You have to understand - with a few exceptions like Victor Davis Hanson, the National Review crowd feels much better being in the minority with no real power. That way, they can stand as the loud, although utterly ineffectual voice of conservative opposition and obtain major contributions from conservatives upset about the direction of the country. They are also quite literate, so it is easier for them to wrangle an nvitation to a Manhattan/DC/Beverly Hills fancypants dinner as the token conservative whom they can say they like and are balanced in their invites since they don’t accomplish anything, policy-wise. It also helps them to get on the tube as the token “conservatives” - if you look at the mainstream “news” coverage of Election Night 2016, none of the “conservatives” were Trump supporters, if anything, those identified as “conservatives” were much more vitriolic in their comments on Trump; hence, David Frum at CBC, the Republican “consultants” like Mark Murphy, Nicole Wallace, Rick Wilson, Stuart Stevens from the Romney campaign, Irving Kristol’s son, George Will, etc.
Exactly. That's why I call them "loservatives"...
There was a time when National Review featured writers who really were accomplished and literate. Writing for NR was just a sideline for them. None of them were “celebrity conservatives” except for WFB himself.
But for me that ended about the time that Reagan left office. The great writers whom I once enjoyed were either dying off or moving on from NR. It became a mouthpiece for Bush Republicans and other worthless establishment shills. Chronicles was where I found something worth reading.