World Magazine.
Stratfor.
Actually, I think libertarian and conservative sources are generally pretty similar on economic policy. So for those who want to get some right-leaning viewpoints on economics without having to wade through a bunch of “why Obama hates Israel” articles, they may be among the best places to go.
Warren Meyer at Coyote Blog is one of my favorite bloggers because he presents small-government arguments clearly without emotional overload, as well as actually being a small business owner he has tons of relevant experience. If someone reads only liberal sources on, say, minimum wage, they’re likely to be told that the only reason to oppose minimum wage is corporate greed. Read his articles on the topic to get the other side of the issue. If anyone believes that only people who deny the existence of global warming can oppose the government’s policy solutions, they should read what Meyers says on the topic. Want to actually understand where the other side stands on education? Read his posts on the topic.
Another good conservative magazine is First Things, focusing on religious issues.
I agree to some extent. The problem is if you want “mainstream” conservative media you’re going to be reading about how Barack Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, Hillary Clinton is a pedophile druglord, and Donald Trump won the popular vote.
“Thoughtful” conservative media (which is what the OP asked for) is going to be out of step with the conservative mainstream.
That’s just not so.
There are a lot of conservatives and conservative media who don’t go for any of those things and yet would not have endorsed Kerry, Obama or Clinton.
While I’m at it, I’m very skeptical of the persistent claims by European posters that the right in Europe is equivalent to the left in the US. That’s undoubtedly true on certain issues, but the opposite is true on other issues (e.g. SOCAS, and free speech issues), and there doesn’t seem to be any overall pattern. So I suspect it’s just a matter of people tending to think everyone is like them, and the European posters to this board leaning left along with the rest of the board.
A lot of conservative media was against Trump and his policies, placing them firmly in the bubble as well. They were denounced as globalists, RINOs, or other more colorful epithets by Trump supporters.
I think you did miss how almost all newspapers (and many of them conservative) endorsed Clinton. AFAIK they did not press on all the extremes as **Little Nemo **mentioned but many of those conservative sources still have to cater to the ones living in a right wing bubble.
Well, one subject that I use to identify if they are “thoughtful” sources are if they do defer to science rather than ideology. From the left leaning sources I look if they are more in favor of GMOs, then I check them more than others for information. If they come from the right I do check to see if they are fair to the science of evolution or to climate science.
The Economist IMHO is then more reliable among conservative sources since they do indeed defer to science and it tells me that they are more likely to be fair to other points of view. The Weekly Standard has fallen with some denialist articles but I have noticed more than a few that do tell their conservative readers that the issue is a serious one, And I will toss a bone to Reason Magazine, even if they are loopy regarding how to solve the issue (or do nothing) they do not deny that this is a problem and they did notice that the conservative sources that are telling their readers that the EPA or Obama was responsible for closing most coal plants are wrong.
This doesn’t seem to address my point (or to be coherent, frankly).
I definitely wouldn’t recommend The National Interest. That place is like a tabloid, except that instead of covering Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, it covers Aegis, F-35, and Kim Jong Un.
Forbes magazine, especially the editorials, is mainly conservative/libertarian. It deals almost exclusively with economic issues and not social ones but those are arguably the important ones for certain types of conservatives.
I did read him before, suffice to say that his loopy idea to claim that there are 2 theories being used about global warming is like a creationist claiming that scientists misuse the micro and macro evolution concepts.
His already debunked idea is to declare that the physics of CO2 do point at just a 1 degree of temperature increase for a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. But as it has been pointed many many times before guys like Meyers get it wrong when they disregard the other feedbacks and forgings that are based on physics or physical evidence too that do point at 2 degrees more of an increase in temperature if the CO2 doubles.
A more recent explanation was just posted by Peter Hadfield, his replies to Stefan Molyneux are the same he would give to Monkton and Meyers:
(You can skip to 10:42 for the feedback part)
So, so much for that source, and based on that I do not look much at National Reviewand many others because they are also ignoring science and telling their readers to do the same.
The American Conservative is one of the very few truly conservative outlets in America to-day, actually thinking in terms of organic community, national culture, responsible capitalism, and so on rather then the intellectually bankrupt free market fetishists and warhawks that dominate the Right.
That was referring to "The problem is if you want “mainstream” conservative media you’re going to be reading about how Barack Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, Hillary Clinton is a pedophile druglord, and Donald Trump won the popular vote.
“Thoughtful” conservative media (which is what the OP asked for) is going to be out of step with the conservative mainstream. "
Again, I do agree that most of the serious press on the right would not deal with that, however a lot of the people in the right are depending on media that does indeed go for conspiracy theories, but regarding climate science many do go for the woo woo anti-science bubble.
