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.
The Trump camp continuously argues that the Trump candidacy is especially robust and viable and constantly cite the polls as evidence.
But when we look at the tabs of those exact same polls for the general election we do not see impressive numbers for Trump. There are 3 candidates showing victory margins greater than the margin of error: Cruz, Rubio, and Carson, but not Trump. In some cases, 7, 8 or 9% for the Cruz/Rubio/Carson trio. But nowhere do we see Trump winning by more than 3% and usually it's less, if winning at all.
So, my so far unanswered question is, "How is this especially or particularly 'robust?'"
Can anyone answer the question?
Thank you.
Sure seems that way. Here's a recent article by Coulter:
Good to hear!
The National Review could have put out a manefesto against communism, crony capitalism, globalism, the new world order or against the attack on the 2nd Amendment.
Oh no they put out one against Trump. Just think they are on the side of Karl a Rove, Bill Chrystal and Glenn Beck.
Both your morning piece and this piece — you should combine and post as a separate thread! There are so many facets to your comments about the bafflement of NR about the rise of Trump and the Party and conservative spokespubs having become a parody of themselves; it’s delicious. Please do post it and ping me.
They only think so. Without Trump in the race Cruz would have been marginalized and sent to the back of the pack by the GOPe pushing Bush at every turn. Cruz does not have gravitas to place in the field without the bulwark of Trump to light the way.
well said
Newt was my Congressman. We reelected the gutless wunderkind by a huge margin only to see him tuck his tail between his chubby legs and flee from a scandal of his own making. A Democrat would have weathered the storm and worn it like a campaign badge. He is just another craven ineffectual GOP elite pig.
Now, somebody ask me again what I think of Gingrich?
It may take some time, but thanks for the encouragement.
My essay was of course referring to his numbers within the current race, which is the primary, in which he is dominating. He has said quite a few times that he has barely even begun to "work" on Hillary or Bernie. You will see different numbers as the field starts to clear and the skirimishes between the top two start to cause the same sort of firestorms we've been seeing between him and all the other GOP candidates, who have been dropping out one by one.
Here we go: Trump 37, Hillary 36, Bloomberg 13 in new Morning Consult national poll
Trump Leads Cruz By 32 Points Nationwide In A New Zogby Poll
Trump Has More Support Among Hispanic Voters In Florida Than Bush & Rubio COMBINED
Trump Change: Trump Still Running Strong With Iowa Looming [Rasmussen]
I have a certain fondness for the Buckley style having read a number of books produced by the family. Reid Buckley's "Wresting Order out of Chaos" is a classic, the best short book on how to write ever produced. Some might argue for Stunk and White, but Reid will tell you why rules are fine, up to a point, but clarity and authenticity trump everything, except I will argue the inimitable Buckley wit. And as to that last you have a sharp eye.
+1
Perfect!
One would think a so-called conservative forum would be all-in for Cruz; so his showing here is remarkable and demonstrates that something entirely new is afoot.
The problem with people who are not as smart as others is that they are ill-equipped to recognize the additional IQ points in someone else, since if they could, they would be that smart themselves. So it's frustrating to hear the intellectual sneering from people who cannot see what is right in front of them. It's an unfamiliar type of candidate whose argot is from a different context, so their first response is to call him stupid because they can't understand someone whose intelligence and energies so far outstrip their own.
The smartest people I've ever known are those who have some idea how much they don't know. Those are the ones who don't denounce another's point of view, but rather ask for more information.
This is a long video, but I was so impressed with his depth of understanding in this testimony before the House of Representatives in 1991 to discuss the credit shortage then wrecking the housing market:
You write better than most of the stuff out there. Bravo. And, Go TRUMP!
Well said, couldn’t agree more.
Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality
Jebbie is anything but conservative. And he couldn't win if he were the candidate.
When Donald runs the table and wins by a landslide in November, increasing the margin of Pubbies in the House and Senate, doing that by bringing conservatives to Congress on his coattails, will this unholy gang of 22 go to Canada or somewhere?
National Review isn’t aimed at populists nor the Establishment. They upheld Buckley’s legacy; they have the same POV Brent Bozell III, nephew of WFB.
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.