On the End of the Weekly Standard (and Other Stuff)

 

In the small hours of November 9, 2016, when it became clear that the improbable had come to pass, I tweeted out the following question: “Whose hard-core supporters will be harder to live with now, Trump’s or Hillary’s?” Two years on, this remains an open question, one that is all the more pressing in light of recent events.

Wednesday’s mail delivery brought the final issue of The Weekly Standard. This was later than usual, but of course, there’s little use in complaining about it now. (And to whom would I complain?) With this issue came the lame appeal on behalf of the new weekly version of the Washington Examiner, which will fulfill the Standard’s remaining subscription obligations. Whatever the merits of this new magazine, I have declined the offer and await my payment for the balance of my subscription, with which I hope to buy lunch someday.

The shuttering of The Weekly Standard has been welcomed in some quarters, most notably by President Trump, who celebrated the magazine’s demise in a typically graceless tweet. (And who would have expected anything less?) But anyone joining in this celebration in the belief that it marks a Trump triumph over Bill Kristol, one of the magazine’s founders and an unrepentant never-Trumper, are mistaken. A comprehensive post-mortem analysis of the Standard’s waning days was supplied by John Podhoretz in Monday’s Commentary Magazine podcast, and a more succinct version can be found in David Brooks’s Dec. 15 column in the New York Times, but both can be summed up by saying the magazine was killed not because of its opposition to Mr. Trump, but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

Whatever the reasons for the death of the Standard, I will miss it. I was a subscriber from the first issue, as its inception came about a few months after my Road to Damascus conversion from liberalism, which itself resulted from a providential discovery of an abandoned copy of National Review at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. I did not follow the Standard down the path of never-Trumpism, reasoning at election time that a Trump victory offered at least some hope for the advancement of conservative policies, while a Clinton victory did not. These two years have borne that hope well, and despite my many frustrations with President Trump, I do not regret voting for him. Indeed, given the collection of posers, drama queens, ersatz Indians, and wizened geezers currently touted as potential Democratic rivals, I’m all but certain I’ll vote for him again in 2020.

Again, this doesn’t mean I’m blind to Mr. Trump’s flaws or tolerant of his peculiar behavior. Rather, it means only that when one puts those flaws and behavior alongside Hillary Clinton’s, it’s difficult to determine which of them is the greater scoundrel. And given the choice between two scoundrels, I’ll pick the more conservative one every time. It’s amusing to listen to those who criticize Mr. Trump for his character while extolling Mrs. Clinton, who for decades has served as the moll of as shameless a gaggle of grifters as ever bagged swag.

Returning to the end of The Weekly Standard, it’s a shame that this repository of excellent writing will no longer lend its voice to what is truly the Resistance: the struggle against the advancing tentacles of leftism that for 50 years have been creeping into education, the media, and the culture at large. As noted above, I was once a liberal, having been educated by Jesuits in high school and by secular professors at what is considered an elite university. And I came of age in the Watergate era, when conservatives in general and Republicans, in particular, were publicly shamed. But while stranded at O’Hare late at night with the stores closed and nothing to read, I made that fortuitous discovery of a copy of National Review.

And it was National Review that led me to Commentary, the New Criterion, and, yes, The Weekly Standard, in the pages of which I found so much that had been denied me during what I once believed was a sound education. I have come to believe that if someone graduated from high school and spent the next four years working, even at some menial job, and reading every issue of these magazines, reading the books reviewed or referenced therein, and following the intellectual paths opened by them, at the end of those four years he would be far better educated (and better off financially) than if he had spent those years at any but a tiny handful of colleges.

Sadly, The Weekly Standard is no longer in this fight. Perhaps the Washington Examiner will be a worthy substitute. If they publish Andrew Ferguson, I promise I’ll subscribe.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 45 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    My sentiments exactly! Thanks for the post.

    • #1
  2. Jack Dunphy Member
    Jack Dunphy
    @JackDunphy

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    My sentiments exactly! Thanks for the post.

    I think there are a lot of us out there.

    • #2
  3. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Jack Dunphy: what is truly the Resistance: the struggle against the advancing tentacles of leftism that for 50 years have been creeping into education, the media, and the culture at large.

    This is where we disagree about the Standard. An organization so single minded in its opposition to the duly elected Republican president has disengaged from the real fight against the Left. It abandon the Resistance long before its demise. 

    Pretty sure the talent will find other venues.

    • #3
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Jack Dunphy (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    My sentiments exactly! Thanks for the post.

    I think there are a lot of us out there.

    Yes, in just about every particular.  I only bought off the book stand.

    After Trump had the nomination, the Republican opposition broke down broadly into “whiners” and “schemers.” The whiners were far less annoying.

    • #4
  5. T-Fiks Member
    T-Fiks
    @TFiks

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    This is where we disagree about the Standard. An organization so single minded in its opposition to the duly elected Republican president has disengaged from the real fight against the Left.

    If one read the Weekly Standard regularly, like I did, he would have seen that the magazine was hardly single minded in its opposition to Trump. Yeah, Kristol’s editorial had quite a nasty edge to it, but most of the other pages left Trump alone. I’ll miss so much in the magazine: “The Corner,” the parody on the inside back cover, Podhoretz’s movie reviews, most of the book reviews, and a lot more.

