Electoral defeat tends to spawn bouts of ideological tinkering—when the Democrats lost the presidential election in 2004, a clutch of books soon emerged, bristling with prescriptions for the ailing left. Last year’s resounding losses for the GOP, from John McCain to dog-catcher, will no doubt produce a similar outpouring of what-now books. For some on the right, though, the revolution has already begun, and their catalysts for rethinking conservative politics are a handful of new, online publications.
These new outlets, all of which have cropped up in the last year, are varied in their focus: Big Hollywood examines the nexus of politics and pop culture; The Next Right is a group blog run by political consultants that counsels Republicans on how to run modern campaigns; and The New Majority, launched by David Frum, is a magazine of ideas designed to lead conservatives out of the political wilderness. A fourth new outlet, Culture11, was built for narrative nonfiction and arts criticism, but it folded on January 27 (five months after it launched), a victim of the sharp drop in its investors’ stock portfolios.
So each has its niche, but all share certain important features: they are online-only, more engaged with popular culture than traditional conservative media, and, except for Big Hollywood, eager to challenge conservative orthodoxy whenever necessary. They may make the conservative opinion journalism of tomorrow look a lot like the liberal opinion journalism of yesterday.
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.
" . . . conservatives grew up . . . aspiring to be the next William F. Buckley Jr."
More of the current crop seem to have grown up aspiring to make as much money as George Will.
Posted by penalcolony on Wed 3 Jun 2009 at 04:21 PM
Interesting piece and it's good to see somebody else noticing what a great journalist Tim Carney is becoming. That's why he was my first recruit to write a new column when I joined the Examiner as editorial page editor in 2006. I generally agree that the Right has failed to develop reportorial talent, but it's not for lack of trying with some of us. I joined the Heritage Foundation in 1999 to start the Database 101 Computer-Assisted Research and Reporting (CARR) program there and am still teaching its intro Excel course a decade later. We are seeing a growing number of conservative opinion writers and bloggers taking the course because they are beginning to recognize the value of having data analysis skills, which is a step in the right direction.
Posted by Mark Tapscott on Wed 3 Jun 2009 at 04:39 PM
If there are enterprising Reporters and editors who actually wish to cover the Right, let me offer up my Blog, Valley of the Shadow (www.valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com) and a series of posts I am writing about rebuilding the party called "The Republican Encyclicals,"
Some of the stuff I learned when i was a democrat in NYC and others watching the Democrats over the past 8 years.
Through the Blog is my email address and I am available for interviews.
If you are interested in the two party system....
Posted by JSF on Thu 4 Jun 2009 at 12:53 AM
As an addenda regarding "The Republican Encyclicals," I send out 5 a week through an email list where some major figures who I know (in DC and CA and Bloggers) read it.
Imagine a Right Wing JounoList based on these posts.
Reporters, editors, the ball is in your court....
Posted by JSF on Thu 4 Jun 2009 at 12:56 AM
I'm sorry, but while this article notes some important things about the need for investigative journalism from the right, most of it was so facile in its analysis -- not to mention just plain wrong -- as to be laughable. It lost me right up top when it said "National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The American Spectator—the three most influential conservative print magazines (not counting more academic quarterlies such as Commentary and City Journal)—have consistently backed the policies of the Republican Party and its leaders in Congress and the White House, even when those leaders seemingly betrayed their principles."
That is such a ludicrous and easily disprovable statement as to be journalistic malpractice. The American Spectator in particular was out front in criticizing numerous aspects of the Bush administration. National Review Online featured an active debate on its site about Bush's spending and other matters. Meanwhile, the reference to "liberal treason" is just nuts. Sure, somewhere on the right somebody may have used that phrase, but to say that the right competed to see who could say "treason" or similar words the loudest is just a lie.
Posted by Quin Hillyer on Thu 4 Jun 2009 at 08:08 AM
Ever heard of http://americanthinker.com/ http://michellemalkin.com/ http://patdollard.com/ & don't forget, a FReeper from http://FReeRepublic.com did the legwork on the falsified Bush AirForce memo?!?
I leave out numerous lesser known, yet just as critical bloggers where I get the vast majority of my news from.
Those harshly critical news sources are out there for those willing to move beyond those DC central publications that quite frankly strike me as to milquetoast in their general approach to the daily news cycle.
