Posted on 12/16/2011 9:21:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
CNS News catches Rush Limbaugh in a reflective mood yesterday after National Review’s anyone-but-Newt-or-Perry editorial earlier this week. Instead of railing about the attack on two of the Republican candidates in the field, Rush muses on how little influence NR has these days, and how it’s much more the voice of Beltway Republicanism than actual conservatism these days, and questioned whether it has any real impact at all anymore:
National Review used to, indisputably, it was the voice of conservatism. There was no question. Now, its not so much that, as it is the voice of Republicanism, which could also be said to be the inside the beltway or Washington-New York conservatism. …
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR VIDEO
Limbaugh began the segment by debating whether or not he should be discussing the op-ed because of his uncertainty as to the influence of National Review in todays media:
So I wasnt going to really talk about it (the Op-Ed) because Im not convinced that it (National Review) has that much impact. … Theyve got great people there; theres some nice people. But its changed a bit from what it was.
Actually, I think it was more the voice of conservative fusion than the voice of conservatism. Buckley’s brilliance didn’t just manifest itself in a certain brand of conservatism, but uniting all of the brands into one movement, and putting NR at the front of that movement. The movement and the instruments for communicating it have changed in the decades that have gone by since Buckley’s fusion, and Limbaugh himself is one of the best assets to arise from the evolution of both. However, I think NR still has a leadership position in that fusion, and it still has a great deal of impact among conservatives of many stripes — even when the editors get something wrong, as I also think they did in that editorial.
Jonah Goldberg addresses the anger among conservatives in a piece at The Corner today:
I recognize that feelings are running hot about NRs editorial. I have no desire to lend support to some of the overheated charges being hurled at NR including from some of our longtime friends. So I will simply say that I dont see perfectly eye-to-eye with it myself. But thats often the case with NR editorials. Indeed, its the nature of editorials. Perhaps because I know and respect my colleagues, I see no need to attack their motives nor would it occur to me to question their commitment to conservative principles. Did we get this one wrong? Its perfectly reasonable for some to think so. Its certainly happened before. Indeed some of the criticisms strike me as entirely fair why not just endorse Romney if its a two man race? Why even consider Huntsman? etc and there are fair rebuttals to them as well. I will let the editorial speak for itself in that regard.
Now on to some of the unfair, hyperbolic and just plain weird charges.
First of all, what is with this complaint that we are trying to dictate who people vote for? I dont get it. We are, as always, an opinion magazine sharing our opinion. It is not binding.
More substantially, the notion that NR isnt a conservative magazine anymore (a charge our friend Rush Limbaugh seems to be flirting with these days) or that William F. Buckley would be appalled (in Brent Bozells words) is just so much nonsense. Under William F. Buckley National Review made many questionable endorsements a point he would happily concede. NR endorsed no one in 1960 neither Nixon nor Goldwater. There were heated arguments on every side of that decision. In 1968 the magazine endorsed a much more liberal Nixon (to the considerable dismay of Bill Rusher). In 1971, National Review suspended support for Richard Nixon. In 1972 we endorsed the great John Ashbrook for president. In 1973 we essentially endorsed Spiro Agnew for president, even as George Will was savaging him in the same magazine, indeed, the same issue (largely prompting Stan Evans to quit the magazine, I believe). In 1980, WFB kept the magazine from endorsing Reagan (Bill loved the Gipper but had grave concerns about his age). We endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008, for many of the same reasons some of our biggest detractors today did to stop John McCain.
The Corner has actually had a robust debate over the editorial all week, which lends some support that NR still represents a focal point for conservative dialogue. If they’ve gotten a few things wrong over the years (and I’d count this editorial among those), it still has a great record of getting things right — and providing a platform for the great, sweeping, and diverse community of conservatives. There is a lot of value in that still, even if it may be hard to discern at times during presidential primaries.
Once upon a time I loved this magazine. Twenty five years or so ago.
Remember when Rush was cutting edge and useful?
RE: Remember when Rush was cutting edge and useful?
Has he stopped being both today? What are his current audience numbers?
The beginning of the end for me was when Buckley called for legalizing pot. The only reason I read it anymore is for Mark Steyn.
I would say he’s more cutting edge and useful than you are.
National Review is still a great magazine, however it isn’t the same as it was.
I am learning more and more every day about who not to trust in the midst of this propaganda deluge taking place. I hope it is worth them losing all credibility as they are counting on being able to influence us to vote for Romney or Ron Paul and that is enough to open my eyes.
“Has he stopped being both today?”
“What are his current audience numbers?”
What does this have to do with my point?
They are not able to see that Newt is the only candidate that is will to bring about real change in Washington. His idea about radically changing the tenure of judges is an historic and timely concept. Other candidates nit pick the idea but adhere to the business as usual approach. With Newt we will see real change. With Mitt et al, it will be tweeks around the edges but nothing really new.
They are not able to see that Newt is the only candidate that is will to bring about real change in Washington. His idea about radically changing the tenure of judges is an historic and timely concept. Other candidates nit pick the idea but adhere to the business as usual approach. With Newt we will see real change. With Mitt et al, it will be tweeks around the edges but nothing really new.
“I would say hes more cutting edge and useful than you are.”
Maybe, but then again no one’s wasting time publishing articles about my backbiting with something just as creeky and old hat as myself.
Has he stopped being both today?
Sorry, under this I meant to write yes, he has.
RE: Sorry, under this I meant to write yes, he has.
Which leads to the next question — Can you cite evidence to show that?
“They are not able to see that Newt is the only candidate that is will to bring about real change in Washington”
I personally think Newt, along with Romney, is least likely to change anything. But more to the point, you are not able to see that their point is Newt can’t win, which makes your point moot.
NR = Irrelevant.
National review used to be a cutting edge conservative publication. They were not followers of the Rinos who ran the GOP; they were pushing for ideas for reform and change for small government and freedom. They published important information cut out of the main stream media and supressed in liberal political discourse. They were politically incorrect.
I think they have grown fat and lazy like a lot of conservative elitists. They are followers, not leaders. They are lazy in wielding Western ethics and tradition against liberals having become more humanistic with the rise of amoral libertarianism among the once conservative elite. At one time the National Review could be counted on for cutting edge critical analysis of liberalism’s social engineering, for example. Equipped with information and data provided by NR, conservatives were successful at winning over political and social arguments with liberals.
The conservative movement is adrift because of the loss of such educated, independent conservative thinkers as used to populate the National Review.
What about James Lileks and Rob Long?
They have a few other deliciously ironic writers, too - so now I guess I'm reading National Review instead of National Lampoon....
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.