It looks as if National Review is really on a leftist roll!
First they endorse Romney, and then they roll out Radosh to slime McCarthy once again and excuse the Democrats who gave away China!
Sad.
National Review has not gone “leftist”, they have merely “matured” into “Country-Club” pragmatism. (Or maybe “lapsed” is a better word.)
By appearing to be conciliatory, and even going out on a limb, the National Review staff members are trying to win the love they have so obviously craved for about as long as the Reagan leadership of the party was relinquished in 1989.
The Bush Family is not, and never has been, “conservative” so much as they are “pragmatic”. While they have demonstrated some good canny understanding of the problems of statesmanship, both Bush 41 and Bush 43 have had some huge blind spots, especially when it comes to securing the benefits for American citizenship for those who are actually American citizens, and willing to exercise that franchise.
The National Review has adopted this same unilateral blindness, in their attempts to cover over the very real basic differences between the true conservative, and the pragmatism that has been the trademark of both the Bush Presidencies.
Which tends to make the Mitt Romney candidacy especially appealing to NR.
I can see why. There is a personal aspect to it. She has been smeared by NR in the past, both as an alleged bigot and as a supposed Bircher - including by Buckley on the specific subject of McCarthy. And she was and is simply right on the subject, and those were all smears. Going right back to the rift between Ike and McCarthy in the 50s really.
Have you read the Radosh review? It wasn’t an “attack” on Evans, much less slanderous. It’s a mixed review, agreeing with and praising some aspects of Evans’ book but taking issue with him on a few key points.
Nor does one have to be a leftist to have qualms about McCarthy. Whittaker Chambers didn’t care for him either.