Hubbry Logo
The Weekly StandardThe Weekly StandardMain
Open search
The Weekly Standard
Community hub
The Weekly Standard
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
The Weekly Standard
The Weekly Standard
The Weekly Standard
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Weekly Standard
December 24, 2018 issue of The Weekly Standard
EditorStephen F. Hayes
FrequencyWeekly
PublisherTerry Eastland
Total circulation~50,000[1] (December 2018)
First issueSeptember 1995; 30 years ago (1995-09)
Final issueDecember 2018; 7 years ago (2018-12)
CompanyClarity Media Group
CountryUnited States
Based inWashington, D.C.
LanguageEnglish
WebsiteArchived 31 December 2018 at the Wayback Machine
ISSN1083-3013

The Weekly Standard was an American neoconservative political magazine of news, analysis, and commentary that was published 48 times per year. Originally edited by founders Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard was described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neocon bible."[2][3] Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title on September 18, 1995.[4] In 2009, News Corporation sold the magazine to a subsidiary of the Anschutz Corporation.[5] On December 14, 2018, its owners announced that the magazine would cease publication, with the last issue to be published on December 17.[6] Sources have attributed its demise to an increasing divergence between Kristol and other editors' shift towards anti-Trump positions on the one hand, and the magazine's audience's shift towards Trumpism on the other.[7]

Many of the magazine's articles were written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Hudson Institute, and the Foreign Policy Initiative. Individuals who wrote for the magazine included Elliott Abrams, Peter Berkowitz, John Bolton, Ellen Bork, David Brooks, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Christopher Hitchens, Harvey Mansfield, Cynthia Ozick, Joe Queenan, and John Yoo. The magazine's website also produced regular online-only commentaries and news articles.

History

[edit]

The Standard was viewed as heavily influential during the administration of President George W. Bush (2001–2009), being called the in-flight magazine of Air Force One.[8] In 2003, although the magazine's circulation was only 55,000, Kristol said that "We have a funny relationship with the top tier of the administration. They very much keep us at arm's length, but Vice President Dick Cheney does send over someone to pick up 30 copies of the magazine every Monday."[9]

In 2006, though the publication had never been profitable and reputedly lost more than a million dollars a year, News Corporation head Rupert Murdoch initially dismissed the idea of selling it.[10] Subsequently, in June 2009, a report circulated that a sale of the publication to Philip Anschutz was imminent, with Murdoch's position being that, having since purchased The Wall Street Journal in 2007, his interest in the smaller publication had diminished.[11][12] The Washington Examiner reported that month that the Examiner's parent company, the Anschutz-owned Clarity Media Group, had purchased the Standard;[13][14] the price was about $1 million.[15]

The Standard increased its paid circulation by 39 percent between its June 2009 and June 2010 BPA statements.[16] Its print circulation of about 100,000 in 2013 had decreased to 72,000 by 2017, according to the BPA, with circulation dropping about 10 percent between 2016 and 2017.[8]

In late 2016, Kristol ended his time as editor-in-chief.[17] He was replaced by Stephen Hayes, the magazine's senior writer.[18] Under Hayes' leadership, the Standard continued to be as critical of Donald Trump as it had been under Kristol; Trump's supporters in turn criticized the Standard, and the magazine's influence as Republican circles dwindled.[19]

In December 2017, The Weekly Standard became an official fact-checking partner for Facebook.[20]

On December 14, 2018, Clarity Media Group announced that it would cease publication of the magazine after 23 years. While some speculated that the closure of The Weekly Standard was so Clarity Media's other magazine, the Washington Examiner, could absorb the Standard's subscribers, a statement from Clarity Media Group chairman Ryan McKibben said that such speculation was incorrect.[21][22] Kristol attributed the magazine's demise to the hostility of supporters of the Donald Trump administration.[23]

Support of the invasion of Iraq

[edit]

The Standard promoted and supported the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. In November 1997 Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote an editorial titled "Saddam Must Go", in which they stated "We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it's time to start thinking the unthinkable."[24]

In the first issue the magazine published after 9/11, according to Scott McConnell of The American Conservative, "Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly, two employees of Kristol’s PNAC, clarified what ought to be the country’s war aims. Their rhetoric was to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers, and then to lay out a strategy that actually gave attacking Saddam priority over eliminating al-Qaeda."[25]

On December 16, 2018, co-founder and contributing editor John Podhoretz defended the coverage answering the question by Lulu Garcia-Navarro on NPR: "Do you regret the coverage of Iraq War?" saying "I think, basically, what—all a magazine—editors, writers—can promise is that they will be honest and say what they mean and think and argue the best way that they can. And with the facts available at the time, that is what The Standard did."[26]

Libel case

[edit]

In 1997, nearly a year after a cover story that included allegations of hiring a prostitute and plagiarism against best-selling author Deepak Chopra, the editors of The Weekly Standard accepted full responsibility for the errors in the story, and apologized."[27][28] Chopra claimed that the magazine settled for $1.6 million.[29]

Notable personnel

[edit]

Editorial staff

[edit]

Contributing editors

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

The Weekly Standard

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Weekly Standard was an American conservative political magazine that published weekly from September 1995 until its closure in December 2018, serving as a prominent voice for and intellectual in opposition to both liberal and populist strains within the right. Founded by William Kristol, Fred Barnes, and , the magazine was initially backed by Rupert Murdoch's before shifting ownership to Philip Anschutz's Clarity Media Group in 2009. Kristol served as editor until 2016, with the publication emphasizing rigorous policy analysis, cultural commentary, and a hawkish rooted in promoting democracy abroad. It gained significant influence in the late 1990s and early 2000s, shaping Republican thought through advocacy for interventions like the and critiques of , while nurturing a cadre of writers who bridged traditional with Wilsonian idealism. The magazine's commitment to these principles, however, positioned it as a counterweight to emerging nationalist tendencies, earning praise for intellectual depth but criticism for and detachment from priorities. Its defining characteristics included sharp editorials against perceived threats to Western values and a reluctance to align with Donald Trump's 2016 candidacy, which alienated subscribers and advertisers amid shifting conservative media dynamics. The publication ceased operations after its December 24, 2018, issue, with owner Clarity Media citing unsustainable subscription losses, though co-founders alleged deliberate termination to consolidate readership under the more Trump-friendly Washington Examiner.

