Bye Bye, Weekly Standard

 

Russell Kirk once commented on the name “Neo Con” thusly:

Very early in the 1950s, some of us who declared our belief in the Permanent Things were so denominated by our adversaries; but we did not clasp the epithet to our bosoms as a badge of honor – unlike the people who, a quarter of a century later, pleaded guilty as charged, and gloried in their shame.

Along those lines, one might think that real Conservatives might possibly be happy that the Weekly Standard is closing its doors. It was after all founded by two of the most notorious NeoCons, who themselves were the direct progeny of the notorious first generation. Of course, it is impossible to represent all the Kirkians out there, but this “Genera”Con most certainly is not pleased to see it go.

The loss of the Weekly Standard is a loss for America’s public intellectual dialogue. On his daily podcast, The Briefing, Dr. Albert Mohler explained it perfectly. It’s not as if the house that Kristol built was an unassailable pylon upholding the edifice of the right-wing intellectual class. After all the publication is younger than I am. It isn’t comparable to losing National Review. But a loss doesn’t have to be catastrophic for it to be a loss. In this age of nonsense we simply are not benefited by losing any voices on the right (the quieting of some maybe), least of all a clarion like the Weekly Standard.

One of the strengths of American right-wing discussion is that we agree on almost nothing. Free markets, the family, liberty, and pro-life have generally been the exceptions but even those come in markedly different varieties. Variety is one of our strengths. It was even one of Kirk’s principles of Conservatism. It keeps us honest. Widens our vision. Iron sharpens iron and all that.

John Podhoretz was the Film critic for the Weekly Standard. He probably still considers himself a film critic. But sadly now he can’t criticize movies for the Weekly Standard anymore.

I say sadly not because I’m even a fan of JPod’s film reviews. I listen to every episode of the Commentary Podcast and GLOP as soon as they drop in my podcatcher. So I’m certainly no hater. His political analysis is extremely fair, and he’s wonderfully eccentric. But I often find myself in marked disagreement with his Film opinions.

For example, his review of First Man really irked me. From my perspective, that film was a remarkably powerful examination of loss and the emotional complications of being a man from the “John Wayne” generations. It highlighted the limits of scientific knowledge and our total lack of ability to control death. We can travel to the face of the moon, but we can do nothing to take away death’s sting. I find it to be a deeply conservative and effective piece of movie making.

But based on Pod’s reaction it was as if we had watched two totally different films. As a NeoCon he wanted to see a film that deified astronauts vis a vis Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff. He wanted a film that would be “Never Soviet” and portray the golden age of American national unity (something I believe to be a total mirage). For Pod, the space race is about fighting communism and elevating humanity beyond our humble constraints. A film about the personal pains of Neil Armstrong did not match this vision.

And while these values are broadly speaking conservative, especially the fight against the Soviets, Pod’s NeoCon vision is inescapably a part of why he didn’t think First Man was a film worthy of veneration. My lack of this globalist technocratic vision for humanity allows me to see profundity where Pod sees angst. But this is the thing about the American right. We are fighting for the ability of each other to defend our differences openly and honestly. We want to be able to disagree, we want to fight as the best of friends fight. We want to argue as brothers and sisters. We’re adults, not snowflakes. It’s important to passionately disagree, especially about art. Our heat produces light.

The Weekly Standard added variety and accountability simply by existing. It added strength. It brought things out within our public discussion that only it could. Part of us will now be missing. It is not as if a vacuum has been created that the other publications will quickly fill. The new Washington Examiner magazine certainly won’t replace it. The intellectual magazine genre isn’t like a bookshelf with a limited amount of space.

When one book gets taken away it doesn’t make space for a new one. What actually happens is that the entire community reorients and changes. We won’t get more of The Federalist, Commentary, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner, etc. We will actually get less of all of us now, not more.

C.S. Lewis had one of his most profound moments (amidst a lifetime of deep wisdom) while reflecting upon the death of Charles Williams:

In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets. Now that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronald’s [Tolkien’s] reaction to a specifically Charles joke. Far from having more of Ronald, having him “to myself” now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald…In this, Friendship exhibits a glorious “nearness by resemblance” to heaven itself where the very multitude of the blessed (which no man can number) increases the fruition which each of us has of God. For every soul, seeing Him in her own way, doubtless communicates that unique vision to all the rest. That, says an old author, is why the Seraphim in Isaiah’s vision are crying “Holy, Holy, Holy” to one another. The more we thus share the Heavenly Bread between us, the more we shall have.

Applying this sentiment to a publication may seem melodramatic. And maybe it is. But to me, it seems more than appropriate when we consider just how many wonderful people have been associated with that magazine over the years. Each of those people combined with everyone else in countless ways. Differences of perspective that none of us can quantify or even comprehend. Surely they will all recapitulate in various other venues but it will never be the same thing as it was. Saying goodbye to this publication is actually a host of tiny goodbyes, tiny losses that most of us will never notice. Our landscape has changed. Our vision will be different. We are different now.

RIP to the WS and to our old selves.

Published in Journalism
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 6 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Al French, sad sack Moderator
    Al French, sad sack
    @AlFrench

    I never read the WS but I agree entirely with the sentiment of this post.

    • #1
  2. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Well said, sir.  I subscribed off and on for quite a long time, perhaps unsurprising since I’m a bit of a neocon myself.   But where else could I get a consistent dose of Joseph Epstein?  In another thread, I admitted to being puzzled at the condemnation of an entire magazine because one disagrees with some of its writers.  So the anti-Trump bombast from some quarters at TWS didn’t particularly bother me.  I’ll miss it, although I’m not as critical as some over the business decision to close it.

    • #2
  3. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Thanks for that C.S. Lewis quote about Charles Williams. That’s a new one on me, and it’s a good one. Maybe I did read it before and didn’t “get” it, so didn’t remember it, but I get it now, and you have applied it well.  

    • #3
  4. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    The Weekly Standard bet their company on the emergence of a pro-American democracy in Iraq.  They had nearly 2 decades of profiting off that war.  A good run! 

    • #4
  5. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    That was (truly, no snark) a lovely eulogy.

    I wasn’t a subscriber, but I used to enjoy their posts and affiliated writers when their product came across the transom.  Until.

    I shed no tears for the Weekly Standard.  Frankly, I got tired of them telling me, directly or obliquely, that because I voted for (once he was the nominee) and supported (because he was the nominee) Trump I was a bad person.

    Not a reasonable, rational person who had seen the same data points about the 2016 candidates and the political environment and come to a different conclusion.  Nope.  I was a bad guy.  Racist, bigot, homophobic, booger-eating moron who was (dare I?  I dast) simply deplorable.

    See ya round, fellas.  Or, hopefully, not.

    • #5
  6. A.C. Gleason Inactive
    A.C. Gleason
    @aarong3eason

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Thanks for that C.S. Lewis quote about Charles Williams. That’s a new one on me, and it’s a good one. Maybe I did read it before and didn’t “get” it, so didn’t remember it, but I get it now, and you have applied it well.

    I got it from Tim Keller. Youre very welcome!

    • #6
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.