National Review Squanders Its Legacy; Disdains Founder Bill Buckley’s Advice

vanity | January 22, 1916 | Albion Wilde

[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.

[Duchess47]

Very well said, thank you.

[Albion Wilde]

National Review started to really take a dive when it lost Mark Steyn!

And when it pushed out John Derbyshire over political correctness.

[dware]

Makes me wish I had a subscription to NR, just so I could cancel it! Establishment bootlickers, the lot of them!

[dware]

but at the GOP-e that is now supporting Trump

Ok, now I know YOU'RE high.

[itsahoot]

Cruz supporters are apoplectic because, but for Trump, Cruz would be number one.

Why would you assume that Trump Supporters would move to Cruz rather than Rubio?

[SMM48]

Thanks for the ping.

[Art in Idaho]

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.

I'm a big believer in reality. The reality is Trump is the only one who can defeat the Clinton Machine with all the trimmings of voter fraud, the various subgroups and all the usual Clinton shenanigans. Trump will respond to every attack, and with gusto!

Time to review again what Buckley said in the article:

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."

That does it for me. .

[Parley Baer]

I did and it was one of the clues something was amiss with this bunch.

[Nacho Bidnith]

Bravo! I wish you’d post this over at NRO in response to their hit piece article.

Here’s what I posted over there last night in response to the article in question.

I wouldn’t have come over here to NRO but this article was too much to pass up. While I’m here, and since there are articles all over the place about NR’s poor judgement with this ludicrous “special edition” I figured I’d add my $.02 and repost what I said about you clowns over on gateway pundit.

I used to read the NR online until it became so blatantly obvious that they despise Donald Trump, whom I intend to vote for. Because of that, about the only time I still visit that site is if there’s an article by VDH that I’m interested in. Other than that, I’ve pretty much stopped going there and I sure as hell won’t buy this “special edition” they’re putting out.

I no longer care about what Kristol, Krauthammer, Hayes, Barnes or any of the others over there have to say. In my view, their opinions are clouded by their love of the beltway, the cocktail parties and business as usual in the District of Criminals.

I don’t need or want to hear what they have to say because it’s become obvious to me, I’m not in their target audience.

[JAKraig]

This whole affair is rather sickening.

The worst president in the history of the country is ruling like a dictator, after Carter that is really saying something. The current president/dictator hates the country and is doing everything Cloward and Piven said to do to bring down the country to make it ready to be rebuilt as a socialist/communist society. GOP_e says Bush over Trump? Get real. Our Congress fails to represent us and does the bidding of the government contractors who pour their “winnings” back into the governing class to keep the teat full of milk and we worry about Trump.

I simply don't understand what is happening to conservatives. Cruz is the real deal, Trump is not Obama. Ok, I want Cruz, I'm not likely to get him but Trump or Cruz will easily beat Clinton or Sanders and probably even Biden.

The first rule is to win. If you don't do that you don't do anything. It would be nice to have a touchdown but even a 1st down would be nice right now. Trump would be a great first down and might get us to the goal line.

The once great country of The USA is being lost to immigration. There are only two candidates that would take us in the right direction, Cruz and Trump. Every other issue, as important as they all are, pale in comparison. We have to get this right. Conservatives, RINO's and people who call themselves independents need to pull this together to get us out of the event horizon we are quickly falling into.

As far as being dictator, there is nobody that will ever abuse the Constitution like Obama has, hopefully. I'm willing to take my chances with Trump if he is the nominee. In the general election if he is the nominee wild horses couldn't keep me from the polls.

[Nifster]

NR has been part of the establishment group from decades.

Truth is they want to implode Trump and then stomp out Cruz leaving their fave of the moment

[Responsibility2nd]

but at the GOP-e that is now supporting Trump

Ok, now I know YOU'RE high.

 

 

Really? You didn't know the GOP supports Trump? That they hate Cruz that much, they they will suppport Donald over Ted?

 

59 Million links.

 

 

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Buckley wrote a piece about Trump before he died.

On Donald Trump and Political Demagoguery --William F. Buckley, Jr., 2000

[freepersup]

You put perspective to the conservative's dilemma.

By the way, I am adamantly against abortions. 60,000,000 million abortions in just America alone. That being said, no one would ever force me to get an abortion, were I a woman, so I put the blame where it lies- in other words, these women willfully obtained their abortions. At a minimum, self inflicted wounds to their psyche. The soul of our nation is badly eroded and is spiritually under attack. As sad as it is to say, expecting such a compromised electorate to elect a pure orthodox conservative candidate is wishful thinking.

[Albion Wilde]

Ping!

This list provides two daily round-ups of Trump-related titles on FR,
to cut the clutter and simplify finding your area of interest.
If you are a Trump opponent, you won't be happy here.

To be added to or dropped from this ping list,
post your request on the thread below or freepmail to Albion Wilde.