Founding and Early Development

Establishment and Initial Launch (1995)

The Weekly Standard was established in 1995 by William Kristol and Fred Barnes, with also involved in early planning, as a biweekly political aimed at articulating conservative principles amid the Republican congressional gains of the previous year. Kristol, formerly to and a key Republican strategist, served as editor, while Barnes, a veteran journalist from outlets like , co-edited; the publication sought to distinguish itself from established conservative voices like by emphasizing policy analysis and intellectual engagement over ideological purity. Rupert Murdoch's provided the initial funding, committing at least $5 million over five years through its News America subsidiary, enabling operations without immediate reliance on subscriptions or . The magazine's inaugural issue appeared on , 1995, following an announcement earlier that spring and a promotional rollout that positioned it as a counter to perceived liberal dominance in Washington media. Initial distribution targeted 30,000 copies, primarily through subscriptions and select newsstands in major cities, with content focusing on critiques of the Clinton administration, advocacy for , and support for the "" led by House Speaker . The launch capitalized on the momentum from the 1994 midterm elections, where Republicans gained control of both houses of for the first time in 40 years, framing the Standard as a forum for sustaining that ideological shift through rigorous argumentation rather than partisan cheerleading. Early reception highlighted the magazine's ambition to influence policy debates, with Kristol articulating in promotional materials a goal of "serious conservatism" that integrated neoconservative foreign policy hawkishness with domestic reformism, though financial losses were anticipated given the competitive landscape of opinion journalism. Murdoch's backing, drawn from his broader media empire including The New York Post, underscored a strategic investment in diversifying conservative outlets, despite the venture's projected annual deficits exceeding $2 million in startup costs. The debut issue featured essays on fiscal restraint and cultural issues, setting a tone of combative yet erudite commentary that aimed to appeal to policymakers and intellectuals in the capital.

Growth During the Republican Revolution

The Weekly Standard launched its inaugural issue on September 18, 1995, capitalizing on the momentum from the 1994 midterm elections, where Republicans under Gingrich's leadership secured majorities in both chambers of for the first time since 1952, an event dubbed the . This political shift created demand for intellectual conservative commentary amid debates over the , welfare reform, and fiscal restraint, positioning the magazine as a timely counterweight to both liberal media and populist conservative outlets. Early issues focused on scrutinizing the new Republican Congress's implementation of revolutionary policies, including coverage of the 1995 government shutdowns triggered by budget disputes with President . The magazine's neoconservative perspective emphasized principled governance over short-term partisan gains, earning praise for its rigorous analysis that appealed to policymakers, with founders William Kristol and Fred Barnes leveraging their Washington connections to amplify its reach. This alignment with the era's conservative energy fostered rapid influence among GOP elites, as evidenced by its role in shaping discourse on issues like entitlement reform, even as the revolution faced setbacks such as the 1996 elections. While precise initial circulation data remains limited, the publication quickly garnered a niche but impactful audience in Washington, contrasting with larger conservative magazines like , which boasted over 150,000 subscribers. Subsidized by Rupert Murdoch's , The Weekly Standard prioritized intellectual heft over mass appeal, achieving early prominence through syndication and references in policy circles rather than explosive subscriber growth, setting the stage for its enduring, if modest, footprint in conservative media.

Editorial Philosophy and Content Focus

Neoconservative Core Principles

, as reflected in The Weekly Standard's editorial philosophy, emphasized an active American role in global affairs grounded in moral clarity and the defense of democratic values against authoritarian threats. Founding editor William Kristol, son of neoconservatism's intellectual progenitor , advanced a vision of "benevolent global hegemony," wherein the leveraged its military and economic primacy to promote abroad, rejecting and caution in favor of principled interventionism. This stance manifested in the magazine's vigorous support for the 2003 as a means to dismantle tyranny and foster regional stability, viewing such actions as extensions of beyond mere geography to include ideological solidarity with free nations. Domestically, neoconservative principles upheld through tax reductions and supply-side policies to sustain prosperity and temper egalitarian excesses, while accepting temporary budget deficits as preferable to stagnation, diverging from traditional conservatives' fiscal . The magazine critiqued the expansive welfare state inherited from the era not for outright abolition but for imposing limits to preserve work incentives and individual liberty, aligning with a pragmatic acceptance of intervention tempered by toward bureaucratic overreach and social engineering utopias. Culturally, The Weekly Standard defended bourgeois virtues and traditional institutions against countercultural relativism, forging alliances with religious conservatives on issues like and restrictions on , while promoting patriotism as a natural civic sentiment to bolster democratic resilience. In foreign policy specifics, the publication distrusted supranational institutions that could erode U.S. or blur distinctions between allies and adversaries, as exemplified by opposition to with the and advocacy for robust defense spending during the . This approach prioritized ideological confrontation, supporting alliances like the U.S.- partnership as bulwarks against , and extended to post-Cold War calls for preemptive action against rogue states. Overall, these tenets fostered an optimistic, forward-oriented conservatism that celebrated without nostalgia, distinguishing from paleoconservative retrenchment or libertarian .

