Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush: Remember when National Review was the voice of conservatism?
Hotair ^ | 12/16/2011 | Ed Morrissey

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, it’s 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 today’s media:

“So I wasn’t going to really talk about it (the Op-Ed) because I’m not convinced that it (National Review) has that much impact. … They’ve got great people there; there’s some nice people. But it’s 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 NR’s 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 don’t see perfectly eye-to-eye with it myself. But that’s often the case with NR editorials. Indeed, it’s 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? It’s perfectly reasonable for some to think so. It’s certainly happened before. Indeed some of the criticisms strike me as entirely fair — why not just endorse Romney if it’s 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 don’t get it. We are, as always, an opinion magazine sharing our opinion. It is not binding.

More substantially, the notion that NR isn’t 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 Bozell’s 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: conservatism; limbaugh; nationalreview; rush; rushlimbaugh; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last

1 posted on 12/16/2011 9:21:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Once upon a time I loved this magazine. Twenty five years or so ago.


2 posted on 12/16/2011 9:25:58 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Remember when Rush was cutting edge and useful?


3 posted on 12/16/2011 9:29:23 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

RE: Remember when Rush was cutting edge and useful?

Has he stopped being both today? What are his current audience numbers?


4 posted on 12/16/2011 9:32:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


5 posted on 12/16/2011 9:34:38 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

I would say he’s more cutting edge and useful than you are.


6 posted on 12/16/2011 9:35:45 AM PST by beandog (Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

National Review is still a great magazine, however it isn’t the same as it was.


7 posted on 12/16/2011 9:37:30 AM PST by ExCTCitizen (If we stay home in November '12... Don't complain if 0 shreds the constitution!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Rush is definitely on the downside, he only gets about 22 million a week.
8 posted on 12/16/2011 9:37:30 AM PST by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


9 posted on 12/16/2011 9:38:07 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather ("Kick The Communists Out Of Your Govt. And Don't Accept Their Goodies"-Yuri Bezmenov-KGB Defector)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Has he stopped being both today?”

“What are his current audience numbers?”

What does this have to do with my point?


10 posted on 12/16/2011 9:39:02 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

11 posted on 12/16/2011 9:39:12 AM PST by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


12 posted on 12/16/2011 9:39:24 AM PST by 2007 Crusader (2007 Crusader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


13 posted on 12/16/2011 9:39:37 AM PST by 2007 Crusader (2007 Crusader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beandog

“I would say he’s 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.


14 posted on 12/16/2011 9:41:56 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Has he stopped being both today?”

Sorry, under this I meant to write yes, he has.


15 posted on 12/16/2011 9:44:00 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

RE: Sorry, under this I meant to write yes, he has.

Which leads to the next question — Can you cite evidence to show that?


16 posted on 12/16/2011 9:50:47 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2007 Crusader

“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.


17 posted on 12/16/2011 9:53:50 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

NR = Irrelevant.


18 posted on 12/16/2011 9:59:29 AM PST by Antoninus (Take the pledge: I will not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. EVER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


19 posted on 12/16/2011 10:00:23 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
"The only reason I read it anymore is for Mark Steyn."

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....

20 posted on 12/16/2011 10:02:15 AM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson