Although there’s much that I agree with in Justin’s post below, there are several things that can be and ought to be said in defense of Reason. The mag hasn’t been as antiwar as I (and Justin) would like, but ecumenism on foreign policy is a far cry from the monolithic bellicosity that characterizes genuinely neoconservative outlets. As for Matt Welch’s personal philosophy, as important as an editor-in-chief’s beliefs may be, the philosophical complexion of any serious magazine is not the product of any one person. I know some of the Reason staffers moderately well — and other TAC editors have even shared apartment space with Reasonoids — and there’s no shortage of orthodox libertarianism among their people, though there are plenty of eclectic elements in the mix as well.
(I wouldn’t agree that Matt Welch is a “neocon mouthpiece,” by the way, however much I disagree with his take on Ron Paul. I think we want to be careful about characterizing anyone who isn’t 100% with us on foreign policy or the merits of Ron Paul as a neocon.)
Magazines — Reason and TAC especially — are collaborative products, and very few enforce party lines as rigorously as the neocon rags do. That’s to the good, even if occasionally that means Reason publishes something I find objectionable. And as an editor, I want to forgive Reason its quirks, since I know that TAC and I have our quirks as well.