Signature Features and Regular Columns

The Weekly Standard distinguished itself through recurring sections that blended sharp commentary, satire, and lighter cultural observations, setting it apart from more straightforward opinion journals. The "Scrapbook," typically appearing on page 2, served as a signature miscellany feature compiling brief, incisive notes on politics, media, and culture, often with a satirical edge targeting liberal inconsistencies or policy absurdities. This section, present in issues from its early years through its final volume, functioned as a curated digest of ephemera, akin to a conservative Noticing column, drawing on editors' and contributors' observations to highlight overlooked hypocrisies without extended argumentation. Complementing the front-matter intensity, the "Casual" column offered a of witty, anecdotal essays on everyday life, personal experiences, and cultural quirks, frequently illustrated to enhance its approachable tone. Writers like Andrew Ferguson and Victorino Matus used it for self-deprecating reflections or light grilling of social trends, as seen in Ferguson's 1998 self-interview or Matus's accounts of domestic routines, maintaining a house style that prioritized readability over . At the rear, the "Parody" section provided a weekly humorous spoof, often mimicking liberal outlets or public figures, rounding out the magazine's blend of seriousness and levity. "Correspondence" handled reader letters with editorial replies, fostering engagement, while "The Standard Reader" curated excerpts from notable books or essays aligned with the publication's intellectual bent. These elements, consistent across issues like Volume 10, No. 44 (August 2005), underscored the magazine's commitment to varied prose forms over uniform advocacy.

Ownership, Operations, and Financial Trajectory

Rupert Murdoch's Initial Backing and 2009 Sale

, controlled by , provided the initial financial backing for The Weekly Standard, enabling its launch on September 18, 1995. Murdoch pledged to fund the magazine for at least three years with an initial investment of several million dollars, reflecting his interest in establishing a conservative voice in Washington amid the post-Cold War shift toward neoconservative ideas. Under ownership, the publication maintained operational independence in its editorial stance while relying on Murdoch's resources to cover persistent losses, estimated later at around $3 million annually in its early years. By 2009, following News Corp's 2007 acquisition of The Wall Street Journal, which overlapped in conservative opinion coverage, Murdoch decided to divest the magazine. On June 17, 2009, News Corp sold The Weekly Standard to Clarity Media Group, a Denver-based publisher owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz, for approximately $1 million. The transaction transferred ownership to Anschutz, a conservative investor with holdings in media and energy, who committed to sustaining the magazine's focus despite its financial challenges, including annual losses nearing $5 million. This sale marked the end of Murdoch's direct involvement, shifting control to a buyer aligned with similar ideological priorities but operating outside the global media empire.

Business Model and Circulation Challenges

The Weekly Standard operated primarily as a bi-weekly print magazine, relying on subscription revenue, , and financial subsidies from its owners to sustain operations, a model typical of niche political publications that prioritized intellectual influence over profitability. Initially backed by Rupert Murdoch's starting in , the magazine incurred annual losses estimated between $2 million and $5 million, reflecting a of controlled deficits to maintain its and reach within conservative circles. In June 2009, sold the publication to Clarity Media Group, a subsidiary of Anschutz's , for an undisclosed sum, shifting ownership to a Denver-based media entity that continued subsidizing operations amid persistent unprofitability. Circulation peaked above 100,000 in the early but declined to 72,000 by 2017, exacerbating financial strains as print advertising revenue eroded in the digital . Earlier figures showed around 55,000 subscribers in 2003, underscoring modest scale compared to competitors like , which boasted over 150,000. These trends mirrored broader industry challenges, including the shift to online media and reduced ad dollars for legacy print outlets, which Clarity Media cited as key factors in the magazine's viability. The combination of stagnant revenue growth and rising production costs led to the magazine's closure announcement on December 14, 2018, with its final issue dated December 24, 2018, after 23 years of publication. While some observers speculated that editorial criticism of contributed to reader attrition and donor reluctance, the owner emphasized structural economic pressures over ideological misalignment as the decisive cause. This outcome highlighted the vulnerabilities of subsidy-dependent models in a fragmented media landscape, where even influential outlets struggled without diversified digital revenue streams.

Key Personnel and Contributors

Founding Editors and Leadership

William Kristol served as the founding editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard, while Fred Barnes acted as the founding executive editor. contributed to the magazine's establishment alongside Kristol and Barnes. The trio launched the publication with financial support from Rupert Murdoch's , aiming to provide a platform for neoconservative ideas amid the post-1994 Republican congressional gains. Under Kristol's leadership, the magazine emphasized rigorous policy analysis and critique of both liberal orthodoxy and paleoconservative , with Barnes overseeing daily editorial operations. Eastland held the role of publisher during the early years, managing operational aspects including distribution through . The first issue appeared on September 18, 1995, marking the outlet's entry as a biweekly (later weekly) conservative voice distinct from establishment Republican media. Kristol, previously chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, and Barnes, a veteran journalist from outlets like The New Republic, shaped the leadership to prioritize intellectual conservatism over partisan loyalty. This founding structure endured through the magazine's initial decade, with Kristol retaining influence as editor-at-large even after editorial transitions, such as Stephen F. Hayes assuming editor-in-chief duties in 2009. The leadership's focus on substantive debate helped establish The Weekly Standard as a key neoconservative institution, though it drew criticism for elitism from populist conservatives.