OK. I understand what you’re saying now. But I disagree with it.
The most mainstream reliable conservative news sites would probably be: Wall Street Journal, The Hill, National Review, U.S. News & World Report, The Fiscal Times (not The Financial Times, a famed European business paper.)
The issue is none of these sources really reflect the brand of “stupid-conservatism” that has taken over my party in recent years. The Wall Street Journal for example is a pretty good representation of well, the traditional “Wall Street” Republican. This is a Republican who isn’t a huge fan of regulations, but is probably pretty reasonable on personal income taxes, probably supports very low corporate taxes, probably has a “moderate” foreign policy view, balancing a support for sometimes aggressive use of military force with a desire to avoid military boondoggles. The U.S. News & World Report tends to have a bit of a strong neo-con lean, and has for some 20 years been arguing China and the U.S. are enemies at a fundamental level.
The Hill and The Fiscal Times tend to be politics and business focused “current event” news sources (sort of like a conservative CNN, albeit with a narrower focus), a lot of their stuff is just general “news reporting”, with some right-leaning op-eds thrown in.
The National Review tends to represent the “ivory tower” conservatism, or old blue blooded elite conservatism. For that reason, while I like a lot of their long-form articles, they often focus on issues that only matter to a very small subset of humans on Earth, and often have nothing to do with the current populist nightmare that has taken over the GOP. For example their current front page shows an article lampooning excessively liberal colleges (a common target for ivory tower conservatives, the Trumpites largely don’t give a fuck about what happens in colleges), an article about religious freedom in the age of Thomas Becket versus now.
The reality is all the “good” conservative journalists and writers are simply far to the left of the populist swell that has taken over (many of them, like me, are still definitely right of center, though.) If you want to know how the brand of conservatives that actually took over the government think, you’re going to have to read sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller, no way around it. Infowars is so legitimately insane you shouldn’t read it at all, but even then–a lot of the worst conservative conspiracy theories have their genesis there, so there may be some elucidatory value in skimming it. Of the “bad news bears” conservative outlets, Daily Caller is the “least terrible” followed by Breitbart followed by Infowars. Breitbart, if you want to understand the mindset of these people reading the opinion pieces there basically show you how these Republicans are thinking. The worst thing about Breitbart is they promote many borderline (or outright) fake news stories, and have no formal delineation between pure opinion pieces and reporting, and for that reason for the “unsophisticated” (read, almost all) of their readers it’s very easy to come away not knowing reality from fantasy if you read that page.
Well, they do sound reasonable.
Most articles about climate do accept the science, just a few I noticed that did go for the “Hoax” explanation.
I do disagree on several of the solutions, but noticing that they in general do acknowledge the problem does deserve a mention, so to my bookmark it goes.
You should listen to John Batchelor. He is on 4 hours every night on WABC in New York City.
The two sites I like are The American Conservative and The Unz Review. The Unz Review isn’t actually ‘conservative’ per se, their goal is to present ‘viewpoints that are excluded from the American mainstream’, so they include a mixture of Marxists on the left and folks on the hard right (largely of the ‘race realist’ persuasion). You can find arguments advocating the assassination of police officers next to other ones advocating hard right perspectives. Unz also has some writers like Anatoly Karlin who don’t fit into either category.
The American Conservative is more of a paleoconservative outfit, though they have some non-conservative writers too. (I was just looking at their election symposium, and their stable of writers ended up voting for a range of people including Trump, Clinton, Darrell Castle, Mike Maturen, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Susan Collins). Their ‘line’ to the extent they have one, is strongly conservative on immigration and sex and gender issues, isolationist on foreign policy, moderate on economics and climate change.
I comment regularly at Dreher’s blog over there and the best thing about it is the range of opinion among the commenters: one of the liberal commenters described it as the only place he knows of where everyone from Communists to white separatists congregates for civil discussion.
For the center of mass of conservative thought, go read the comments section of a breitbart article.
OK don’t do that, even if it’s true.
Try listening to Medved.
He’s the most reasonable conservative talk host I’ve come across.
http://www.michaelmedved.com
You can stream his show online each day or the previous day
Belay that, Michael Medved is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
In other words, an “Intelligent” Design guy, that is: creationism with just some line changes. And besides that he also denies climate science and relies on bigotry against homosexuals.
He sounds better nowadays because he was against Trump, the Republican backed government shutdown of 2013, and is not so hard on the Affordable Care Act as others are.