Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
National Review and Me
My father was a William F. Buckley buff. I still prize his autographed copy of WFB’s second book, McCarthy and His Enemies (co-authored in 1954 with L. Brent Bozell, Jr, Buckley’s brother-in-law). One year later, Buckley founded National Review.
By the time the sixties rolled around, it’s fair to say I was destined to be an NR reader. For me, and with respect to Andrew Breitbart, politics was not downstream from culture. I saw no inconsistency in loving The Who, the Stones, MC5, and National Review, much to the chagrin of some of my contemporaries. And I think the Buckley fandom made my father happy, which was a bonus. You’ll still find a 1965 Buckley for Mayor of New York City poster in my home.
So let’s fast forward to September, 2022. I am about six weeks into another renewal of my subscription to both the dead tree version of NR and National Review Online. We are years past the infamous “Against Trump” issue, compiled during the primaries leading up to the 2016 election. That issue alienated many Ricochet members, to say the least, and still stands as an early sign of the NeverTrump movement. I’ve long felt that NR remains important because it has some fine writers who champion important conservative causes. I’m also not ashamed to say that I’ve defended the magazine here in discussions with people whom I respect—and I fully recognize that some here really dislike the publication.
This is all a prelude to my personal deep thoughts as to whether it’s time to jump ship, something that never occurred to me even in the days of “Against Trump.” In many ways, I think that I’m a prototypical NR subscriber: older, conservative, Buckley fan, and a supporter of the Trump presidency who still sees some warts. Yet, in the last several months (some would say much longer), the unremitting lack of any balance regarding Trump has significantly alienated me. Time and space don’t permit an exhaustive count of what has pushed me to the edge of cancellation, but let’s try a short and recent list.
I’ve generally been good with the pro-impeachment, but often knowledgeable, Andrew McCarthy, but have seriously tired of the likes of Trump Brings Out the Worst in His Enemies, as He Undermines Himself. Much also has been written here about the bombastic Kevin Williamson, yet his recent A Clear and Present Danger column was a new low even for me (“President Biden isn’t taking on the Trumpists’ illiberalism — he’s imitating it.” “Of course the Trump movement is semi-fascist . . .” ). Yes, Kevin, of course.
Messrs. McLaughlin and Geraghty are long-standing Trump critics as well, but the proverbial final straw may have come from Second Amendment stalwart and Ricochet friend Charles C.W. Cooke, a seemingly rational person who has decided 20 months after the end of the Trump presidency that Donald Trump Is Still a Lunatic. You may have noticed that the common thread in much of the above goes beyond “Against Trump” to “Much of what we see in Biden is Trump’s fault.”
So does this story have an ending? I know a good number of you who have read this far are saying “So cancel already, dummy!” But it’s hard for me to toss away 50 years of a reading tradition. Still, if I’m close, I wonder how many NR traditionalists are either gone or right at the edge of the long goodbye.
Published in Journalism
Only now beginning?
I am sure they are happy to take your money.
I imagine that they sit around laughing at the rest of us shabby stupid Trump voters.
If I did go on a cruise, my goal would be the latter. ;)
I am a VDH subscriber and CRB as well to support their work. Same with Powerline.
I was asking for a suggested alternative to NR. Do you have one?
On occasion, when National Review publishes an article that is either very anti-Trump or just plain anti-conservative, the comments section will be literally overflowing with agreement and leftist comments and hardly any conservative ones. I always marvel that there are so many Democrats and Lefties that subscribe to the Magazine. There are a few predictable trolls on the site, but sometimes they are not trolls. Sometimes they are the majority opinion!
Years ago, Ann Coulter referred to Rich Lowry as a “bit of a girly-boy”. I thought, wrongly, that if WFB, Jr. approved of the guy, he had to be more-or-less OK. I forgot that WFB liked David Brooks as well.
I supported NR with annual contributions from around 1990 until about 2008. It was worth it then.
Wasn’t Steorts the guy who said that the Covington boys might as well have spit on the cross? And never apologized for his smear even as the story quickly revealed the truth of the matter?