Influential Contributing Editors and Writers

Christopher Caldwell, a senior editor, gained prominence for his cultural and political commentary, including features on European immigration challenges, such as the 2015 piece on migrants encamped near , which highlighted tensions over and integration policies. His work often critiqued progressive orthodoxies from a skeptical conservative perspective, contributing to the magazine's reputation for intellectual depth in domestic and international affairs. Andrew Ferguson, who joined as a senior editor at the magazine's 1995 launch, specialized in long-form reporting on topics ranging from to political scandals, blending rigorous investigation with wry humor. His essays, such as those examining scientific fads and Washington insider culture, exemplified the Standard's commitment to substantive critique over partisan cheerleading, influencing conservative commentary on policy and society for over two decades. Matt Labash, a senior writer and national correspondent, distinguished himself with gonzo-style reporting that exposed human frailties and political absurdities, including profiles of figures like during the 2000 campaign and a widely read analysis defending the in Star Wars as a satirical nod to . Labash's pieces, often infused with a contrarian edge rather than strict , covered corruption and cultural undercurrents, earning acclaim for their narrative drive and contributing to the magazine's appeal among readers seeking unvarnished dispatches. Stephen F. Hayes, a senior writer focused on , advanced arguments for robust through detailed reporting on and administration decisions, notably as a proponent of the 2003 based on assessments of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs and ties to . His investigative work, including coverage of Cheney's role in post-9/11 strategy, later positioned him as from 2016, shaping the Standard's hawkish editorial line amid internal debates over Trump-era . Early contributors like David Brooks provided "comic sociology" essays, such as "Patio Man and the Sprawl People" in 1996, offering observational portraits of suburban American life that presaged his later mainstream influence. , in his pre-cable phase, penned vivid, anecdote-driven pieces modeled on , including critiques of eugenics policies, adding a stylistic flair that broadened the magazine's journalistic range before his shift to television. These writers collectively amplified the Standard's voice in conservative intellectual circles, prioritizing evidence-based arguments over ideological conformity.

Political Influence and Engagements

Advocacy for Foreign Policy Interventions

The Weekly Standard promoted a neoconservative vision of American foreign policy that prioritized military intervention to dismantle tyrannical regimes, foster democratic institutions, and neutralize threats from rogue states and terrorist networks. This approach rejected and restraint, arguing instead for proactive U.S. leadership to reshape unstable regions, often framing interventions as moral imperatives aligned with interests. Editorials and essays in the magazine frequently invoked the post-Cold War unipolar moment as an opportunity for the to export liberal values through force if necessary, drawing on thinkers like and emphasizing over mere . A cornerstone of this advocacy was the magazine's vigorous support for the . From 2001 onward, The Weekly Standard published pieces arguing that Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, ties to , and defiance of international norms necessitated his removal to prevent future attacks on the U.S. and its allies. Founding editor William Kristol co-authored influential op-eds, such as a 1998 call echoed in later issues for deposing Saddam to liberate Iraqis and stabilize the , positing that there could trigger a regional toward moderation. The magazine framed the war not solely as preemption but as a strategic in remaking the , with editorials dismissing critics as appeasers akin to pre-World War II isolationists. Post-invasion, The Weekly Standard defended sustained U.S. commitment, particularly endorsing the 2007 troop surge under General as a corrective to earlier failures. Articles highlighted empirical gains in security metrics, such as reduced violence in and Anbar Province by mid-2008, attributing them to increased troop levels and a shift to population-centric tactics, while critiquing withdrawal timelines as risking al-Qaeda resurgence. This stance extended to , where the magazine urged escalation against Taliban safe havens and opposed drawdowns, viewing partial retreats as invitations to jihadist entrenchment. Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, the publication advocated interventions in emerging crises, including calls for airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and arming Syrian rebels against starting in 2011. Contributors like argued in its pages against President Obama's "lead from behind" doctrine, as in the 2011 Libya operation, insisting that half-measures emboldened adversaries and eroded U.S. credibility. By 2014, amid advances, editorials renewed demands for robust action, including ground forces if needed, to rollback ambitions and reaffirm American primacy. These positions consistently prioritized causal links between unchecked aggression abroad and domestic vulnerabilities, grounded in historical analogies to rather than multilateral consensus.

Domestic Policy Positions and Critiques

The Weekly Standard consistently advocated for emphasizing work requirements and reduced dependency on government programs, praising the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act for transforming aid from entitlement to temporary assistance that promoted self-reliance. Its editors critiqued expansions of welfare under subsequent administrations, arguing that unchecked entitlements discouraged marriage and perpetuated poverty traps, as evidenced by analyses highlighting marriage penalties in means-tested benefits. This stance aligned with broader conservative efforts to devolve power to states while maintaining a safety net focused on behavioral incentives rather than unconditional support. In education policy, the magazine championed market-oriented reforms including , charter schools, and voucher programs to foster competition and empower parents, while supporting accountability standards like those in the No Child Left Behind Act to measure and improve outcomes. It criticized federal overreach under President Obama, such as waivers undermining reform promises, and advocated for teacher evaluation flexibility to prioritize effective instruction over union protections. Contributors like Joy Pullman argued that rigid tenure systems stifled innovation, urging policies that rewarded performance to address stagnant student achievement. On immigration, The Weekly Standard endorsed enforcement-focused reforms with legal pathways for skilled workers but grew skeptical of provisions, co-authoring opposition to the "Gang of Eight" bill as a flawed compromise that prioritized legalization over border security and would incentivize further illegal entries. Earlier, editor William Kristol signed a 2006 statement backing guest-worker programs alongside workplace enforcement to balance economic needs with , critiquing both open-borders laxity and blanket restrictionism as politically untenable. This positioned the magazine against restrictionist hardliners on the right, who accused it of insufficient emphasis, while faulting liberal policies for undermining wage protections for low-skilled Americans. Socially, the publication upheld traditional values, opposing as a moral failing and advocating pro-life policies, while critiquing expansions as eroding family structures central to societal stability. It leveled critiques at in media and academia, promoting a "humane conservatism" that integrated free markets with moral renewal, rejecting pure for ignoring community and character formation. Paleoconservatives and libertarians often faulted these views as insufficiently deregulatory or overly interventionist in personal spheres, while left-leaning outlets dismissed them as regressive barriers to progress.