For the Right to soften their ideological stance while the Left more & more sounds like the monolithic wall of sound that daily emanated from Soviet era apparatchiks, is nothing short of political & national suicide.
Btw, what the Left is now engaged is traitorous & seditious activity as it continually works to subvert our Republic. Read- Cloward-Piven strategy.
Posted by tahDeetz on Thu 4 Jun 2009 at 11:50 AM
That Quin Hillyer sure be (sic) a righteous dude.
http://spectator.org/archives/2006/11/06/republicans-will-hold-on
By Quin Hillyer on 11.6.06 @ 12:08AM
The American Spectator
"When Congress convenes in January of 2007, Republicans will be elected both as Speaker of the House and as Senate Majority Leader."
"The new Republican speaker, who will not be Dennis Hastert, will enjoy a margin of only one vote. But in the Senate, where Republicans currently control 55 of the 100 seats and where many pundits are now saying they teeter on the brink of losing their majority, the GOP instead will lose no more than two seats."
RESULT: You sure called that one right, Quin.
NOV. 7, 2006, 12 a.m.
U.S. Senate
Conservatives 55
Democrats 44
Independents 1
Difference: Conservatives +11
JAN. 1, 2007
U.S. Senate
Conservatives 49
Democrats 49
Independents 2
Difference: Conservatives -2
NOV. 7, 2006, 12 a.m.
U.S. House of Representatives
Conservatives 232
Democrats 202
Independents 1
Difference: Conservatives +30
JAN. 1, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Conservatives 202
Democrats 233
Independents 0
Difference: Conservatives -31
"And Mr. Conventional Wisdom, who is the lackey of the mainstream media and the supposedly nonpartisan election "experts," again will have enough egg on his face to make omelets that feed multitudes."
RESULT: Quin, if Mr. Conventional Wisdom was wearing the latest in poultry products on his face following the 2006 Congressional elections, what were the hottest fashions at the Spectator and the Washington Times?
"Let's examine the Senate first, because it is easier to understand. It boils down to this: Democrats are trying to seize seats from states that traditionally vote Republican. Even in a bad year for Republicans, it is difficult for Democrats to overcome the triple advantages of incumbency, superior fundraising, and a population that usually leans rightward. Not only that, but the national economy -- which, when it is strong, usually boosts incumbents tremendously -- is arguably the strongest in the entire history of the world. (More on that a bit later.)"
RESULT: Quin, ole chap, if “arguably the strongest (economy) in the entire history of the world,” circa November 2006, figured to carry incumbent Conservatives to victory on Election Day, does that mean that the rather putrid economy of November 2008 spelled the demise of Palin, McCain, etc.? Oh, meant to ask where you got your degree in economics: The Alan Greenspan School of Irrational Exuberance and Offshore Banking?
“On the presidential level, Virginia and Montana almost always vote Republican, Missouri and Ohio usually do, and Tennessee does so more often than not. Pennsylvania, a state that tends to lean only a little leftward, has not elected a Democrat in a regularly scheduled Senate election since the 1970s. And in Rhode Island, a very liberal state, Democrats must overcome a habit of supporting three different generations of the (liberal Republican) Chafee family for statewide office.”
RESULT: Virginia (Jim Webb), Montana (Jon Tester), Missouri (Claire McCaskill), Ohio (Sherrod Brown), Pennsylvania (Bob Casey, Jr.), and Rhode Island (Sheldon Whitehouse) all went to the Democrats. You, Quin ole’ sport, went 0-for-6. Sure hope it wasn’t your arbitration year.
“Meanwhile, Democrats this year are defending several seats of their own that, except for the national anti-Republican trend, feature unique circumstances that should make them nervous.
“Maryland has been trending a bit more conservative anyway, and this is the second straight election cycle where Maryland black leaders are expressing a serious dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party. With Republican nominee Michael Steele being a highly charismatic black man, Democrats have reason to fear his inroads into a normally Democratic constituency.”
RESULT: Ben Cardin beat Steele by 10. And what’s this stuff about a “highly charismatic black man,” Quin? Conservatives never vote based on race – only money, family connections, and money. Word has it that Mike Steele now has a job. Something on behalf of Mr. Limbaugh.
