For the Prospect, the hiring of Meyerson and the shift from Boston to Washington is more of an evolution than a revolution. Started as a dense, policy-driven quarterly — E.J. Dionne compares its original incarnation to a liberal version of the neoconservative Public Interest — the magazine switched to bimonthly publication in 1996.

The current version of the Prospect was born in October 1999 when, fueled by a five-year, $11.5 million grant from the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, which is headed by Bill Moyers, the magazine switched to biweekly publication, unveiled a slick, full-color redesign, and added arts-and-culture pages and columnists such as civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer. “It’s getting spiffier,” says Kuttner of its growth over the last year and a half. “It’s looking like more of a magazine and less like a monthly or quarterly.”

But spiffier though it may be, it can sometimes be difficult to find much in the way of sprightly writing between its covers. Certainly the wonkish predilections of its co-founders remain an impediment. Take, for instance, a long piece by Reich in the February 12 issue on “The New Economy as a Decent Society,” a virtual rewriting of the tax code with prose every bit as exciting as an IRS manual. “Now — especially now, at the start of a regressive administration in Washington and an economic slowdown — it is time for a larger discussion about what combination of ...” Oh, never mind. You get the idea.

Not to be overly flip. This is important stuff, and liberal officeholders and their advisers should be reading it and thinking about it. Such fare does not, however, offer much in the way of broad appeal.

To be fair, the magazine publishes more accessible pieces as well. Jason Vest has written intelligently about foreign policy. Adam Shatz, in the March 12 issue, weighed in with a delightfully mean-spirited profile of Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom, the former leftists who are now outspoken critics of affirmative action. Harvard Law School professor Randall Kennedy wrote an influential essay in the January 1 issue arguing that Senate Democrats should grill George W. Bush’s judicial nominees as to where they stand on the Supreme Court’s legally dubious resolution of the Florida fiasco.

The question is whether the Prospect can win friends and influence a larger public while tending to its policy-oriented roots.

THE ANSWER to that question, in part, lies in a more mundane but crucial matter: who’s going to be calling the shots? By some accounts, it was Bill Moyers who was the driving force behind the shift to Washington and the hiring of an experienced, outside editor such as Meyerson. (Moyers could not be reached for comment.) Bob Kuttner essentially confirms the story, but says it’s something he wanted, too.

Several sources, speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, say they hope Meyerson’s most important contribution will be to establish a clear voice for the magazine, and to rise above what they describe as the ideological squabbling between Kuttner, an old-fashioned liberal, and Paul Starr, a more centrist Democrat who worked with the Clinton administration on its failed health-care initiative. (Starr, who calls himself a liberal and Kuttner a social democrat, nevertheless says their differences are insignificant. Kuttner describes their political relationship as “friendly and respectful,” and notes that they share a house on Cape Cod.) At 51, Meyerson — unlike the magazine’s previous executive editors, Scott Stossel and Jonathan Cohn (now a senior editor of the New Republic), both of whom were in their 20s when they were hired — is more or less a generational peer of Kuttner and Starr, which some hope will give the new editor more clout.

Then, too, Kuttner is said by several critics to be a prickly editor who looks disdainfully on articles that don’t jibe with his point of view. “With Bob there’s little gray area as to who the good guys are and who the bad guys are,” says one. Comments another: “I think the biggest problem with the magazine is Bob. I think he’s more of a party man than a journalist.”

Kuttner doesn’t deny that he can be difficult at times, but says, “As organizations go, I think morale is pretty good.” He adds, slyly, “I think people who find me a harsh taskmaster occasionally will find Harold to be a real sweetie.”

Besides, it’s hard to argue with the Prospect’s success. Over the past year, Kuttner says, circulation has risen from 22,000 to 42,000. It should be at 50,000 by the end of 2001, putting it on track to reach its goal of 90,000 to 100,000 — the same territory as the Nation and the New Republic — by 2004, the final year of the Schumann grant. It’s got a lively, frequently updated Web site (www.prospect.org). Kuttner even hopes at some point to shift to weekly publication.

With Bush in the White House and the Democratic Party bereft of leadership, Kuttner says, there’s “a vacuum where magazines and intellectuals can play a slightly larger role than usual.” He adds, “We want to be part of the argument.”

Dan Kennedy can be reached at dkennedy[a]phx.com.