* * *

Selected Trump articles on FR, with links, from 12:00 AM to 3:00 PM EST, 1/22/16:
Is the Spectre of Trump Haunting Davos? [Pat Buchanan]
Barbara Bush Praises Son in New Ad, Takes Shot at Trump (Mommy to the Rescue!)
Here we go: Trump 37, Hillary 36, Bloomberg 13 in new Morning Consult national poll
Trump vs Cruz... bridging the FR divide, while still standing up for your choice [FR vanity]
Why We Lose: National Review Launches Victorian-Era Attack On Donald Trump
The inside story of National Review's big anti-Donald Trump issue
National Review Squanders Its Legacy; Disdains Founder Bill Buckley's Advice
Updating the Persuasion Stack (National Review's Trump Cover)
Bush slams RNC decision to disinvite National Review from debate
Trump Hits Cruz: We Want To Make Deals, Not Sign Executive Orders
Ex-Carson staffer moves to Trump
Trump Leads Cruz By 32 Points Nationwide In A New Zogby Poll
List of Conservative Leaders Who Support Trump.
Why Donald Trump Could Be Subpoenaed to Testify in Bowe Bergdahl Trial
Charlie Hurt: Where Was National Review's Outrage Over Candidates Who Supported Amnesty, Bank
Trump: I Have a 'Really Good Chance of Winning New York'
Trump: "Let's get to be a little establishment. We've got to get things done folks, OK?"
Lewandowski: Anybody Who Doesn't Think People Will Turnout For Trump Missing What's Going On (video)
RCP: Cruz, Rubio Lead Hillary; Hillary Leads Trump [The Weakly Standard]
Clinton Emails So Sensitive, Senior Lawmakers Had to Up Their Security Clearances to View Them
Trump Has More Support Among Hispanic Voters In Florida Than Bush & Rubio COMBINED
Krauthammer: If Just One More Establishment Figure Endorses Trump It Could Make Him Inevitable... [RCP]
Trump Change: Trump Still Running Strong With Iowa Looming [Rasmussen]
Trump Releases Attack Ad Against Cruz on Immigration
GOP Establishment stuck on Stage 2 of Grief with Cruz, at Stage 5 with Trump
Looking for detailed information on how the Iowa GOP caucus works...
2016 Campaigns Turn Nasty [USNews&World Rpt]
Donald Trump is hypnotizing the GOP. Literally. [The Week]
Donald Trump Scores Big At Vegas Rally: 'It's a Phenomenon'
Watch: Megyn Kelly Convenes 'Conservatives Against Trump'
Secret Service Asks Uniformed Oklahoma Police Chief To Leave Trump Rally
Greenfield: Trolling is the New Politics ["Today the sincere troll is everywhere."]
Trump: "Clear Differences" 60 Second TV Ad
Heilemann, Wallace Rip National Review's 'Against Trump': Helps Trump, Stupid
Brandon Friedman: The deeper damage done by Sarah Palin
Trump Warns WaPo Reporter If They Run Story About Casino Bankruptcy, 'I'm Suing You'
GOP establishment warms to Trump -- and remains cool toward Cruz
Drudge Super Poll: Clinton huge loser; Cruz big loser, Sanders very big winner; Trump the winner
I am LIVID at the GOP [video]
Zogby National GOP Poll: Trump 45% Cruz 13% Rubio 8% [Three way, Trump 53% to Cruz 20%]
Freep a poll! (Why does Trump wish to increase the ethanol mandate?)
RNC cuts debate ties with conservative magazine over anti-Trump issue
There Are Three New Polls In Iowa. Who's Winning?
Trump and Sanders hold big leads in Iowa polls
Free Republic Caucus 2016 Open Discussion Thread III
Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson Endorses Donald Trump, 'A Real Leader'
Charles Hurt and Roger Stone Defend Trump from Republican Onslaught

[nikos1121]

Yes. I did! I also stopped reading Ann Coulter.

Newt was great. He had the guts to speak up.

[nikos1121]

Good job!!!

I could NOT understand this move on their part.

Glad to see Krauthammer didn’t engage with them.

I’d be just as angry if they did this to Cruz or the others.

Worthless rag.

But, guess what. You give Trump 5 more points thanks to them with the crossovers.

[nikos1121]

hahaha

[RKBA Democrat]

Good article. Ihsve one bone to pick, though, regarding William Buckley and his view that “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.”

We’ve elected all sorts of conservatives over the last 8 years. And for the most part what we’e gotten in return is cowardice, collusion, collaboration and capitulation. Collectively these “conservatives” haven’t delivered worth a damn. In my view it’s not the election of the most conservative candidate that matters so much as what they’re willing and able to do once elected. And in that case it isn’t necessarily the most conservative candidate that will deliver the best results.

I think a great example of this can be seen in the current presidential race. I’ve never argued that Donald Trump is the most conservative candidate running because he isn’t. Instead, I would argue that he is the candidate who is the most likely to implement a bigger part of the conservative agenda. Ted Cruz may be 95% conservative, but if he can only implement 5% of a conservative agenda, then that’s a relative loss compared to a 60% conservative Donald Trump who overachieves and gets 60% of a conservative agenda implemented. I’ll take a 60% win over a 5% win any day of the week.

[RKBA Democrat]

In about 10 days, remember my tagline.