“Washington state and Michigan, meanwhile, feature two of the least accomplished, least powerful members of the Senate -- respectively, Maria Cantwell and Debbie Stabenow. Many Washington state voters are still sore that the Democrats snatched the governorship two years ago in a still-disputed election, and many Michiganders are unhappy with what is arguably the worst state economy in the whole nation, which has occurred under Democratic state elected leaders.”
RESULT: Cantwell won by more than 16 points. Stabenow didn’t fare as well. She only won by more than 15 points. You, Quin, were wrong. Again.
“And in New Jersey, appointed Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez is seen as ethically challenged, while Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr. is the namesake of the former governor who is probably the state's single most popular living (ex-)politician.”
RESULT: Menendez won by nine. Wrong again, Quin.
“All of which means that under normal circumstances, Democrats this year would be battling uphill for the Senate. The abnormal circumstance of a highly unpopular "Republican war" does shift the odds in the Democrats' favor, but not so much that the other Republican advantages are irrelevant.
“As this is being written, evidence points to serious pro-Republican trends in the races in Tennessee, Montana, Maryland and, catching up from way behind, Rhode Island. Missouri's superb GOP Sen. Jim Talent is hanging tough; Virginia's George Allen should edge past his opponent, the Washington Post; and Pennsylvania's conservative hero Rick Santorum is famous for being a strong closer while Democrat Bob Casey Jr. is known for having blown a huge lead in a previous statewide race.”
RESULT: Ah, Tennessee. You were finally right about something. Bob Corker edged Book Club Joe and Stunningly Superficial Mika’s Hal Ford by less than three points. Santorum got trounced by more than 17 points.
“So, to repeat, when the smoke clears, Republicans will have suffered no more than a net loss of two Senate seats.”
RESULT: You lost six seats – and the Senate. Nice job, Quin.
“NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE HOUSE. Before several resignations created open seats, Republicans had held 232 seats to the Democrats' (plus Socialist Bernie Sanders) 203. Pundits in the past week have been falling all over themselves to predict not just that Democrats would gain the net 15 seats needed for the majority, but a much larger number in an overwhelming "wave" election. And respected analyst Stuart Rothenberg is forecasting a partisan shift of 34-40 (!).
“Balderdash.”
RESULT: Yup, Quin, Stu screwed that one up. Cons went from 30 up on the eve of the election to 31 in the hole. Is that what’s called a Conservative renovation of the House? Or a house?
“Amidst all the liberal media's ill-disguised euphoria about horrible "generic" ballot numbers for Republicans, too many people are ignoring the fact that, just as in the Senate races, the Democrats are fighting on Republican terrain. Computer-aided gerrymandering has created a plethora of GOP-leaning seats. Incumbents still enjoy the advantages of having provided years of constituent service (not to mention pork, rancid though conservatives justly might think it). Most Republican incumbents also have enjoyed a big cash edge. And even in a year in which congressional approval ratings are at horrendously low levels, recent polls show that more than 60 percent of the public still approves of the job of their own representatives. Finally, by general agreement it is acknowledged that the overall quality of Democratic candidate recruitment this year was no better than fair-to-middling. There are more than a few races in which the same unimpressive Democratic candidates who lost big two years ago are challenging the same Republican incumbents who now are rated as endangered. Because the challengers are less than impressive, though, voters may in the end balk at voting for them over the better known and personally liked incumbents.
“The fact is that the American electorate leans center-right, not center-left. Just last week a new CNN poll showed that 54 percent of Americans think government is too big and tries to do too much, versus only 37 percent who felt the opposite. And polls consistently show more Americans hold right-leaning cultural views than not. As the center-right party, therefore, the Republicans still enjoy an edge on the basic level of the electorate's overall world-view.”
RESULT: Center-right, huh, Quin. Hmmmm? Isn’t that what Mama Coulter kept saying after the November 2008 election, too. Cons kept losing and America remained a center-right nation. Or is that only if left is right, up is down, and the sun rises in the west and sets in the east?
“Penultimately, there are two GOP advantages that help Republicans fight against the otherwise toxic political environment. The first is that the public (according to a recent poll) is finally beginning to realize just how strong the economy is. With unemployment at a near-incredible low of 4.4 percent, inflation tame at 2.3 percent, personal net worth up, wages starting to rise, interest rates at levels that are by historical standards quite solid, home values at near-record highs, home ownership at near-record highs, the stock market at record highs while the percentage of the public owning stock is at near-record highs (more than 50%), and gasoline prices dropping, the economy is a true modern marvel -- especially when compared to the stagnant economies of western Europe, with some of those countries suffering unemployment rates above 10 percent.”
