Oh, How I Fear The Conservative Welfare State

This is funny, pointed out in comments by Stephen Den Beste. Those were the days .... For critics, this isn't about Goldberg or me, neither of us are that important in the grand scheme. Ultimately, for me it's about conservative media on line.

He's linked to you again:

I think his ending "...you can tell me what it's like in the big leagues" smacks of Dan Rather's "Do you know who I am?" arrogance. Frankly, I don't think Goldberg is showering himself with glory here.

NRO apparently being the "Big Leagues" without Buckley is especially funny due to this comment. Funny, one woman without NRO's brand and resources bests them daily when it comes to conservative on line media, especially with the addition of Hot Air.

Malkin gets new media, NRO doesn't. And I certainly am not inviting her or anyone else into this fight. But I don't think of publications that have to go begging every year to stay alive as the "Big Leagues." I see them more as a vanity press. And unless or until conservatives begin providing on line media that carries their ideas and ideals to the masses now gathered on the Internet, it'll remain a political minority, just as I said. But then who is a blogger to argue with NRO? I suppose in the spirit of Bush, I should be more compassionate when addressing the conservative welfare state NRO represents.

circulation is 155,000. People aren't even bothering to ignore the disconnect, as they would have to be aware of the National Review's existence before they choose to ignore it.

I couldn't find a list that would provide a ranking for that low a number, but I would imagine that it is somewhere between 'Incontinent Feline Monthly' and "The Salty Slug Recipe Guide".

it's one thing to have thin skin and be in the public eye, but it is something special to have thin skin and exist in relative political anonymity, while believign otherwise.

goldberg needs to step back, realize that his mag's pulpit is shrinking, and ask himself why...

Comments

[Cold]

Is Andrew Sullivan ghost-writing this site?

[mcg]

Jeez you're an insufferable teabag today.

[Jana]

I'm beginning to suspect you're dragging this out for the traffic.

I see the same type of "NRO is insignificant!" cries over on Ace, a blog I enjoy, but for the incessant whining about other conservatives (when they could be buttressing their own positions).

If the blog is so insignificant, I'm not sure why various bloggers spend so much time talking about its insignificance.

Get over yourselves, already, and get back to blogging about ideas, already. A slapfight with JG gets the conservative movement nowhere.

[Rory]

"But I don't think of publications that have to go begging every year to stay alive as the 'Big Leagues.'"

Interesting. I guess that means that Wikipedia isn't in the "Big Leagues" of new media, then.

[reliapundit]

RIEHL:

U R 100% CORRECT!

KEEP STANDING UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

KEEP FIGHTING THE SARCASTIC ELITIST CYNICS OF THE RIGHT AND LEFT!

[mark l.]

I haven't seen this much obsession from Jonah about any other blogger, including Andrew Sullivan. I think jonah is pitching a tent for you. If you sleep over his house, don't lay face down.

I figure he'll be stalking this site for a good month, and yes, he is at the point where 'stalking' is applicable.

The simple path for jonah was to suggest that Dan had misunderstood what was written and let it go. If he wanted a debate, the perfect forum for a response is provided by this very site. a real/fake name along with a real/fake email, and he has his pulpit at the heart of the matter/discussion. Every response since has been a departure from the subject of what clearly evoked annoyance from people who believe that govt service is higher calling and that the betrayal of one's public office is not victimless, nor without tragedy.

initial post by jonah-
titled "The Blithesome Banality of Blago's Blunders"

(I'd bet a year's subsription of NRODT that the the title caught Jonah's fancy and he had to write something consistent with his illiterative creativity)

I'm not bothering with a link, it's there for anyone who want to read it...

but some essential excerpts?

"The word "evil" has been used twice today in the Corner to describe Blago's crimes. I'm not really disputing the use of the word. But that's not really the word that comes to my mind."
(good lead in, but jonah never really provides what word does come to 'his' mind.)

"He wasn't found ... giving cash to terrorists who were going to have Santas wear suicide-padding at department stores around the country...or spy(ing) for the Norks. He's just a crook."

(This is the point where jonah is circling the boat to jump the shark. I understand that he doesn't see Blagojevich's act as betrayal of his fellow americans, but surely he can understand there is a very large subset of conservatives who do find corruption, especially on a grand scale, as an abhorent evil, affecting us all. As he initially wrote, others at the corner characterized the acts as 'evil', but he admittedly states that it does not come to him in that sense as it did to his fellows at the corner, or to Dan, or to myself.)

"I know I'm supposed to be outraged, and in a certain sense I am...But in another sense, this is just plain enjoyable."
(Schaden freude only works if you aren't affected. Jonah clearly does not see how it has any effect, otherwise he wouldn't have typed the previous sentence, nor would he have followed it up with this beauty:

"There's no tragedy here. No wasted potential. No undeserving victims. No profound and complicated symbolic issues..."

