Redstate

What role, the venerable National Review magazine in 21st century conservatism?

By Mark Kilmer Posted in Archived | National Review | Reagan | Romney — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In raising the $300,000 necessary to start National Review magazine in the mid-1950's, William F. Buckley promised prospective investors that his new magazine would "recommend policies for the simple reason that we consider them right (rather than 'non-controversial'); and we consider them right because they are based on principles we deem right (rather than on popularity polls)." This was gripping stuff, staring at the Soviets as the Cold War breathed its icy breath across oceans. It was, as Buckley would write in NR's founding statement, standing "athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness of the practicing Communist, with his inside track to History. All this would not appear to augur well for NATIONAL REVIEW. Yet we start with a considerable — and considered — optimism.

Of course, those words were first published on November 19, 1955. 'T was a different world then, and I dare say, a different magazine.

Please Read More…

Remember Ronald Reagan? Yup. 'T was National Review who championed the man, who helped to create an intellectual environment in which a Hollywood actor could be transformed into a conservative intellect who could not only stand athwart history, yelling stop, but also gain the political power necessary to make it so. Despite our kids' Che t-shirts, communism is no longer fashionable. Revolutions not understood always will be hip to the kiddies, but hopefully never brutality and oppression.

When I was in school in the '80s, up at Penn State, I would walk into Grahams at the Corner of College and Allen every other week to purchase a copy of WFB's magazine. I later subscribed. You know, it's not the same magazine, and Grahams has moved up S. Allen Street and become a Ben & Jerry's.

Did you know that in 1991, NR toyed with their own pre-internet online service? It started as a text-based service where, for a subscription and for additional-minute fees, one could dial a local number, read articles, post articles, and chat every night with fellow conservatives. My little-known claim to fame, I suppose, is that I used to hang out in chat with Kate O'Beirne and others a few nights a week. (Kate was an assistant to then-NR Editor Ed Capano. I think she said she was a pay grade below Jack Fowler, who before becoming Capano's assistant, had been an assistant to Bill McGurn in NR's DC bureau.)

The NR online service was called Town Hall. It's not what we now know as the dot-com.

But I started to see NR drift. Don't get me wrong, I adore the insight of folks like Byron York, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Victor David Hanson, but it's not the magazine I used to buy – oh, I'm old enough to say it – "in the day."

It now is that magazine which endorsed Mitt Romney.

'T is said that one teaspoon of a neutron star would weigh about two billion tons on Planet Earth. It's packed that densely with matter, and I'll venture something similar for Bill Buckley's prose in the old National Review. It was the stuff of intellectual revolution.

Then what, I'd ask, is this?

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

Oh, put the scales away. Standing athwart the cooling latte and endorsing the guy with the best hair might just be what is to be 21st century conservatism. I'm still holding out hope that conservatives can push a candidate with a proven record of cutting taxes, stopping the insanity of abortion, reducing the size and power of government, and defending our country's interests. Romney, a moderate governor from Massachusetts, came to conservatism seemingly as the most open route to be elected President. Time will tell if he means what he asserts, but we have to wait for time to do the talking.

Of course, there's always this argument:

The frequent criticism during the campaign was that there was something a little too perfect about Mitt Romney. Something had to be fake. Sure, there were the policy evolutions/conversions. Maybe you bought some, or even all, as legit (I did). But then there was still too much to take beyond that, wasn’t there? The looks. The hair. And then the family. He adores his wife as she does him. Who has it that good?

His sons, his daughters-in-law, and even some of his grandchildren were all a part of the campaign — and not in a mere photo-oppy kind of way. They were a part of the campaign the way any loving family would want to be involved in something important going on in the life of another family member.

My reaction has always been: “What’s not to like?”

Does that make me — as Rush Limbaugh playfully put it after a string of female Romney fans called into his show — a smitten Mitten?

Smitten Mitten? Well, it's NRO to be sure, but it reduces the concerns of a large part of the conservative electorate, those uncertain of Romney, to petty jealousies directed at the candidate's perfection. It supposes a perfection which some folks just do not see.

And no, we're do not need the scales this time either. It's no teaspoon of matter from a neutron star.

But is it acceptable stuff for the conservative debate? It is certainly not for me to say, but I do ask: "Oh, why not?" We have opinions and we express them. WFB's National Review, though, would have made strong arguments and gone a long way towards helping conservatives towards a consensus. NR, while fine for the time, is no longer the conscious of conservatism. The magazine which once backed Ronald Reagan has become the mag that endorsed Mitt.

But the movement, m'friends, lives on. As the conservative split in the recent nominating contests makes plain, the conscience of conservatism resides within ourselves.