Yeah, Quillette is not 'right wing', as some of its critics assume, but rather it explores counter-PC views that are possibly taboo/controversial, some of which could be considered further 'right' on the spectrum than 'left'. Most of it could be described as classical liberalism.
Counter-PC is tautologically right-wing since PC is a term for stuff the right wing don't like.
You could describe all the lies Trump tells and his employees and supporters defend against all evidence and logic as "PC", but no one does. Instead he attacks Climate Change or Free Trade or Ozone Protection as PC hoaxes. And notably Quillete avoid Trump despite several of their big name contributors being scathing about him in other venues.
I did a search on climate change, which is a reasonable bellwether for this kind of thing. I didn't find outright denial (which I guess I should celebrate, just like I celebrate the incoming head of the House Committee on Science not being a denier, even though it's the lowest of bars to meet) but I did find a rambling blog-like article about expertise that suggests we should believe climate change experts but also not do anything they recommend because they're not policy experts. And we should also believe a politician that says coal is good for humanity and believe coal experts that coal is better than renewables.
It was all a bit wishy-washy but clearly wishy-washy nonsense from within their own social conservative tribe is fine, despite their attempt to paint themselves as unbiased iconoclasts of exactly that kind of thing.
I don't like how your reply is explicitly tribal. You seem to live in a world of us / them dichotomy in political matters. That, explicitly, is unhealthy.
Politics is increasingly being wired up to tribal, emotional cues, where the first thing people do when confronting a new piece of information is establish which tribe it belongs to, so they can read it with the right frame of mind - confirmation bias both ways.
Precise writing backed by facts and some research is in short supply because it isn't as sticky and engaging, it doesn't get the blood flowing, whether it's raging one way or another.
An article challenging left orthodoxies is far more valuable when written from a rational standpoint than from an explicitly right-wing standpoint.