    • #5
  6. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Two years on, this remains an open question, one that is all the more pressing in light of recent events.

    Fortunately, the “Hillary” part of this question is pure speculation, but the mere fact that this is regarded as a likely “tie” is revealing as to your perspective for any of us who have suffered the Clintons for more than a generation.  TWS failed because it did not stay afloat in the manner expected of any business.  I was (am?) a long time subscriber, but since I don’t have a vested interest in journalism or journalists with whom I associate, I recognize this failure as analogous to any unsustainable business.  Note, in particular, that those who are now being condemned for closing the magazine were instrumental in giving it nine years of life.

    • #6
  7. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    • #7
  8. Kim K. Inactive
    Kim K.
    @KimK

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    I guess I’m one of your very few, and yes, I do consider myself an actual conservative. I’ll miss reading it.

    • #8
  9. The (apathetic) King Prawn Inactive
    The (apathetic) King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    The Washington Examiner bleeds more money from the parent company than the Standard did. This wasn’t about money. 

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    The (apathetic) King Prawn (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    The Washington Examiner bleeds more money from the parent company than the Standard did. This wasn’t about money.

    One fact does not make a conclusion. It was still a money loser, and, at least maybe, was regarded by the PTB as having less of a future than the Examiner..  Why isn’t it up to those who’ve kept the mag alive for nine years to make a decision to close it?

    • #10
  11. Sheila Johnson Member
    Sheila Johnson
    @SheilaJohnson

    I also subscribed for the whole run.  I will miss it too.  What a shame.

    • #11
  12. The (apathetic) King Prawn Inactive
    The (apathetic) King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Agreed with the OP. Good stuff. A reasonable lament for the loss of a weapon in the cause.

    • #12
  13. The (apathetic) King Prawn Inactive
    The (apathetic) King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    The (apathetic) King Prawn (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    The Washington Examiner bleeds more money from the parent company than the Standard did. This wasn’t about money.

    One fact does not make a conclusion. It was still a money loser. Why isn’t it up to those who’ve kept the mag alive for nine years to make a decision to close it?

    It is their decision, and a purely capitalist one I can understand — they wanted the subscriber base. They want to put out a different product, they reallocated the resource of the subscriber base as is perfectly acceptable in a free market system. As far as being a money loser, that label fits perfectly on every intellectual publication. 

    • #13
  14. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    The (apathetic) King Prawn (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    The (apathetic) King Prawn (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    The Washington Examiner bleeds more money from the parent company than the Standard did. This wasn’t about money.

    One fact does not make a conclusion. It was still a money loser. Why isn’t it up to those who’ve kept the mag alive for nine years to make a decision to close it?

    It is their decision, and a purely capitalist one I can understand — they wanted the subscriber base. They want to put out a different product, they reallocated the resource of the subscriber base as is perfectly acceptable in a free market system. As far as being a money loser, that label fits perfectly on every intellectual publication.

    I have read it for many, many years, and may have been a charter subscriber.  I don’t want it to go away, and most of the encomiums are justified from a writing perspective.  Perhaps I’m being overly influenced by David Brooks NYT piece (the subject of a thread here) blaming this on the great unwashed, but I’m finding the implication that this is somehow an attack on speech engineered by evil Trumpistas a bit questionable (well, more than a bit).

     

    • #14
  15. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Jack Dunphy:

    I was a subscriber from the first issue, as its inception came about a few months after my Road to Damascus conversion from liberalism, which itself resulted from a providential discovery of an abandoned copy of National Review at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.

    That’s a heck of an endorsement though for leaving random issues of National Review scattered about at airports.  Think if FoxNews or something similar had been the dominant news source at airports.  The Leftists would rather shut an airport down than let that happen, but I can still dream…

    • #15
  16. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    This is true for most if not all political magazines. They don’t make money. I am sad to see it cease publication, both for the talented writers and the superb illustrators (the absolute best – we got both National Review and the Weekly Standard, and the artists at the Standard were exceptional. I hope NR picks them up.

    • #16
  17. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Kim K. (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    I guess I’m one of your very few, and yes, I do consider myself an actual conservative. I’ll miss reading it.

    My husband and I as well. 

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Andrew Ferguson? What about Matt Labash?

    • #18
  19. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Andrew Ferguson? What about Matt Labash?

    All good people.

    It’s one of the shames of American conservatives that they won’t pay for good political writing. I suppose by conservative principles, it proves that there’s no market for free market opinionating–but on the other hand if you rely on people’s generosity & sense of loyalty, you might make it through, as Commentary & NR are proving. These aren’t businesses in the way Americans understand business–no one ever expects them to operate in the black…

    • #19
  20. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    The (apathetic) King Prawn (View Comment):
    It is their decision, and a purely capitalist one I can understand

    And maybe they just wanted to keep and protect the name, which was theirs and holds a history.

    • #20
  21. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    The (apathetic) King Prawn (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    The (apathetic) King Prawn (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    The Washington Examiner bleeds more money from the parent company than the Standard did. This wasn’t about money.