This was the coup de grace of this misadventure. We are at a period where congressional approval is at its lowest measure on record and public trust in govt is failing. It doesn't matter if you favor large or small govt, everyone wants honest govt. Schaden freude only works if you aren't affected. Through the prism of 'not my party, not my state, never voted for the guy' one can find amusement, but if you favor honest govt, regardless of party, it is a national disgrace, and yes, a tragedy.

The point that Dan made in his initial response is how out of touch Goldberg is with conservative thought, and at first, I was reluctant to embrace this larger view, although in the specific instance, Dan was correct. Given goldberg's insistence on killing the messeneger as opposed to addressing/clarifying his inital message would suggest he is following the easiest path. I too would rather have gone after the messenger, as opposed to defending the initial work. It would have been forgotten the day after Dan's first post on the matter, but Goldberg's insistance on returning to the matter, while refusing to discuss/defend it, has kept it floating in my head waay beyond it halflife.

Dan's 'puritanical view' of govt 'as it should be'-(which I also share) clearly bothers goldberg, but it remains clear that he STILL does not understand the nature of conservatives with divergent views. This was the crux of Dan's first piece and its charge, elitism. jonah's actions since have only solidified the charges, not dispelled them.

(I bear jonah no ill will. I too have a dog with a serious squirrel fetish, but this is not his finest hour.)

[mark l.]

wfb-
"Middle-of-the-Road, qua Middle of the Road, is politically, intellectually, and morally repugnant."

(on NR's purpose)"It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

jonah-'pass the popcorn'.

[Matthew M.]

It might provide some useful context here to note that the National Review has only turned a profit for one year in its history. If I'm not mistaken, that was at the beginning of the Clinton years (opposite-party sweeps are good for circulation).

155,000 is a fine circulation figure for a serious political magazine. The New Republic is around 60k. The Nation is about 185,000 (but many of those are freebies dumped onto college campuses). The American Spectator hovered around 30k until the Clinton era, when it rushed to 100k+ for a while, then petered out again. The Weekly Standard is around 80,000.

So in that context, 155k is quite nice.

Regarding the comments about them 'going begging': all political opinion journals operate at a loss. Buckley subsudized NR every year with his speaking fees, and yearly fundraising campaigns. The New Republic and the Nation have wealthy left-wing backers (Navansky, Fish, Peretz). Weekly Standard has Rupert Murdoch. Am Spec had a lot of Richard Mellon Scaife money over the years, especially when circulation ran high.

Thus, it is a sign of ignorance to criticize the National Review for its circulation or need to float donations.

A far better line of critique (and one I would join with enthusiasm) is that the quality of intellect behind the magazine has declined since Buckley left. Where are the James Burnhams, the Russel Kirks, and the WFBs nowadays? Where are the Erik von Keuhnelt-Leddihns? The journal used to have men of considerable intellect, style, and experience of life. Now it's just.. weak.

I find myself reading NR, and... liking the people, and thinking they're fine and all... but when are they going to tell me something I can't read in twenty five other places? When are they going to bring something extra to the argument? When are they going to shake the conversations, and shape ideas?

They just don't anymore. And it's sad. There are a few sharp folks there, still (Ramesh, for example) but the rare brilliance the journal shows anymore is reactive - it does not lead. I am not am old guy (thirty eight) but feel like a fuddy-duddy, pining for the National Review of my youth.

[mark l.]

"Thus, it is a sign of ignorance to criticize the National Review for its circulation or need to float donations."

money aside, circulation in 94 was 275k.
currently, 155k.

it does bear 'some' relevance.

[LOL]

These NRO swine are little different from the spoiled princes and grandchildren of royalty in past times. They had everything handed to them, they never had the courage to cut a new path, never possessed the balls to try something new, and whittled away their time, under the shadow of their parents and their institutions. Drawing funny pictures and making silly, preening arguments to make their parents proud.

Unfortunately conservatism today is infected with a large population of these overgrown rugrats. People who are living on the dole of established wealth. The Goldbergs, Kristols, and Kagans of conservatism are a pathetic lot. I'm sure there are more, as I'm not too familiar with all the relevant characters of this inbred drama.

Time to evict the welfare queens Dan.

[Matthew M.]

mark l.,
That is a cherry-picked figure. Every conservative journal shot up in circulation temporarily in the early Clinton years. The Troopergate issue of the American Spectator sold almost 300,000 copies, ten times the circulation of only a couple years before. A few years later Gorge Gilder was buying that magazine at a yard sale. These 1994 spikes in interest were maintained by no journal.

I maintain: it is a silly and ignorant line of reasoning to criticize the 150k circulation of NR in light of its good performance in its class of journal. The so-called American Conservative only runs at 15,000 per issue, but I don't see any monkeys here flinging poo at Pat Buchanan.

As I stated, the substantial ground for criticizing National Review is on the quality of its work, and influence on shaping the political conversation in a well-buttressed rightward direction. But to do this is apparently beyond the expertise of anybody writing on this website.