Reception, Achievements, and Criticisms

Praise for Intellectual Rigor and Impact

The Weekly Standard garnered acclaim for its commitment to intellectual seriousness, distinguishing it from more polemical conservative outlets through rigorous argumentation and depth of analysis. Franklin Foer observed that the magazine "combined high intellectual seriousness with the crass mentality of a political operative," evident in its erudite cultural essays and robust coverage of books and the arts, which reflected a reverence for high culture amid political commentary. This approach fostered a platform for substantive debate, positioning the publication as an ideological vanguard within American conservatism, as articulated by co-founder Bill Kristol. Critics and admirers alike highlighted the magazine's cultivation of exceptional writing talent, producing pieces that were "stylish, unexpected, and full of warmth." Contributors such as David Brooks and early delivered witty, arch essays that elevated discourse, while figures like Matt Labash were lauded for humane sympathy and humor, and Andrew Ferguson for mastery of reported features, book reviews, and obituaries. Matthew Walther praised its "beautifully written" articles, including profiles like Matthew Continetti's on Senator , underscoring a humane, neoconservative vision rooted in thinkers such as and . The publication's impact extended to shaping conservative intellectual life by prioritizing principles over commercial expediency, maintaining quality even as it expanded online without dilution. It showcased influential septuagenarian voices like and , contributing to a "cover-to-cover vibrance" that influenced policy debates and nurtured a generation of writers. contributors remembered it as a "reliable source of intelligent... writing" and "felicitous" , respecting it as a formidable competitor in conservative from its 1995 founding through its 2018 closure. Walther echoed Kristol in deeming it the finest right-of-center magazine for over two decades, crediting its role in advancing ideas amid shifting political tides.

Critiques from Left and Right Perspectives

Critics from the political left primarily assailed The Weekly Standard for its neoconservative promotion of military interventions, most notably its vigorous endorsement of the 2003 invasion, which left-leaning analysts attributed to over 4,000 American military deaths, approximately 400,000 Iraqi deaths between 2003 and 2011, and costs exceeding $1 trillion, yielding no durable strategic gains and instead fostering regional instability, the rise of , and spillover into Syria's civil war. The magazine's advocacy for "forever war" and regime-change doctrines, exemplified by co-founder Bill Kristol's calls for confronting , , and even broader threats like , was derided as ideologically rigid warmongering that prioritized abstract democratic over pragmatic assessments of costs and outcomes. Such positions, critics argued, not only exacerbated chaos abroad but indirectly paved the way for populist backlash at home, including the ascent of , by discrediting establishment conservatism. From the right, paleoconservatives and traditionalists long viewed The Weekly Standard as a neoconservative outpost that supplanted authentic conservatism with an emphasis on global activism and democratic capitalism, marginalizing restraint-oriented perspectives in favor of interventionism that diverged from national sovereignty priorities. This critique intensified over the Iraq War, where paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan warned against neocon-driven empire-building, arguing it subverted Reagan-era realism and hijacked Republican foreign policy toward unnecessary entanglements, a stance vindicated by the conflict's protracted failures as foreseen by antiwar traditionalists. In the Trump era, populist conservatives and the president's supporters further condemned the magazine for its unyielding opposition to Trump, branding it elitist and disloyal to the GOP base; Trump himself labeled it "pathetic and dishonest," run by "failed so-called conservatives," while figures like Rep. Steve King celebrated its 2018 closure as retribution for prioritizing institutional critique over allegiance to the movement's populist turn.

Iraq War Support and Its Aftermath

The Weekly Standard provided vigorous intellectual support for the U.S.-led invasion of , publishing numerous editorials and articles that framed the removal of as a moral and strategic imperative in the war on terror. Editor argued that the operation would enhance American security by eliminating a with WMD ambitions and ties to terrorist networks, as articulated in pre-invasion commentaries emphasizing Hussein's history of aggression and non-compliance with UN resolutions. Contributors like Hayes highlighted purported operational links between the Iraqi regime and , bolstering the magazine's case for preemptive action despite debates over intelligence reliability. Following the March 20, 2003, , initial coverage celebrated rapid conventional victories but soon pivoted to critiques of planning, with writers attributing early to inadequate troop commitments rather than inherent flaws in the decision to intervene. By 2006, as escalated, the magazine advocated a counterinsurgency "surge" of additional U.S. forces to secure population centers and enable political reconstruction, an idea advanced by resident fellow in a May 2006 article that influenced subsequent policy debates. This stance aligned with the magazine's broader neoconservative emphasis on American military resolve to achieve democratic outcomes, even amid rising casualties and no discovery of active WMD stockpiles. In the war's protracted aftermath, The Weekly Standard defended the invasion's rationale against mounting skepticism, with Kristol asserting in 2015 that ousting averted greater threats and that subsequent failures stemmed from insufficient commitment rather than the initial premise. Critics from paleoconservative and libertarian circles lambasted the magazine for overreliance on optimistic projections that underestimated dynamics and costs, arguing this advocacy prolonged U.S. entanglement and eroded conservative support for interventionism. The position fueled internal right-wing fractures, as the war's inconclusive results—marked by over 4,000 American troop deaths by 2011 and the emergence of post-withdrawal—highlighted risks of ideologically driven , though defenders maintained causal links between Saddam's survival and regional volatility. This controversy diminished the magazine's influence within the Republican coalition, associating it with policies viewed as hubristic by an ascendant isolationist faction.