    One fact does not make a conclusion. It was still a money loser. Why isn’t it up to those who’ve kept the mag alive for nine years to make a decision to close it?

    It is their decision, and a purely capitalist one I can understand — they wanted the subscriber base. They want to put out a different product, they reallocated the resource of the subscriber base as is perfectly acceptable in a free market system. As far as being a money loser, that label fits perfectly on every intellectual publication.

    I have read it for many, many years, and may have been a charter subscriber. I don’t want it to go away, and most of the encomiums are justified from a writing perspective. Perhaps I’m being overly influenced by David Brooks NYT piece (the subject of a thread here) blaming this on the great unwashed, but I’m finding the implication that this is somehow an attack on speech engineered by evil Trumpistas a bit questionable (well, more than a bit).

    It really is the case that no conservative political magazine can actually count on the conservatives of America to make it profitable. Conservatives should be worried about that, but so far as I can tell, they no more care about it than they think about how to succeed in the new digital situation.

    It was stupid to depend on one billionaire, though. As everyone else, they should have been looking for a small number of funders, so that they can survive without being endangered. Foundations & non-profits–that’s how the others do it. 

    • #21
  22. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Jack Dunphy: but rather for more mundane reasons attendant to the business of conservative opinion journalism.

    Like that very few actual conservatives wanted to pay to read the magazine.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall your mentioning several times in the past that your spouse works for National Review.

    A magazine that would also immediately go under if it had to rely on its subscription revenue alone, and not on the generosity of rich benefactors willing to donate to NRI and pay for wildly-overpriced cruises.

    I don’t mourn the loss of the Weekly Standard, but it’s inability to turn on a profit on subscription and ad fees alone makes it no different from any of the other niche “highbrow” publications that are still enjoyed by many of the same people dancing on the Standard’s grave.

    • #22
  23. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Any publication that respected social conservatives would never have started shilling for the abortion lobby.

    • #23
  24. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    Jack Dunphy (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    My sentiments exactly! Thanks for the post.

    I think there are a lot of us out there.

    Count me in……..same

    • #24
  25. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    It really is the case that no conservative political magazine can actually count on the conservatives of America to make it profitable. Conservatives should be worried about that, but so far as I can tell, they no more care about it than they think about how to succeed in the new digital situation.

    It’s certainly not a problem that’s unique to conservative magazines. All of the same niche magazines on the left, from hard left to more centrist, also suffer from the same funding issues.

    In fact, it’s really no different from the inability of “highbrow” outlets to make a profit in nearly any field. Every orchestra in America would go broke if it had to rely on ticket sales alone, but when was the last time Justin Bieber needed to invite his fans to join him on an Alaskan cruise to make ends meet?

    I find it noble that Ricochet has attempted to survive by revenue streams alone, but as conservatives we’re supposed to acknowledge the permanence of human nature. And one fairly consistent aspect of human nature is that stuffy intellectual entertainment (and yes, punditry is a form of entertainment) will never have the draw that less-intellectually challenging entertainment does.

    • #25
  26. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    This is logically faulty. Just because you cannot become a billion-dollar act doesn’t mean you couldn’t survive in business. There are people who make money on cheap movies, for example, although it’s never Marvel money.

    The implicit idea, only the popular can survive in the American economy, is not true of everything. But it is true of political opinionating. Further, the idea that NR is highbrow is on the face of it laughable. It’s just something conservatives aren’t willing to pay for–but they bitch about the media all day everyday.

    Of course, if it is a matter of accepting human nature that Americans will not pay for conservative magazines, it will probably follow, though it is not a necessity, that whatever publications there are, will shun conservatives at some level. Experience also verifies this-

    • #26
  27. John Park Member
    John Park
    @jpark

    As I have said in response to another post, I bought it off the shelf. Memory now tells me that I bought the first issue that way. As with others, the art, Corner and parody were delightful. The book reviews were consistently interesting.

    And, if the Nation or Slate would publish Andy Ferguson’s work, I’d read it there.

    • #27
  28. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    Jack Dunphy (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    My sentiments exactly! Thanks for the post.

    I think there are a lot of us out there.

    I think I was born a conservative, but didn’t realize it until I, like you, happened upon an issue of National Review and read it cover-to-cover. I remember thinking, “These are my people!”

    • #28
  29. Jack Dunphy Member
    Jack Dunphy
    @JackDunphy

    T-Fiks (View Comment):
    I’ll miss so much in the magazine: “The Corner,” the parody on the inside back cover, Podhoretz’s movie reviews, most of the book reviews, and a lot more.

    I think you mean the Scrapbook, which was always enjoyable.  And yes, the other parts you mentioned were superb.

    • #29
  30. Jack Dunphy Member
    Jack Dunphy
    @JackDunphy

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):
    That’s a heck of an endorsement though for leaving random issues of National Review scattered about at airports. Think if FoxNews or something similar had been the dominant news source at airports. The Leftists would rather shut an airport down than let that happen, but I can still dream…

    In a sense it was very much like a religious conversion.  I had reached the point where I was open to the idea of changing my mind.  Had I found that copy of NR at some earlier point in my life I might have ignored it.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.