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.
Thanks for the wonderful post-——and writing.
.
Thanks for the ping!
Nat Rev is afraid of becoming “Irrelephant”.
Thanks for the ping.
“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.”
One reason I dropped my subscription was that I got extremely tired of the Obama covers.
Trump is the most conservative VIABLE candidate we have. Nit perfectly conservative but conservative enough on the biggest issues. Abortion, eminent domain, and ethanol are deck chairs on the titanic right now.
Bill Buckley had dignity - these lowlife’s riding his coat tails have ‘attitude’. Which is not the same... Buckley’s spinning in his grave.
This is a great commentary. Thank you! I think that the National Review’s actions point up the crux of the problem. The want, wishes, opinions and will of the real American people, the ordinary, working class, law abiding citizen, the kind that is flocking by the thousands to hear plain spoken Trump; are being dismissed and belittled by the “political intellectuals” who think that their purpose is to tell us what to think. After all, what would common folk know about government and it’s complexities?
The National Review’s actions have offended me highly because they have, as you have said, needlessly attacked my choice of Trump for the nomination as emotionally and mindlessly made, the same kind of pompous derision I’ve received from a few on here.
Donald Trump has already performed things that will garner my respect from now on. He has ripped back a many a curtain and exposed ugliness that was hidden. This is just another case in point.
We’re not.
LOL - Bingo....
Thanks for the ping. Great article.
There are two parts of the Uniparty: Wolves (Democrats) and Wolves in Sheep’s clothing (GOPe).
They are both wolves, and they have both been feeding off of us for years.
National Review is one of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The nice thing about all this is the wolves hiding inside their sheepskin have been forced to show their true colors.
National Review started to really take a dive when it lost Mark Steyn!
Maybe he is feeling his inner girl?
Professional conservatives are for the birds.
Well, if one is want to squander, legacy would certainly be the chosen item to toss. Not nearly as easy to earn as $$ but few actually see little difference. Legacy is determined by character, principals, values, and accomplishments. How long would it take to replenish those as opposed to the monetary? Must have had a handshake with that common core propaganda. They have lost so much - their firm foundation is now shaky at best. As that of so many other, they go to way of the do-do bird.
Have you seen him?
Maybe somebody in the Fox makeup stable is pranking him, but he looks positively ghostly the last few nights.
22 posts or 222 posts won’t make any difference. Cruz supporters are apoplectic because, but for Trump, Cruz would be number one.
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.