Libel Lawsuit Involving Sidney Blumenthal

In August 1997, Sidney Blumenthal, a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, filed a $30 million defamation lawsuit against internet columnist Matt Drudge and America Online (AOL) after Drudge published an item alleging that Blumenthal had a history of spousal abuse covered up by the White House. The report, disseminated via Drudge's online newsletter hosted on AOL, cited anonymous Republican sources claiming court records existed of Blumenthal's violence against his wife, Jacqueline. Blumenthal denied the allegations, asserting they were false and motivated by political opposition to the Clinton administration. During the discovery phase of Blumenthal v. Drudge, Blumenthal's legal team issued broad subpoenas to approximately two dozen journalists and sources perceived as critics of the administration, demanding "any and all documents" related to Blumenthal, Drudge, and potential informants. Among those targeted were staff from The Weekly Standard, including reporter Tucker Carlson, whose father, Richard Carlson, had been U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles and was named in the subpoenas alongside his son. The subpoenas sought materials potentially linking recipients to the Drudge report's origins, including notes from a 1994 dinner party attended by Carlson where Blumenthal's personal life may have been discussed. These actions drew criticism from conservative outlets, which portrayed the subpoenas as an intimidation tactic by Blumenthal—a Clinton confidant known for countering media scrutiny of the administration—to harass and silence ideological opponents rather than pursue legitimate discovery. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that Blumenthal was leveraging the private suit to access journalistic sources and documents, effectively weaponizing the courts against figures like Carlson and Weekly Standard contributors who had reported skeptically on Clinton-era controversies. The demands extended to internal communications and unpublished research, prompting motions to quash from recipients who argued they infringed on First Amendment protections for the press. In April 1998, U.S. District Judge dismissed AOL from the suit, ruling that of the immunized internet providers from liability for third-party content, a precedent that shielded platforms from publisher status. Blumenthal and Drudge settled out of court in May 2001, with Drudge issuing a retraction and apology stating the abuse allegation was unsubstantiated, though Blumenthal later described the litigation as financially draining, estimating costs exceeding $500,000 without recovering damages. The episode underscored tensions between administration allies and conservative media, with The Weekly Standard's involvement via subpoenaed staff highlighting broader disputes over source protection and political retribution in litigation.

Internal and External Debates on Conservatism

The Weekly Standard actively shaped internal debates within American conservatism by championing a neoconservative synthesis of traditional values, free-market economics, and assertive foreign policy, often in tension with paleoconservative emphases on isolationism and cultural preservation. In the 1990s, the magazine's editors, including Bill Kristol, repeatedly assailed Pat Buchanan's presidential bids for promoting protectionist trade policies, stringent immigration controls, and America First non-interventionism, which they deemed incompatible with conservatism's historical support for global engagement and economic openness. Buchanan's 1992 and 1996 campaigns, in particular, drew fire for echoing nativist themes that Kristol and contributors argued risked alienating core Republican constituencies and reviving fringe elements within the movement. These positions fueled external clashes with paleoconservatives, who viewed The Weekly Standard as emblematic of an intrusive, cosmopolitan conservatism detached from America's heartland traditions; this rift contributed to the 2002 founding of The American Conservative by figures like Buchanan, explicitly as a counterweight to neoconservative dominance in outlets like The Weekly Standard. By the 2010s, the magazine's "Never Trump" editorial line—framed as a defense of principled conservatism against populism—intensified external debates, with writers contending that Donald Trump's trade skepticism, immigration rhetoric, and institutional skepticism betrayed Reagan-era tenets of limited government, moral clarity, and internationalism. Kristol, for example, publicly explored third-party alternatives and labeled Trump a threat to conservative intellectual standards, prompting backlash from populist outlets that derided The Weekly Standard as an elitist relic out of touch with working-class voters' economic anxieties. Internally, The Weekly Standard maintained relative unity among contributors but hosted debates in its pages on conservatism's practical boundaries, such as calibrating foreign interventions against domestic fiscal constraints and navigating populism's appeal without abandoning fusionist principles blending social traditionalism with . These discussions reflected broader tensions over whether should prioritize ideological purity or electoral viability, though the magazine's anti-Trump consensus underscored its commitment to first-order principles over partisan expediency. The unresolved nature of these debates, amid declining subscriptions tied to the Trump realignment, highlighted The Weekly Standard's role in exposing fractures that persisted beyond its 2018 closure.

