" as far as I can tell. And they seem to be the (only?) two so-called "conservatives" here. But, the interesting thing is I've found myself enjoying reading more "liberal" (though so many of you seem leftist to me) voices on the web than I used to; I'm chalking that up to my "personal growth" or "increased tolerance" or some such nice progressive phrase. If one thinks today's neocon NR is as far-right as "legitimate" conservatism goes before one can airily start dismissing with the magic wand of "racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc", then I guess I can see how my scale is about 100 miles off from Matt's. A thought experiment- where would the vertical line divide if given only liberal ( I prefer progressive as its more historically accurate) and conservative between publications/sites of say: the progressive>motherjones>thenation>newrepublic>newyorktimes>salon>atlantic>slate>politico>weeklystandard>nationalreview>humanevents>americanconservative>chronicles>southernpartisan>vdare? Only the last 5 are completely "conservative" as I understand the term, w/no "neo" influence. Actually, no, there are plenty of neocon columnists at Human Events. Which is fine by me-I often agree with the neocons on some things. I just suspect Matt is one of those connected beltway non-conservatives who can assume, based on the type of "conservatives" who get invited to places like bloggingheadstv and elsewhere in, ahem, Respectable-land, all "decent" conservatives don't bother extending the scale to the likes of Buchanan (anti-Semite), Steve Sailer (racist), Thomas Fleming (ditto) or the late Samuel Francis (super-duper ditto). Hence, the Atlantic is "conservative". All of which may be neither here nor there but it amuses me, since we nobodies (some of us, anyway) out here in red/blue ignoramusville may be even worse than Goldberg, Lowry, and Mark Steyn. The horror!

Anyhoo, I've enjoyed this blog, best of luck at the Clintonista think tank.

Posted by A.C. | August 9, 2008 5:19 PM