That was lovely. Especially the huffy, imperious reactions.
That was Nicholas Frankovich.
Have hoped they would reform.
Since they have to pay to post…..
He has pissed me off before. There is a second one who has, too.
How many times has he admitted and then un-admitted that?
Either way sounds like a waste of money to me. They’re unlikely to change your mind, and you’re even less likely to change theirs.
But be nice to them. Even cordial.
That just tells them that you’re okay with them. Better to have them “cruise” alone.
You do not have a clue. Not a shadow of a clue.
I used to read every word McCarthy wrote because he seemed so knowledgeable due to his background. Eventually I realized that his useful knowledge was outdated and he never got the necessary software update to maintain relevance. He’s Windows 3.1 trying to pass himself off as a relevant expert in a Windows 11 world. Or maybe he’s a Startac flip phone trying to pass himself off as an iPhone 11. Point is, I quit reading him because his analysis was rooted in a world that no longer exists (if it ever did).
Yep, that’s the path I took with Hugh Hewitt, several years ago. His DC type experience is even more out of date than McCarthy’s.
I find myself wondering what brought you out of the woodwork, a “contributor” whose last original post was almost 4 years ago?
Please fill us in. I have always been curious about why Mark Steyn left National Review.
We have Steyn’s side. I am going with that.
@jackfowler give me the clue if that is wrong.
I’m curious as to what brought Jack Fowler out of the woodwork too.
We know for a fact, National Review sought to get out of the line of fire since Steyn was not an employee.
A good legal strategy. I found the optics strange after the defense another magazine, not even a political one, mounted with Steyn.
. .
Jack Fowler doesn’t have to tell you. I already did in my comment #74 where I pointed out an interesting tidbit in an article by Ross Douthat. Douthat wrote:
National Review and Steyn were the victim of a silly lawsuit over something Steyn wrote. They chose different paths to defend themselves. I guess for Steyn that meant he had to separate himself from the magazine. That is their right and not something to attack NR over. It is best to not insert yourselves into their private disagreements because we will never know all the facts when there is a lawsuit involved. Your anger shouldn’t be over the NR/Steyn relationship but over the left’s use of “lawfare” to silence conservatives.
I love Steyn but have heard over the years he can be difficult to work with. He also had a dispute with Mark Levin. The event at issue did not cause me to dislike either.
I guess I don’t have a clue. I just saw what I saw, which was on magazine that went tooth and claw to fight the system using the lawfare and another magazine that worked to minimize its fight. Now, at the time, I shrugged my shoulders and moved on. Today, however, it fits rather neatly into the overall appearance that National Review is a afraid to get dirty. It is afraid to actually fight to win when it matters.
And, this episode, in now way helps. It is dismissive of any concerns I might have, and it reinforces the image of National Review as out of touch with ordinary conservatives in fly over country. Don’t tell me your side of the story, just tell me I don’t know what I am talking about and leave me in the dark.
“Ricochet, Join the Conversation”
Just not a meaningful conversation with anyone who in “in”. We talk to each other, but actual pundits and editors have little to do with us, other than James and Jon, unless, I guess, it is to drop in with a single line of snark.
I did that after the article was promoted to the main feed. He is a ricochet member and ex-NR good guy. NR subscribers, current and ex, made some good points. Even though he is no longer at NR, I figured he would be interested in your views.
What happened then and since are two different things. Don’t judge NR & Steyn when we don’t have the whole story. Jack Fowler no longer works for NR. It isn’t right to ask him to discuss internal conversations at a magazine that no longer employs him.
To be fair, he wasn’t asked. He just jumped in, snarked, and left.
Which suggests to me that there’s no point in asking.
You can stop reading him for whatever reason. But the out-of- date analogy to software simply doesn’t work for anyone who knows that the basic principles of prosecuting a federal criminal case do not change very much— and usually only change because of the facts of a case. My issue with McCarthy is his penchant for stretching to take unnecessary shots at Trump, as I indicated in the post, not because of his lack of knowledge of the criminal justice system.