[mcg]

Funding drives like those are not limited to political magazines, either. I am a subscriber to an interesting Christian magazine called Touchstone that does the same thing. And calling it "begging" or a "welfare state" is just stupid. If they can raise the funds to operate, they do. If not, they close. They're not looking for government assistance, they are asking their readers to consider that they might be worth more to them than the cover price. That's it.

[Fred Beloit]

Has Harpo moved to Fargo, N.D. and taken a job at the local rag?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/how_the_nanny_state_works/

[Philip McDaniel]

“Someday maybe we can make s'mores and you can tell me what it's like in the big leagues.”

He says…as he stamps his little feet in frustration.

[Pablo]

Hey Dan, has Jonah done anything recently besides writing for NR?

[Fred Beloit]

LOL writes: "They had everything handed to them, they never had the courage to cut a new path, never possessed the balls to try something new, and whittled away their time, under the shadow of their parents and their institutions. Drawing funny pictures and making silly, preening arguments to make their parents proud."

LOL, is right. But there are more of these rich spoiled royalty. Some names are Bayh, Boxer, Clinton,H., Dodd, Feinstein, Gore, Kennedy (all of them), Kerry, Lautenberg, Reid, Rockefeller, and Schumer.

[mcg]

Pablo: you mean besides write a NY Times bestseller? You mean besides pen a syndicated column? Nah, not much.

(no I am not a Greenwaldian sockpuppet ;) I don't know Jonah any better than Dan.)

[mark l.]

"Thus, it is a sign of ignorance to criticize the National Review for its circulation or need to float donations."

versus:

"I maintain: it is a silly and ignorant line of reasoning to criticize the 150k circulation of NR in light of its good performance in its class of journal."

don't criticize them for their circulation, but becuase their circulation is in line with other political magazines you would offer that they are successful? I thought you were saying circulation was a specious argument, why would you then use their equivalent dropoff in circulation, relative to other political magazines, as a means of diminishing their failing popularity?

[Dan Riehl]

"Hey Dan, has Jonah done anything recently besides writing for NR?"

Of course he has, as I assume you well know. And I complimented him for it and his body of work in reply an email rant of his he asked to remain private. He didn't respond. He simply went off again like a child at The Corner though I specifically stated we should move away of insults and discuss ideas, if anything. So what exactly is your point?

[LOL]

"LOL, is right. But there are more of these rich spoiled royalty. Some names are Bayh, Boxer, Clinton,H., Dodd, Feinstein, Gore, Kennedy (all of them), Kerry, Lautenberg, Reid, Rockefeller, and Schumer."

Didnt you vote for Bush?

[Pablo]

So what exactly is your point?

That, despite your dismissiveness of NRO, Goldberg has quite a bit more than that going on, some of which is the textbook definition of "big league". If you're going to take potshots at somebody, it shouldn't surprise you when they snark at you. It's the bit dog that yelps.

You're better than this, Dan. 6 posts on this? Come on. And tell me, are you discussing ideas in this post, or slinging insults?

[Fred Beloit]

Didn't you ever vote for a rich Demo, LOL? If not, you must vote hardly at all.

[Tigger]

My two cents is that NRO is still a clearing house for ideas on the right. One can lament the demise of WFB and his waning influence without dismissing the entire site as 'rich spoiled kids' who didn't have to make it on their own. That statement in and of itself is quite stupid on it's face actually.

And Dan, you look worse here. Jonah has put up two responses that are a total of 6 sentences each. Meanwhile this is your 6th post on the topic and it seems there is no end in site. Mark L. can talk about how Jonah is stalking you all he wants but it seems like he's missing the fact that you are the one who keeps this going.

Having read all exchanges in the matter, I don't see how you come off as anything other than a highschooler with a bone to pick.

[Afghan Whig]

So what started all of this again?

[mark l.]

"My two cents is that NRO is still a clearing house for ideas on the right."

fine.

This argument came down to 'intepretation' of an event. Goldberg offers his take, dan disagreed, suggesting the tone was 'glib'. "no tragedy/no undeserving victims" v. 'govt affects peoples lives'.

If goldberg had a fingerhold to defend the independence of 'govt corruption' and the 'effects on quality of life of those governed' he would have clung to it, days ago.

The noble 'clearing house' theory of NRO is mostly correct, but in this case, the nro author had a chance to walk back off the ice, or jump up and down on it. At this point he has already fallen, ankle deep, and has now chosen to jump up out the ice and declare, at his apex, that he hasn't fallen thru.

'clearing house'?
dan offerred that the blagojevich scandal has serious ramifications, jonah offered that they can provide humor. In some gestalt sense, yes-seeing a high ranking dem go down(especially in light of the spate of gop corpses) does produce some mirth, but only if one can seperate the the two points of view. 20% of my better angels voted 'funny', while 80% 'wept'. I don't have the luxury of seperating the sum of the outcome...

If Jonah really wanted to respond, he would have had to defend the independence of govt corruption from human lives. He can't do it.

How good and fair is a 'clearing house' if this is the response that a divergent opinion merits from one of its authors working at the clearing house?