Closure and Legacy

Announcement and Reasons for Shutdown (2018)

On December 14, 2018, Clarity Media Group, the parent company owned by , announced the immediate cessation of The Weekly Standard after 23 years of . The final issue appeared on December 17, 2018, resulting in the of approximately 35 staff members. Clarity's official statement attributed the shutdown to a "challenging media and subscription environment," noting that despite the magazine's "quality and influence," continued operation had become "untenable." The company reported steep declines in subscriptions and , with circulation dropping significantly since its 2009 acquisition by Anschutz for a reported $1 million. Editorial leadership and co-founders offered additional perspectives on the causes. Editor-in-chief Stephen Hayes indicated that the magazine's persistent criticism of President contributed to the revenue downturn by alienating key conservative subscribers who aligned with the president. Co-founder contended that financial pressures were not the sole factor, describing the closure as a deliberate "murder" driven by corporate cannibalism to redirect readers and resources toward Clarity's more Trump-friendly . He emphasized friction between and business priorities under Anschutz's ownership, rather than purely ideological opposition to Trump. Staff reports corroborated that owners opted to shutter rather than sell the title, aiming to consolidate market position in conservative media. The shutdown highlighted tensions within , as The Weekly Standard's neoconservative, anti-Trump stance isolated it amid a readership shift toward pro-Trump outlets, empirically evidenced by its revenue losses post-2016. This combination of market dynamics and strategic ownership decisions marked the end of a known for intellectual rigor but increasingly marginalized in the Trump-era Republican landscape.

Post-Closure Influence and Retrospective Assessments

Following its final issue on December 17, 2018, The Weekly Standard exerted no direct institutional influence on conservative journalism, as its print and online operations ceased entirely. The magazine's archives remain accessible digitally, preserving its body of work for reference, but readership shifted to successor outlets founded by former staff. Key editors, including , relocated to platforms like The Bulwark, launched in 2019, which sustained critiques of Trump-era Republicanism aligned with the Standard's later Never Trump orientation. This migration preserved elements of the magazine's intellectual style—emphasizing policy analysis over populist rhetoric—but within a narrower, anti-Trump niche that commanded limited sway in the broader GOP. Retrospective evaluations portray The Weekly Standard as emblematic of neoconservatism's marginalization within post-2016 , where its advocacy for interventionist and institutionalist domestic views clashed with rising nationalist sentiments. Analysts from outlets like have described the shutdown as formalizing neocons' from the Republican coalition, attributing diminished relevance to the magazine's resistance to amid subscriber losses exceeding 50,000 since 2016. Conservative commentators, such as those in , have argued that its closure accelerated a revival of working-class-focused , unburdened by the Standard's perceived and hawkish legacy tied to advocacy. Critics from the left, including in The New York Review of Books, have assessed its enduring impact negatively, highlighting a track record of promoting regime-change doctrines that yielded geopolitical failures, such as post-2003 instability. Right-leaning retrospectives, like those in Vox, credit it with principled opposition to demagoguery but fault its detachment from voter priorities, contributing to its pre-closure influence erosion as web traffic rose while political clout waned. By 2025, amid neoconservative figures' selective realignment with Trump administration policies on issues like , the Standard's legacy appears confined to academic and archival discussions of pre-populist conservatism, with minimal active shaping of GOP platforms. assessments, often from left-leaning sources, tend to frame this as ideological obsolescence without fully accounting for market-driven subscriber exodus driven by partisan realignment.

