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.
It only stands to reason that a captialist who owns many copyrights, contracts, and extensive real property all over the U.S. and in other countries would necessarily have conservative views financially, economically and in terms of stable financial markets and consumer markets, as well as pro-American employment regulations. It isn't logical that a billionaire, much of whose wealth and that of his children is still invested in real property, would want to go communist or socialist once he were elected president.
The concerns about conservatism you may be indicating probably have more to do with social conservatism. In this area, Trump's past positions are mixed at best; but they are also those of a businessman who was operating out of a blue state in a very blue city and needed to get along. Now, since he is taking this stand, he can refine his conservative leanings that have been "in the closet" for years, but have peeked out in a number of ways, such as his testimony before Congress in 1991 about repairing the economy as regards housing for all levels including low-income housing, his having clinched the fight against the Ground Zero mosque proposal, his fight 10 years ago with the city of Palm Beach that tried to stop him from flying a large American flag, and many other hints from before he was any kind of politician.
His main attraction as a candidate for me is his financial and economic skill. If we do not get our huge U.S. debt, bad financial relationships with other nations and domestic economic woes related to immigration straightened out, we will not longer have a society for conservatives to conserve. I see him as a flawed human with the best set of skills for the severe crisis we are now facing, which is primarily out economic vulnerability and eroded national borders.
Very interesting! Especially since the hit piece by Dennis Prager in the NR Cavalcade of Hit Pieces issue was whining about Trump's bad language! LOL!
BTW, freepmail for you.
Cool graphic, PhilDragoo!
Thank you.
Will check my mail now.
XOXO
Thanks for the ping! Great line in that article: “Apparently the guys who endorsed Romney think they’re qualified to tell us who is and who isn’t conservative.”
( ( oh, my! ) )
thank you very much!
Wonderful quote! And when I taught a college course in communications, I loved the unit on how Benjamin Franklin -- a writer, printer, scholar, scientist, postmaster and diplomat -- changed the course of history with his all-fronts communications. He was the 18th century's "king of all media"!
I can't say that none of the contributors have done anything at all to stop the progressive agenda -- I have certainly thought highly of Sowell's body of work, for one, and Bozell's excellent quantitative tracking of media bias and testimonies before congress and at shareholders' meetings to try to turn back the tide of pornification of our children, and was greatly disappointed to see their names on the list.
But thinking of how a magazine is organized, most were not staff writers but a bunch of contributors from all across the country. They wrote what they wrote and emailed it and probably had little to do with brainstorming the format of the attack. The fault for that lies with the editor Rich Lowry, and I would guess his major staff associates Jonah Goldberg and certainly Brent Bozell, Buckley's nephew, whose piece truly saddened me to think he could stoop so low.
Yes, I've often heard that.
I very much appreciate your close reading and comments, sir!
I'm sorry you took that as a negative against Reagan, which it was not intended to be. I was writing from the perspective of the typiclal magazine reader of National Review, or the viewer of media reports of Reagan -- in other words, public perceptions, in which the two men might have appeared totally different. Here are some of the ways:
Buckley - east coastI could go on; but you get the picture of how their lives may have seemed in contrast in the public's eyes. This contrast is what made them unlikely partners; however, I have the greatest respect not only for Reagan's intellect, but also his, to my mind, superior communication skills between the two men for the purposes they set out to accomplish. Their teamwork created a great resurgence of respect for the lasting initiatives of our Founders, and formed a powerful coalition that has unfortunately been squandered by the Bush cartel.
Reagan - west coastBuckley - Catholic
Reagan - ProtestantBuckley - urbane, wealthy background
Reagan - small town working class originsBuckley - Ivy League
Reagan - small collegeBuckley - known early for intellectual prowess
Reagan - known early for Hollywood acting careerBuckley - Catholic
Reagan - ProtestantBuckley - theoretical views of communism
Reagan - actually fought against communist influence in actor's unionBuckley - limited audience of similar upscale people
Reagan - broader audience of a variety of people, most in the middleBuckley - portrayed by media as great intellectual, perhaps overestimated
Reagan - portrayed by media as stupid, lazy and senile; greatly underestimated
But I do not want him to manage my money.
