“Over the years, various people have expressed curiosity about” Ron Unz’s firing from The American Conservative, now a crypto-liberal, wishy-washy publication.
I was one of the curious. So, the great Ron Unz, now publisher of the far more successful Unz Review has obliged in “Why The American Conservative Purged Its Own Publisher.”
Daniel McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, beloved of “rightist” libertarians, certainly rejected my copy since 2006. My last piece in TAC was in 2006: “Mackinnon’s Textual Harassment.” “American Creed” was an earlier piece, hardly shabby.
But that’s nothing. It’s one thing to reject controversial copy from independent, unaffiliated scribes. The same “editor” rejected his publisher’s not-insubstantial essays. Oh the sanctimony! Oh the pomposity!
Next, McCarthy, in his self-righteous sanctimony (it bears repeating), tells publisher Ron—he who pays the piper—that his “analytical study of American urban crime” belongs in a White Nationalist hate-site!
Still, The American Conservative, remarks the intellectually honest Mr. Unz, had “a uniquely vigorous opposition to Bush’s foreign wars.” As did I, starting on 9/19/2002. Yet TAC, and most libertarian outlets, for the most, could be relied on to reject my own (dare I say powerful?) anti-war copy.
Conversely, Jason Richwine and political operative Jack Hunter were embraced by TAC, but not Ron Unz’s work (and certainly not my own, whose writings preceded the first two youngsters by at least a decade). I wonder why?
Hunter, says Mr. Unz, brought with him to TAC the usual libertarian worship of Ron and Rand Paul. (Oh, I see: I’ve criticized the two plenty although I like ’em. Libertarians pray to their sacred cows like mainstream. I believe it was Karen De Coster who once blurted out, in frustration, “They’re still politicians, for heaven’s sake.”)
The late Larry Auster eviscerated the “founding editor of The American Conservative,” calling Scott McConnell “The Paleostinian Conservative,” and pointing out that McConnell “twice endorsed Obama for president yet continued to call himself a conservative.”
As Ron Unz details—and following the funding model of DC Swamp think tanks and their websites—The American Conservative spent their benefactor’s money on hiring their kids and hiking salaries. That’s how the non-meritocratic swamp works.
Duly, Mr. Unz soon noted the “large growth in TAC’s operating expenses, staffing levels being disproportionate to actual output, minimal workload required and full-time editorial and business employees.” What a gig if you can get it!
Look, talent that writes in the tradition of the Old Right could be syndicated in every paleoconservative or paleolibertarian publication there is. We could mount a fight against mainstream if we united and were not afraid to harness talent and let it do what talent does. We’d get the readers. Instead, each Old Right publication fortifies itself in some atrophying, barely read ideological attic, deluding itself that it has a reach.
Each of our webzines or print magazines puts on airs and graces, rejecting talent (for some reason) and sticking with the comfort zone.
Just like the mainstream, our side reverts to the compliant, mediocre mean.
We on the Old Right are losers because our think-tanks and publications, such that they are, divide and expunge, while the neocons and the cons unite and dominate. I mean, who reads Mona Charen, yet she remains a syndicated feature because the monied gate-keepers want it that way.
“The nadir [on TAC] was The Southern Avenger lecturing us on how bad blacks and gays have it.”
Tom Piatak At Chronicles writes:
Rod Dreher [of TAC] used his perch at The American Conservative to attack one of the men who founded that magazine, Pat Buchanan. Dreher charged that Buchanan’s column from the previous Tuesday, “If We Erase Our History, Who Are We?”, was a “shameful defense of white supremacy,” “abhorrent,” and “disgusting, racist, indefensible.”