Daddy, Don’t Take the T-Bird Away!
Jordan Smith at the Atlantic reports on the creation of a “fun” new right-wing website called Ricochet:
The distinguishing feature of Ricochet will be its unique format, which promises to look unlike any other site on the net. “It will not be a news aggregator, or a megachat like Daily Kos, but instead will be a feed like Facebook or Twitter or Tumbler,” says James Poulos, Ricochet’s managing editor. Approximately 40 contributors will have an online conversation that is akin to a conservative cocktail party.
I’m actually inclined to agree with Dan Riehl that conservatives are already having plenty of fun on the web. Robert Stacy McCain complains that he wasn’t invited and that his team should devote their efforts to electing more Republicans.
I would rather that they devote a little time and attention to having Republicans not, you know, ruin the country once they take power again. After the Bush administration left the country with two quagmires and an economy on the brink of depression, I naively expected conservatives to spend more time thinking about why that happened.I haven’t seen the “Boy, Were We Wrong on Iraq” issues of either The Weekly Standard or National review. David Frum, the one-time enforcer of the right made a high profile effort to rethink some things and seems to have become a persona non grata on the right. Fair enough, I never cared for Frum anyway and I don’t think that he has rethought his views on the Iraq disaster. But I have noticed that Rod Dreher also drifted away from NR after his views mildly evolved a few years back. If you go back far enough, you would find that Andrew Bacevich used to appear in National Review before committing the sin of being right on Iraq. I don’t see that Ricochet has invited Bacevich to join in the conversation. I guess he isn’t much “fun.”
They will, however, have Andrew Klavan, Victor Davis Hanson and Haley Barbour. I’m having fun already.
The following paragraph alone will show why this new site will fall flat on its face like Culture11 no matter how long its benefactors try to keep it going.
“Ricochet will in many ways be the stepchild of Culture 11, the short-lived but important website that tried to reinvent conservatism in the post-Bush era. Poulos was political editor at Culture 11, and the sites share a commitment to reconciling the right wing with popular culture. But unlike its predecessor, Ricochet feels no need to rethink conservatism–it is instead a sign that in the Obama era, right-wingers feel confident enough in their ideas and prospects that they think major ideological modifications are unprincipled and unncessary. “At a time when the country is being dragged to the left by Washington and mainstream media, this is another way to fight back,” says Robinson. “Since the demise of Culture11, politics have changed,” says Poulos. “The conversation on the right has become more interesting and productive than it was.” In addition, Obama has been in the White House long enough to convince people of the direction he’s taking America in, he says.
In other words, Obama was a Godsend because it allowed the establishment Right to focus on common foe instead of rethinking or reinventing itself. We don’t have to change anything, which is too hard and too laborous and requires too much thinking to accomplish. We’ll just spend the time bashing the Obama Administration, and we’ll laugh and hoist a beer while doing so. And play really cool music too. The same people saying the same things on a new website. Big deal.
You can’t reconcile the Right Wing with popular culture. Because the popular culture is anti-Right wing or what presumably would be called “Conservative”. This is why Culutre11 was left with articles about “gangsta rap” and conservatism. The popular culture may accept a Right winger if they shoot somebody or blow something up like Rambo or Jack Bauer. But most figures who are presumably conservative in their lifestyle or region are often targets for ridicule or seen as sinister. And so long as the Republican party and those on the Right depend upon such people for votes, then it’s hard to take such ventures that try to suck up to popular culture rather than change it or separate themselves from it seriously.
By the way, how many important website you know of are “short lived”?
“By the way, how many important website you know of are ‘short lived’?”
It’s like the Buffalo Springfield, or the Freaks and Geeks of conservative journalism.
Re: “Ricochet feels no need to rethink conservatism…right-wingers feel confident enough in their ideas and prospects that they think major ideological modifications are unprincipled and unncessary.
Which means Ricochet will be another sclerotic, juvenile offshoot of The NR and Weekly Standard. Ho-hum. Shoot it and put it out of its imbecilic misery.
BTW, Victor Davis Hanson is totally toxic. His inanities are legion. The best way for an issue site to delegitimize itself is to associate with Hanson and his crew of war mongering opportunists.
I don’t understand why Culture11 didn’t keep an archive up. There were a lot of interesting articles. How much does it cost to host a site?
[...] discourse, however, the rest of us have a chance to audition for the role of Armchair Intellectual:Clark Stooksbury is “inclined to agree with Dan Riehl” — mainly because it permits Clark to revisit his Evil Neocon Theory of Conservative Failure. [...]
Since when is it a theory ?
A “conservative cocktail party”? Um, no. There is no number of brandy smashes that will make this interesting.
SteveM:
“BTW, Victor Davis Hanson is totally toxic. His inanities are legion. The best way for an issue site to delegitimize itself is to associate with Hanson and his crew of war mongering opportunists.”
Well said.
It seems as though Conservative INC is trying to do two things: first, they’re trying to prove that they’re hip (and of course any attempt to project hipness on the internet is a fool’s errand), and second, they’re trying to protect themselves from people (specifically, it seems, commenters) who would point out their history of error and corruption.
That said, I don’t understand all of the VD Hanson hate in this thread. Yes, his foreign policy stances are horrible, but his academic writing is awesome. I had to read his book this quarter, and I learned so much. I’ve read stuff suggesting that he’s the world’s living expert in his field. That’s nothing to sniff at.
“I don’t understand all of the VD Hanson hate in this thread. Yes, his foreign policy stances are horrible, but his academic writing is awesome.”
You answered the question yourself. Yes, Hanson is great on his academic speciality – I remember reading his Western Way of War not long after it came out, and being hugely impressed.
But no amount of academic expertise can make up for being a warmongering scumbag, and no conservatives should ever begin to forgive the warmongering neocons for tainting us, by association, with the blood of their victims.
MattSwartz,
Noam Chomsky is considered one of the fathers of modern linguistics and is a tenured professor at MIT. He is very well accomplished in his academic research field. That doesn’t mean we should take his politics seriously. Same goes for Hanson. He may be a solid academic, but he’s an idiot when it comes to US foreign policy. You will learn that academic credentials frequently do not correlate with common sense.
“it’s hard to take such ventures that try to suck up to popular culture rather than change it or separate themselves from it seriously”
Amen Sean!
As I said in the post below, I am skeptical of conservatives with new ideas, as new ideas are the prerogative of liberals. But the problem is that parts of modern “conservatism” do need to be rethought because they are not … well … conservative. Like that whole making the world safe for democracy thing. So this type of conservative stand patism is both a good thing and a problem.
I’m still giggling at the prospect of Haley Barbour being touted as a feature writer on a hip website…