And I do not want him to manage my country.
Four of his companies have filed for bankruptcy protection. In spite of being a billionaire, Trump has made no attempt to pay back the investors and vendors who lost money in those companies.
Trump has been sued at least three times for fraud, and he has been the subject of a criminal fraud investigation at least twice.
Between 2000-2012, he quit, joined, or re-joined three different political parties six times.
Sorry - I don't believe a word the man says.
Obamacare scrapped?
Illegals deported?
Wall built?
Anchor babies outlawed?
National debt reduced?
Abortion restricted?
China trade deficit reduced?
Food stamp growth curbed?
Welfare growth reduced?
Fraud in Medicare & Social Security under control? (25% of Medicare payments go to fraudulent claims, and there are tens of thousands of people over age 110 still getting social security checks automatically)
If Trump can deliver any 3 of above, he is more than enough conservative for most rational people.
Trump is conservative on these issues:
Pro life since at least 2011, wanted to ban partial birth abortion as far back as 2000.
Pro Traditional marriage. ^Gay rights is not my thing.^
Pro capital punishment ^Capital punishment isn't uncivilized; murderers living is^
Hold Judges accountable
Opposes ^Common core is a disaster^ Teach citizenship, quit ^dumbing down^.
Anti education unions (2000)
For school choice
^Climate Change is a hoax^
^No Cap-and-Tax^
For drilling our own.
On Environment ^Good development enhances the environment^
Stressed the importance of a strong family & culture of life (2015)
Supports Israel
Opposes Iran deal and letting Iran obtain the bomb.
Wants to crush ISIS quickly.
Wants a military so strong no one will challenge us.
Against unbalanced trade deals that kill American jobs.
Against warrant-less government surveillance of citizens.
Is against having a high national debt. Warns that $24T is a point of no return.
Against gun control
For assault weapon ban but says the AR-15 shouldn't be considered an assault weapon.
Wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with market driven polices and increased competition among insurance companies.
Wants to increase military spending.
Will close the border to illegals
Will send the criminals and sponges back.
Will deport all illegals but will let the hard working ones go through the legal process to come back.
Against Anchor babies
Knows unemployment is much higher than official stats.
Will bring jobs back through better trade negotiation.
Attended military academy and Wharton Business School.
Stood up for Birthers and challenged Obama on his fraud.
Believes USA is ^the greatest force for freedom the world has ever known^
Wants to honor commitments on Social Security and Medicare, which we can afford to do if he gets the economy going full steam.
Wants to reduce the fraud in disability and other programs.
Against marriage penalties in tax code.
Wants to simplify tax code with just 3 simple brackets.
Wants to reduce income taxes and reduce corporate tax.
Wants to rebuild our infrastructure.
Wants to apply welfare-to-work to 76 other welfare programs (2011)
Doesn't have time for political correctness.
Not afraid to call out either party or both when they are wrong.
Not a puppet of mega-rich campaign donors.
Go Trump 2016!
Please Ping me (from your Trump list) when you post such great vanity articles.
Have you figured out what is the real reason people like Medved have morbid hatred of Trump? He started anti-Trump campaign on radio almost on day 1 when trump announced he was running.
If somebody "on a news channel" said that, they were either a liar, a moron, or both. Probably both. [And also, probably, a Trumpbot.]
WFB himself described Reagan unswervingly as his best friend. NR not only endorsed Reagan for both runs in 1980 and 1984, they also endorsed Reagan in his challenge to the sitting Republican President Gerald Ford in 1976.
Poll FReep: If the election were held today, who would be your first choice for President of the United States?
I’ve always been an admirer of Silence Dogood...:-)
Interesting you would include him since Trump and supporters have become experts in "Borking" of their opponents.
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.