With respect to anigbrowl and [deleted], who probably know more than I do, I think "paleoconservative" might not be the best label for TAC, even though some of their authors might use it. They're ideologically pretty loosely formed, and as a group give me the sense of something new evolving rather than of something old returning. What I have found them consistently to be is (1) anti-imperialist (or anti-interventionist if you don't believe there's an empire) and (2) intelligent. A few of their junior bloggers are too prolific to be on average very good. But people like Daniel Larison, Dan McCarthy, and Scott McConnell write consistently thoughtful pieces. They also publish serious authors that get little attention elsewhere, like Andrew Bacevich. Then there are Unz's own pieces which keep getting more interesting. But those are an off-to-the-side eclectic sort of thing.
They also stand outside MSM consensus in a way that has genuine integrity. Consider Eric Margolis' cover story from their inaugural issue (Oct 2002), a blistering critique of the impending Iraq War that got almost everything right. Not everything—in retrospect, he arguably overemphasized oil—but the piece was a truth-speaking deviation from the groupthink and propaganda that dominated that period. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iraq-invasio.... I think most people would be pretty proud now to have launched a magazine with that in 2002.
Basically, they've established themselves as freethinking conservatives who have nothing to do either with the decadence of party conservatism or the fanaticism of the right-wing base. That's what makes them valuable and worth reading—such voices are needed. Not that I agree with all they say, of course.
(By the way, if you have time for podcast-type thingies, I've found a couple of other sources that are surprisingly good. But I'll save that for some other off-topic thread :) Or you're welcome to email me if you'd like to discuss any of this offline.)
They also stand outside MSM consensus in a way that has genuine integrity. Consider Eric Margolis' cover story from their inaugural issue (Oct 2002), a blistering critique of the impending Iraq War that got almost everything right. Not everything—in retrospect, he arguably overemphasized oil—but the piece was a truth-speaking deviation from the groupthink and propaganda that dominated that period. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iraq-invasio.... I think most people would be pretty proud now to have launched a magazine with that in 2002.
Basically, they've established themselves as freethinking conservatives who have nothing to do either with the decadence of party conservatism or the fanaticism of the right-wing base. That's what makes them valuable and worth reading—such voices are needed. Not that I agree with all they say, of course.
(By the way, if you have time for podcast-type thingies, I've found a couple of other sources that are surprisingly good. But I'll save that for some other off-topic thread :) Or you're welcome to email me if you'd like to discuss any of this offline.)