The NYT has an article on whether National Review is collapsing. It does seem to have lost a lot of bright people (now apparently David Frum is leaving too). I used to read it in the university library ages ago and it seems more partisan and predictable now than it was before. Nonetheless take the article with a grain of salt as it is the NYT commenting on an ideological rival:

A frequent criticism is that the magazine has become a megaphone for Republican Party orthodoxy — and in these appraisals is a longing for the intellectual firepower of Mr. Buckley, and the surprise twists in his views.

The magazine was founded during the Eisenhower administration, a Republican one, of which it was often critical. Mr. Buckley was also a critic of the war on drugs and supported legalization; in 1969 he said it was time for America to elect a black president. Of course, this came after he opposed the civil rights movement; he later said his position was wrong.

Wick Allison, publisher of the magazine from 1990 to 1993, believes that over the last several years the magazine became “the intellectual defender of the Bush administration” and said it had “run out of ideas.”

Meanwhile Reason runs a little oral history of its own. The magazine began as a newsletter published by a bunch of objectivist-inspired libertarians, became a wider circulated ‘insider’ or movement journal and then under the stewardship of Virginia Postrel, gradually became more mainstream and broader in its focus. The oral history brings out some interesting disagreements between the original team (Machan and Klausner) and the new people in charge:

Machan: Essentially we embarked on a Commentary-like magazine that turned out to be more of a Wired-like magazine. I now call it the hip-hop magazine of libertarianism. It has an emphasis on a certain kind of light-hearted cleverness that didn’t use to be there. I admit it may very well have been market-driven. It’s one thing to say I am displeased, another to say it shouldn’t have gone that way.

Klausner: reason has evolved. It has gotten far greater stature and impact and quality. But what we have shed that makes me a little uneasy is that the magazine is less movement-oriented. We covered the Harry Browne [Libertarian Party presidential] candidacy [in 1996]. The nonlibertarian press covered Harry Browne with far more sympathetic and supportive journalism than we did. I think treating the L.P. as if it were any other party is not fair to this, not embryonic, but undercapitalized party. I think as an ideological magazine we should know who our friends are and who our enemies are and not use the same standard. We should be respectful of people on our side of the debate. We can accentuate the positive