Conservative Magazines Versus the Republicans

Image via Wikipedia

Over the weekend, a fantastic New York Times article described the philosophy of leading Conservative magazines published inside the Beltway, and contrasted it with current debates within the Republican Party over its future.  Interestingly, the article revealed that the editors and writers of these publications are far more interested in advancing the fundamental principles of the conservative movement than winning any particular day-to-day Republic struggle over issues or leadership.  I find this intellectually admirable.

Something did strike me as odd, though.  One generally gets the impression that editors of these conservative magazines like National Review and The American Spectator do not view their publications as a platform for the discussion of competing visions.  John Podhertz, the editor of Commentary, was quoted as saying, “I don’t think of Commentary as a forum.  Our effort, when we publish something, is really to have it be authoritative.”

There are at least two issues with this.  One is abstract.  A true intellectual (and there is some debate about who these people actually are nowadays), someone professionally engaged in debate without letting ideology or belief get the best of them, should be perfectly well able to argue both sides of an issue.  So the stance of these editors seems somewhat antithetical to that intellectual philosophy.   Even if, understandably, one takes a side (“conservative”) on a given issue, an intellectual should be able to understand opposing or alternative arguments – what is the harm?  The person with the stronger argument wins, and so if a conservative view is printed on one page, and a liberal one on the facing page, shouldn’t such a juxtaposition only help the conservative viewpoint if it is indeed the stronger one, the “right” one??

This leads to the second issue – that the magazines are seen as “push” platforms to get a message out, rather than “debate platforms” where editors, authors, and readers can have discussions about a writer’s point of view.  Conversations about everything are happening right now, and the people formerly known as “the audience” now commonly want to not only read but participate.  The pervasiveness of personal social technologies among professional classes who make up the readership of these magazines – ranging from things like personal blogs to Facebook “wall” posts to Twitter microsharing – results in a great deal of conversation.  And indeed there is conversation happening about what people are writing in conservative magazines; is it a good strategy to banish this conversation elsewhere?

Wouldn’t someone controlling a magazine during a general recession and in an age of free online publications and declining advertising revenue want to host forums, discussions, and debates on Spectator.org (and so on) rather than have those eyeballs looking at a raging debate somewhere else?  It’s admirable to stick to one’s guns on the philosophy of a publication, but it’s even better to sacrifice a little and ensure its survival.  And magazines still ultimately control what they publish to some extent – such forums could have rules, editors, guest commenters, etc. to give it some “local flavor” seen as palatable to the readership.

The American Conservative, published since 2002, recently ran out of money, only to re-open with a different schedule after a hiatus.   These inside-the-beltway magazines, and their staffs, are an incredibly valuable resource.  Incorporation of more current usage of emerging social media technologies into already great writing and strong ideals may just save them through a downturn.