Posted on 01/22/2016 10:38:17 AM PST by Albion Wilde
Today, The National Review magazine, for decades the must-read monthly of the conservative movement, has published a yellow journal worthy of the best discourse Facebook has to offer. This formerly revered publication, founded and edited by William F. Buckley, Jr, was the premier resource for conservative commentary from 1955 until the illness and retirement of its renowned leader in the mid-2000s.
The New York polite society of pious, trust-fund Ivy Leaguers who formed the backbone of the founding editorial staff had given National Review an air of the lamp-lit gentlemen's club: leather wing chairs, green velvet wall coverings, cigars and brandy in front of the fireplace tended by a person of color, harumphed opinions about "the liberals" -- informed by the pages of The National Review. NR's brand of conservatism was infused with an air of social (and therefore moral) superiority. Yet Buckley, along with the unlikely intellectual partner Ronald Reagan, would provide the intellectual correctives to a post-WWII nation infatuated first with liberalism, then radical Marxist progressivism. Under Buckley's editorial narratives, conservatism became a movement.
Writers such as Ludwig von Mises, Whittaker Chambers, Russell Kirk and Auberon Waugh once graced NR's pages, followed by the likes of Robert Bork, Francis Fukuyama, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Tom Wolfe, John Derbyshire and other crafters of deeply informed opinion. NR and NROnline today, led by Rich Lowry, are struggling to survive in the era of New Media. NR thought its best strategy during the 2007 McCain/Obama contest was to run cover after cover depicting -- who? -- Barack Obama, while the articles inside timidly criticized his candidacy. Any streetcorner vendor can tell you, as he watches an increasingly attention-starved work force stream by his magazine stand morning and evening, what catches the eye is now the message; those pesky little words, not so much.
Few of today's regular contributors except perhaps for Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson have garnered name recognition solely on their strengths as writers in the New Media conservative audience, who are experiencing the steady erosion of all that America once promised to those who would work hard and seize opportunities to advance. As the ground beneath them is eroded by the hardened generation of anti-authoritarian narcissists produced by the demise of the traditions, demographics and conservatism that Buckley's editorial heirs have failed to stand athwart, National Review's lead editorial staff have turned to face their own small tent -- and pee'd inside.
The current issue has killed trees and sucked bandwidth not to encourage a new generation to the benefits of conservatism, not to debate the issues as issues, not to promote the best their favored candidates have to offer, but rather to tear down the personality and aspirations of the undisputed leader in the polls of the disenfranchised American middle class, the ones who are flocking by the tens of thousands per event to hear him speak. The aggregate number of Donald Trump campaign rally attendees has, over a six-month span, long passed the million mark. His tweets and Facebook hits stagger the Internet. He has accomplished the "big tent" of fanpersons from all walks of life that the ailing Republican Party has long dreamed about; yet the Party and the National Review despise him for it.
NR and NRO have this week tarnished their brand with 22 mean screeds against The Donald, making it personal. They aim to shame their readers: Trump isn't good enough, smart enough or, doggone it, likeable enough, according to their antique, hypocritical standard of repressed emotions and unspoken agendas, such as projecting onto the guy who has lived the American Dream the blame for the impending death of their genteely elite vision of America -- the elites whose religion was slipping from dominance as early as the 50s and needed to be robustly defended by intellectual Constitutionalism; the elites who spoke of equality under the law but lived in unequal up East enclaves.
To be fair, this smarmy issue of their once respected magazine might cost Trump a few hundred votes.
William Buckley, speaking in 1967 of The National Review's policy towards elections, said, "Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate...The wisest choice would be the one who would win... the most right, viable candidate who could win."
With the margin so razor-thin and the stakes so catastrophic against the Democrat Party's entrenched big tent of anti-Constitution, anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-sovereignty and pro-repressive movements dominating a dumbed-down, entertainment-addicted, financially gutted electorate, any challenger under the Republican banner deserves a fair review, but is too valuable to slime, even if his politics are only just conservative enough to place-hold while he saves this nation from ruin.
NR could have found what's to love in every Republican candidate whom The People say could win, and showcased their best ties to conservatism. Yet in the face of Trump's overwhelming viability -- his robust poll numbers, demonstrable energy for the tasks ahead, financial independence, courageous dismissal of political correctness, incisive diagnosis of the problems facing us, long experience as a dealmaker in the realms of power and industry -- and believing that they still have time to reject the half-a-loaf that's better than none -- Buckley's heirs have just published the sound of entitled heads exploding.
Ping thanks.
We’ve got their number and it be 22.
We’ve got Trump’s Back He is US He wins, WE WIN
Stump for Trump or be stuck in the muck of DC
Make America Great for ALL GREAT AMERICANS
I have no doubt that Buckley would have backed Cruz, and certainly on an equal footing with him regarding discussion of the issues.
BUT, since his death the country has gone to hell. And I think he would be for:
Supporting the MOST conservative candidate that could get elected.
We have what, 15 candidates, all profess to be conservative to varying degrees. Let’s not argue that. Who is the MOST electable?
TRUMP by far, or at least it’s looking that way.
So, these amateurs go after him BEFORE any elections.
I don’t think Buckley Jr. would have been impressed with Trump either. Just saying.
Albion, this is not vanity. This should be posted as a Freeper editorial.
Another example of why Free Republic Commentary of The Day should be a sub website, devoted to getting written pieces such as this out into the public.
We daily link to website articles far inferior to this, and it’s a shame. We have such fine minds and talent here!
Excellent work!
It will. They’re trolling for readers at this point. Kind of like the NY Daily News.
I look forward to reading in the next year or so that NR was sold for $1 at a bankruptcy auction.
Jonah Goldberg’s great achievement will be being known as the man most responsible for driving NR into the mud.
Buckley would have at the very least had a round table interview of the man, or one on one.
Gingrich’s erratic and ill-considered conduct as Speaker was all too well known to his colleagues, leading many to grit their teeth at his popularity among rank and file conservatives around the country. Gingrich’s talent for attack and improvisation was well deployed in the effort to gain a GOP House, but he proved to lack the administrative ability, regular work habits, and calm nerves needed to be an effective Speaker.
Cruz would be losing regardless. He has the likeability of Nixon, the electability of Goldwater, and the competence of Ford.
Awesome and well written.
This sums up the Cruz supporters:
needed to be robustly defended by intellectual Constitutionalism
There's a time for heady debates about the Constitution. A Presidential campaign isn't one. Not bashing Cruz, I love the guy, but he won't win.
I was thinking the same thing. The dustup over Darbyshire showed NRs mettle. And it was found completely lacking.
NR got it exactly right.
“Why would you assume that Trump Supporters would move to Cruz rather than Rubio?”
I wouldn’t, and I think a lot of Trumpsters wouldn’t. We like winning and seeing our agenda implemented. Losing is overrated.
And let’s face it: Accusation nights at the People’s Temple of Conservative Purity don’t look to be all that fun.
bookmark
I agree. Some FReepers are better writers than anyone amonst the more mainstream conservative media.
Well done!
BTTT
Glad to meet you.
2009 Obama version 1.0
2010 Obama version 1.1
2011 Obama version 1.2
2012 Obama version 1.3
2013 Obama version 1.4
2014 Obama version 1.5
2015 Obama version 1.6
2016 Obama version 1.7
They may believe so, but I believe that if not for Trump, JEB would be in first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.