RESULT: More economic analysis from Quin. Good golly, Miss Molly with a side of fries!
“Second, there is Karl Rove's vaunted organizational genius and the unparalleled voter turnout machine that he and Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman have built. In close race after close race, that turnout machine should prove the difference in favor of Republican candidates.”
RESULT: Quin, wasn’t Mr. Rove too busy keeping his backside out of the hoosegow with the U.S. attorneys scandal and all back in 2006 to help out with the election? You remember the U.S. attorneys scandal. It’s the one Talking Points Media copped the Polk Award for covering.
“Finally, for both the House and the Senate, the events of the past week have all broken in favor of Republicans. First came the idiotic slur against our troops by Democratic standard-bearer John Kerry. Then came the new unemployment numbers, which are spectacular. Then came the conviction of Saddam Hussein. And all this on top of a New York Times story that had the unintended (unintended by the Times, that is) consequence of confirming that when we liberated Iraq, Saddam Hussein was within not much more than a single, short year of achieving nuclear fission capability.”
RESULT: Just where did Saddam’s nuclear research teams go, Quin? We haven’t found ‘em in Iraq. Iran wouldn’t take ‘em. There not in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Dubai, Egypt, or the Palestinian Territories. Oh where, oh where does Quin think Saddam’s nuke went?/Oh where, oh where can Hussein’s fission be?”
“All of this analysis, granted, has been at the macro level. Space does not permit a race-by-race analysis, but this author has indeed done such analysis at significant depth. That micro-analysis confirms the macro-analysis, namely that the House hangs right in the balance, but that it by no means will amount to an utter wipeout of Republicans. When all is said and done, come January, Republicans will indeed control the "people's House" by a single vote.
“You read it here first.”
Quin Hillyer is a senior editorial writer at the Washington Times and senior editor of The American Spectator.
P.S. Quin, I never knew you even existed until I read this piece in CJR. This is the first time I’ve ever read your work. Judging by its quality and accuracy, it’ll be the last time I read your material.
Kid, for what it’s worth, you couldn’t cover a school board meeting, a two-car auto accident, or a high school boys’ soccer game. You couldn’t find out the assessment for a piece of property, unearth the building code requirements for a local community, or compile the basic information on a handful of misdemeanors from the police blotter.
Oh, you’re good. Good at doing what you’ve been taught to do at the Spec and in Moonville. Problem is, that’s not sound, basic, fundamental journalism. It’s opinion with a heavy dash of whine. And, no, that’s not white or red. And red wine isn’t commie. I don’t care what they taught you in Moonville.
You’re just not a journalist. You’re not paid to be a journalist. You don’t understand the basics of the game. That’s sad. But it’s reality.
Posted by Mark on Tue 9 Jun 2009 at 07:18 PM
Conservatives don’t actually value public affairs reporting because they think the correct government policies are always so obvious that only the witless, spineless and treasonous could oppose them. Therefore, the reporting of new details doesn’t really matter to them: Government spending and taxes must always be lower. Regulation of business should always be lightened. The military should always be bigger. Foreign policy should always be more confrontational. Social change is always lamented. I can easily imagine a “liberal’’ reporter discovering and reporting on a place where taxes are too high and regulation too heavy. I cannot imagine a conservative reporter discovering and reporting on a place where taxes are too low and regulation too light; he would have a cognitive breakdown if he tried. OK. I am oversimplifying. But my view explains why 1-there aren’t many respectable conservative reporters 2-conservatives so often vilify their opponents instead of debating them 3-so many conservatives can’t see the difference between the best newspapers in the country – such as The New York Times and the Washington Post – and the Soviet-era Pravda.
Posted by Peng De Huai on Wed 10 Jun 2009 at 03:20 AM
air">http://www.air-max-shoes.com">air max
nike">http://www.4uaf.com">nike air force 1
Posted by nicky on Wed 10 Jun 2009 at 04:34 AM
Well this witless screed is just hilarious!
How come the Columbia Journalism Review doesn't change its name to something more benefiting its mission?
I mean consider calling yourselves Delusional Libtard Apologists Grasping For Straws...
Posted by juandos on Sun 25 Oct 2009 at 02:10 AM