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.

[Pelham]

“So he just writes the papers on morality but doesn’t think he has to live it? “

I wouldn’t say that. I would say that there’s plenty of liberalism’s pet themes involved in his version of morality. There’s enough of what most conservatives believe to have them thinking that Dennis agrees with them but long time Dennis listeners will have heard plenty that annoys them. Not nearly as bad as the fraudulent Medved however.

[zeestephen]

As I recall, William F. Buckley's “guiding principle” inspired him to denounce the Right wing John Birch Society in the early days of National Review.

NR’s recent attack on Trump is based on the fact that there is very little evidence that Trump was a Conservative on any major issue before 2015.

That said, I certainly agree that Rich Lowry has turned National Review into a politically useless centrist publication.

[PhilDragoo]

I went to New York with Dick Allen's YAF group to draft Barry Goldwater.

I had the pleasure of watching M. Stanton Evans destroy Dr. Robert Risk head of Indiana Civil Liberties Union in debate, and to, with my fellow loud-and-proud YAFers engage Risk's bearded Marxist hangers-on.

Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" was a passionate call to arms on behalf of an unabashed patriot for whom extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.

Now come the creased-slack Lowrys and their brand of political correctness insisting upon moderation in the defense of freedom.

It's war. The enemy is far beyond "at the gates"--the enemy is in the Oval Office.

Magazines are muzzleloaders and "conservative thinkers" can't remember "the most electable conservative"--

Is Cruz electable?

Hillary as president is the end of the Republic.

A general who fights, not a National Review of McClellans.

Damn it, show some spine, you not-even-ink-stained wretches.

Trump is firing salvos of grapeshot into the media and the Medusa who menaces us all.

Are you incabable of doing anything but carp?

[higgmeister]

LOf course, I didn’t know him personally, but you’re right. Republicans cave. Great speaker, great thinker. He sure seems to like Cruz and Trump. I wish there’s a place for him in the next administration. I mean seriously, how about over seeing NASA.

He was once a hero. I went to his rallies, put out yard signs, donated money and read his books. When his Big Red Bus rally stopped at Williamson Brothers Bar-B-Q, I stood at the back of the crowd and was lucky enough to have a friendly conversation with his ex-wife, Marianne, and the CNN Reporter Bob Franken. We mostly spoke of the idea for the last book Newt had written at the time.

It's funny, I made some comments of the lies and distortions of the Media, in the sense that a book can provide corrections and straighten out distortions. After the rally ended, while I was talking with some neighbors, Bob Franken walked by, turned to look at me and said, "I am the media too you know", I snapped right back that I knew that, and CNN Bob walked off in a snit.

As far as Newt Gingrich being a part of a new administration, I think not. I would rather he stay in the private sector and contemplate what might have been like the rest of us.

[onyx]

Excellent, Albion Wilde, absolutely excellent!

Lowry's been pouting and fuming since Roger Ailes smacked him for using foul language in an attack on GOP frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump way back in September of 2015 on Megyn Kelly's Cable TV show.

Bitter Truce:

Fox News' Ailes "Furious" at National Review's Rich Lowry for Forcing Fox to Cede "Moral High Ground" to Donald Trump


I have no doubt that Lowry's Gang of 22 was payback for the humiliation served by Ailes, suffered by Lowry, along with Lowry's personal dislike of Mr. Trump, coupled with envy, and of course, the fact that Donald Trump was never likely to give Lowry and NRO the time of day.

Lowry, at age 47, has always been in over his head, as the editor of National Review. He's smug and not personable. Perhaps this hit piece edition on Trump, (dare I say #45?) will lead to Lowry's demise.

[onyx]

BTTT

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

WOW!
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/01/top-conservative-magazine-attacks-trump-backfires-big-time/

[Madame Dufarge]

What a magnificent piece you’ve written.

[Madame Dufarge]

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 its complexities?

If I may, here's an excerpt from Origins of the American Revolution by John C. Miller which I believe parallels your observations:

"The American Revolution was one of the first great popular movements in which the newspapers played a vital part: 'The PRESS hath never done greater Service since its first Invention,' exclaimed an American patriot, as he surveyed the wonders wrought by propaganda. The newspapers kept the people in alarm for their liberties and made the controversy between mother country and colonies a great popular crusade in which every American could take part. The Tories groaned that by dint of reading newspapers, even 'the peasants and their housewives in every part of the land were able to dispute on politics and positively to determine upon our liberties."

[MayflowerMadam]

Yesterday someone on a news channel said that National Review treated Reagan similarly during his campaign.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

First, many, if not most, of the contributors to this screed are not major conservative intellectuals.

Second, have any of the contributors actually produced any advances toward conservative goals? No, these people have accomplished essentially nothing to stop the advance of the progressive agenda. The GOP establishment is composed primarily of liars and crooks, and these contributors have done nothing to change that. That’s why so many people are willing to take a chance on Trump. These contributors offer no effective alternative.

Finally, the very fact that the contributors thought that their screed would be effective in stopping Trump demonstrates that their opinions have little merit. I suspect that the idea to publish such a screed was pushed by the neocons among the contributors.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

Have not read all or any of the articles on this yet. I have until recently subscribed to NR. I just choose not to renew lately. Recently they would trash Sarah Palin on some things so that made me wonder about them. I believe NR was once referred to s the conservatives Bible (may be wrong about that but I thought I heard that once). I remember back in the 80’s I would bring in NR to work and this liberal co-worker of mine humorously said that just the titles of the articles scared him. So one could tell NR was not what it used to be.

[Albion Wilde]

If you looked at the Drudge Poll. The bottom two were Jeb and Hillary. That's a 100% rejection of the Establishment top 2 Primary candidates.

Numbers don't lie!

[Albion Wilde]

Comrade Michael Medved tipped the GOPe hand today when he revealed that one of their big hopes is to make sure that Trump can’t win the nomination on the first ballot.

So disappointed in Medved, Bozell and Sowell. The rest were already beyond repair.

This election is going to change so many relationships. It's a civil war. Thank goodness many of the battle fronts are in cyberspace.

[marktwain]

Well written. I especially liked:

“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.”

Thank you for the article. It is a very well done vanity, deserving of publication. It bears repeating and should be spread about.

[RKBA Democrat]

That’s them.

[Redbob]

"Yet Buckley, along with the unlikely intellectual partner Ronald Reagan..."

WTF?

So YOU'RE an "intellectual but Reagan wasn't???

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[Pelham]

well said

[Albion Wilde]

Thanks for the link. They are just too good and too smart for the rest of us unwashed voters, are they not? The Tea Party article really stank on ice.