Policy Review Ceases Publication

Sorry, this story is a little bit late. I missed the announcement at TAC because the title of the posts wasAn Inconvenient Truth: The Bush Administration Was a Disaster.” I just assumed it was more TAC style Bush bashing so I didn’t bother to read it. This post, about Human Events shutting down their print edition, directed my attention to it.

Policy Review, a publication of the Hoover Institute, was not exactly paleo friendly, but I do think the demise of a “conservative” scholarly publication is worth noting. There are already very few identifiably “conservative” journals compared to many leftist journals that fill every conceivable niche. (Note, I am using conservative here in the sense that it is generally understood today. I recognize that neoconservatism is not really conservative, hence my use of quotation marks.) I’m afraid this does not boded well for conservatism from a meta standpoint, apart from the fact that Policy Review itself was a source of modern “conservative” orthodoxy and wasn’t a paleo friendly publication.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

12 thoughts on “Policy Review Ceases Publication

  1. aware

    The “movement” is a failure. Not the fault of the few paleos, but the proof is in the pudding. No “small government”, no constitution, no Republic. Even when “conservatives” won.

    Modern conservatism is mostly reaction to international communism. When it died, as it had to, so did the reason to live as a movement. The pathetic attempt to make “terrorism” the new communist domination plan, and therefor bring back the reason to live, is proof.

    It is ridiculous to even claim to want limited “government” while also demanding huge armies. Many former stalwarts of the movement, like me, have moved to libertarianism and, in my case, anarchism.

    It is the State that threatens all we hold dear and is destroying America. Too often conservatives forget this.

  2. C Bowen

    aware;

    It’s worth noting that Anthony Sutton worked for the Hoover Institute and wrote perhaps the most scathing indictment of the Cold War/ Russian/American relations (Wall Street funding and tech transfers), a thesis that was well received in many corners of the elite’s institutions, Right and Left (Brzezinski and Richard Pipes approved.)

    Sutton was fired from the think tank after his 1973 book, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union–that one clearly got a little too close to home, or Sutton’s purpose had come and gone.

    Anyway, there was a time when the Hoover Institute was a little more critical of elites.

  3. RedPhillips Post author

    “What the heck is wrong with Bush bashing?”

    Semp, there is nothing wrong with bashing Bush from the right. That is why I said “TAC style” Bush bashing, which these days sounds more like the kind of stuff you would expect from the Frum/Brooks/Parker/Noonan style moderation caucus minus the foreign policy hawkishness. “Ewww … those icky conservatives are so extreeeeme!!!!!” Who needs that crap from a supposed “thoughtful” journal of conservative opinion? If I wanted that I would read the Times, Post, etc.

  4. IanH

    I really cannot stand TAC these days. A lot of the stuff the “blog team” posts are just so meandering and painfully stupid. Especially Dreher, whom I’m really starting to hate.

    And the comments! Good lord, so many liberals jacking each other off. No thanks.

  5. RedPhillips Post author

    If TAC was really attempting to be an authentic conservative alternative to mainstream conservatism, then the comments section alone should let them know that they are on the wrong track. The vast majority of commenters are either liberals or self-congratulatory moderates who come there to berate “conservatives” and Republicans while reveling in their own supposed superiority. If I was attracting those kind of commenters I would deliberately start saying outrageously conservative things just to scare them off.

  6. Matt Weber

    TAC is certainly annoying, but it has been this way for about 5 years now and is probably gone for good. I bet Goldman gave his post the title he did on purpose to generate traffic. The link between the Bush administration and Journal-I’ve-Never-Heard-Of seems pretty nonexistent. Sure enough, of the 54 comments about 2 are actually about this journal and the rest are just generic Bush/Republican/Conservative bashing.

    It’s actually an interesting question of what the Republicans should do about Bush. I’m not at all sure what TAC thinks they should do other than saying “neocons r bad!”, but the closest Democratic parallel is probably Carter and as far as I can tell the Democrats haven’t repudiated him at all. In fact they defend him pretty vigorously against the ‘right-wing smears’. Maybe it’s “too soon” for Bush to be saved in this manner–people have to forget how bad the bad years are before they are amenable to revisionism. But then, you have FDR, who presided over nothing but war and depression and was never anything less than beloved.

    In any case, steadfast ignoring of Bush is probably the best one can expect from the Republicans at this point.

  7. IanH

    I don’t think Carter is a terribly beloved figure to Democrats. Throughout the 90s and the last decade it seemed they couldn’t denounce him enough times. His presidency provoked opposition from many Democrats for a lot of reasons, which is in stark contrast to the almost universal support Bush enjoyed in the GOP. I think the only reason attacking Carter has lost it’s effectiveness is because so much time has passed that only older Baby Boomers really remember anything about the guy.

    That’s not the case with Bush. The memories are still very fresh, which is compounded by the fact that Bush and Co. are still out there, giving speeches, writing op-eds and generally reminding people why they are so hated. Fundamentally, the party doesn’t think Bush did anything wrong, and damn anyone who tells them otherwise and damn anyone who says the grassroots were used throughout those eight years. There’s also the fear factor, as anyone wanting to break with Bush would face the wrath of the neocon shit brigade and lots of nasty articles.

    It’s impossible to overstate how disastrous Bush was for American conservatism.

  8. Rollo

    Just wondering, are Taki and Pat back writing for AmCon? I thought for a while TAC was just picking up Pat’s syndicated column and maybe publishing some stuff taken from Taki’s site. Someone told me they are back doing original pieces.

  9. RedPhillips Post author

    Matt, TAC has been annoying for five years, but this David Brooks without the hawkishness approach seems fairly new to me. I highly suspect it is Wick Allison’s influence.

    Rollo, TAC still publishes Pat’s syndicated column, but I don’t think he writes any original material for them nor do I think Taki has appeared there in years.

  10. Pingback: Front Porch Republic to Form a Publishing Company | Conservative Heritage Times

  11. Kirt Higdon

    I’m pretty sure I’ve seen more than one Taki column on TAC in the last year. Taki doesn’t write that much even on his own site compared to other writers on that site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>