References

  1. https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/the-closing-of-the-weekly-standard-makes-neoconservatisms-exile-from-the-republican-party-official
  2. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/06/weekly-standard-never-trump-magazine-222766
  3. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/media/weekly-standard-end
  4. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/14/the-weekly-standard-to-shut-down-1064753
  5. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/5/18126573/weekly-standard-neoconservatives-trump-iraq-casualties
  6. https://www.nybooks.com/online/2018/12/18/the-weekly-standard-a-record-of-failed-regime-change/
  7. https://americanmind.org/features/the-death-of-the-weekly-standard/the-squandering-of-the-standard/
  8. https://www.theweek.com/articles/812765/how-weekly-standard-lost-influence
  9. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/17/677334849/conservative-magazine-weekly-standard-shutters-trump-and-rep-steve-king-celebrat
  10. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18140925/weekly-standard-trump-media-shut-down
  11. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/14/weekly-standard-closes-rightwing-media-trump
  12. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/16/677157708/co-founder-cannibalism-not-anti-trump-stand-killed-weekly-standard
  13. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/11/business/debut-for-a-conservative-weekly.html
  14. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1995/09/09/magazine-for-the-right-minded/dfcae402-1e5d-4689-a5e4-d47ced469fdf/
  15. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/30/us/murdoch-finances-new-forum-for-right.html
  16. https://archive.org/details/the-weekly-standard-1995-09-18
  17. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18141024/weekly-standard-gop-right-conservatism-shut-down
  18. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/weekly-standard-lived-by-the-partisan-swordmay-die-by-it.html
  19. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Weekly_Standard.html?id=lqop7RJ23sQC
  20. https://www.commentary.org/articles/irwin-stelzer/is-the-republican-revolution-alive/
  21. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Weekly_Standard_Magazine
  22. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/arts/white-house-listens-when-weekly-speaks.html
  23. https://logosjournal.com/article/benevolent-global-hegemony-william-kristol-and-the-politics-of-american-empire/
  24. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/pbei/aei/oti/kri03/kri03.pdf
  25. https://www.aei.org/research-products/speech/neoconservatism/
  26. https://voegelinview.com/mugged-by-reality-the-neoconservative-turn/
  27. https://search.opinionarchives.com/Summary/TWS/V10I44.HTM
  28. https://www.unz.com/print/WeeklyStandard-2009may04-00002/
  29. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%257CA219040581&sid=sitemap&v=2.1&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
  30. https://www.behance.net/gallery/68499579/The-Weekly-Standard-Casual-Column-Illustrations-Part-3?tracking_source=search_projects%257Ckayak
  31. https://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/the-weekly-standard-1998-04-20.pdf
  32. https://vicmatus.com/
  33. https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/28/anschutz-weekly-standard-business-media-examiner.html
  34. https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/company-town-blog/story/2009-06-17/philip-anschutz-snags-weekly-standard-from-rupert-murdoch
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/business/media/03standard.html
  36. https://www.denverpost.com/2009/06/17/murdoch-sells-weekly-standard-mag-to-anschutz/
  37. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/murdoch-sells-the-weekly-standard-to-anschutz/
  38. https://www.wsj.com/articles/conservative-magazine-weekly-standard-to-close-after-23-year-run-11544810354
  39. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/14/weekly-standard-is-gone/
  40. https://www.denverpost.com/2009/06/17/anschutz-group-buys-conservative-weekly-standard-from-news-corp/
  41. https://nypost.com/2018/12/14/the-weekly-standard-is-closing-after-23-years/
  42. https://fortune.com/2018/12/14/weekly-standard-closes/
  43. https://www.nypost.com/2018/12/14/the-weekly-standard-is-closing-after-23-years/
  44. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/14/weekly-standard-conservative-magazine-closes-never-donald-trump-bill-kristol/2312627002/
  45. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/who-killed-the-weekly-standard
  46. https://www.aei.org/profile/andrew-ferguson/
  47. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/weekly-standard-ending-high-note/578230/
  48. https://thedispatch.com/author/steve-hayes/
  49. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/neoconservatism-and-american-foreign-policy/
  50. https://fair.org/home/the-weekly-standards-war/
  51. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/neoconservative-foreign-policy
  52. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/explore-engage/classroom-resources/worksheets-and-excerpts-on-history-and-government/iraqdemocracypromotion
  53. https://www.npr.org/2011/10/28/141790025/weekly-standard-terrorists-war-in-iraq-continues
  54. https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/weekly_standard/
  55. https://www.cato.org/commentary/william-kristol-dulce-bellum-inexpertis
  56. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html
  57. https://www.theweek.com/articles/809540/continuing-lunacy-neocons
  58. https://www.commentary.org/articles/john-podhoretz/stop-the-revolution/
  59. https://welfareacademy.umd.edu/pubs/family/Discouraging_Marriage_The_hidden_cost_of_means-tested_government_benefits.pdf
  60. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/fulfilling-the-promise-of-school-choice/
  61. https://www.npr.org/2011/08/10/139347213/weekly-standard-president-cheats-on-school-reform
  62. https://www.npr.org/2012/03/13/148516578/weekly-standard-let-a-thousand-teachers-bloom
  63. https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/07/kill-bill-william-kristol-rich-lowry/
  64. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115248762825501868
  65. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/bill-kristol-was-the-standard
  66. https://theweek.com/articles/812748/what-made-weekly-standard-great
  67. https://reason.com/2019/02/02/the-weekly-standard-was-wrong/
  68. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-weekly-standard-closes-its-doors/
  69. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-neocons-lose-one-last-war/
  70. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-the-paleos-were-right-about-iraq/
  71. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/kristol.html
  72. https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2003/02/05/kristol-advocates-war-with-iraq-for-u-s-safety/
  73. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/links-between-saddam-hussein-and-al-qaida
  74. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2004/04/too-few-troops?lang=en
  75. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/themes/surge.html
  76. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2004/02/right-war-for-the-right-reasons?lang=en
  77. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/20/iraq-saddam-hussein-obama-bush-william-kristol-editorials-debates/27681429/
  78. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-the-weekly-standard-has-wrought/
  79. https://www.mediamatters.org/bill-kristol/iraq-war-architect-bill-kristol-knowing-what-we-know-now-we-were-right-fight-iraq
  80. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drudge-case-irks-judge/
  81. https://www.eff.org/files/blumenthal-v-drudge.pdf
  82. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1998/08/03/blumenthals-suit-has-become-more-than-a-drudge-match/4c9dccd0-0907-4ba7-9afd-2ccb3753f0ed/
  83. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/05/02/clinton-aide-settles-libel-suit-against-matt-drudge-at-a-cost/2c79eeaa-4eff-4994-979a-ac310352de5b/
  84. https://observer.com/1998/08/libel-grudge-match-begins-blumenthal-vs-matt-drudge/
  85. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB90157752782319500
  86. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/04/us/clinton-aide-settles-with-matt-drudge.html
  87. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-dressing-down-for-pat-buchanan/
  88. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1999/09/24/republicans-launch-attack-on-buchanan/4d21ec5c-414b-47c2-87fe-4da739796e6c/
  89. https://theweek.com/articles/812765/how-weekly-standard-lost-influence
  90. https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/steve-hayes-transcript/
  91. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clarity-media-group-announces-closure-of-the-weekly-standard-300765757.html
  92. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/media/weekly-standard-closing.html
  93. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-weekly-standard-influential-conservative-magazine-will-shutter/2018/12/14/051884cc-ffbb-11e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html
  94. https://fortune.com/2018/12/14/weekly-standard-closes
  95. https://search.opinionarchives.com/TWS_Web/digitalarchive.aspx
  96. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-weekly-standard-is-gone-but-the-future-of-conservatism-is-bright/2018/12/19/2fa2c8d4-039d-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html
  97. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weekly-standard-magazine-trump-fold_n_5c13d2aae4b05d7e5d819f9c
  98. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-neocons-iran-war/
  99. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/opinion/weekly-standard-closing-conservatism.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.