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
I am responsible for bringing this post to his attention. He didn’t question any of our comments about the magazine he no longer works for. His only comment was over what he considered to be a factually incorrect statement. I have no inside knowledge of the issue but trust him to be honest. If we are going to air legitimate grievances, and if we want to be taken seriously, then we need to stick to the truth and don’t need to distract with possibly false accusations. As to snark, it seems to be in plentiful supply. Remember, Jack Fowler supports VDH and hosts his podcasts. Don’t engage in friendly fire.
It would have been nice to get an informative response instead of “you have no clue” and then nothing to change that lack of knowledge. Do the kids still say, “Then lay some knowledge on me.” I appreciated your posting of the update from the article outlining some of the differences in approaches to the lawsuit. I listen to Jack interview VDH on his Victor’s podcast so he’s not all bad.
We must accept two things, one is that some things aren’t allowed to be aired when there is a lawsuit involved and two, classy people don’t air certain inside information on their former employer. Jack Fowler is classy and honest. If he says a statement is wrong, I take him of his word. What remains is do you take me at my word when I say Fowler is honest.
More background:
https://enjoymentandcontemplation.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/why-mark-steyn-is-no-longer-with-national-review/
Honest, maybe. I didn’t think his response was classy. If you can’t say, then say you can’t say. Don’t just snark “You’re wrong!” and disappear into the ether.
You should have read to the end.
and again, my point that y’all are only airing one side, Steyn’s side.
I assure you that I had read to the end before I posted the link. I try to air both sides.
I expressed an opinion on a discussion site, in what, I thought, was a pithy way. Maybe I am 100% wrong about it. I clearly don’t have the information needed.
And
What was said was rude. . You are being far more reasonable in how you are stating things. If Mr. Fowler had stated things in this way, I would not be still be talking about this. Can you at least acknowledge that he could have popped in and stated things better?
From a NR article in 2021, after they won.
I don’t doubt that he has vast knowledge of the criminal justice system. My point was that he seems to have unwavering confidence in the DOJ and FBI as institutions. His institutional views seem rooted in his personal experience which is in a long bygone era. He may perfectly understand the way the system works but his conclusions are faulty because he either does not see or refuses to admit that the FBI and DOJ are totally corrupt and untrustworthy. The days of these being trusted nonpartisan institutions are gone and he doesn’t get that. And, yes, he got a bit too Never Trumpy for my liking.
You joined a comment thread attacking his friend, James, and were the last to post. He tagged onto the thread. I have no idea whether “you” was singular or plural and don’t care. He didn’t reply on any of the comments attacking the magazine. I can be reasonable because I wasn’t attacked even though some disagree with me. I am sitting on the side watching bickering friends and wish they wouldn’t do it.
I didn’t realized that I was in the woodwork, but since you asked…
At one time I worked in politics and public policy in various roles; as a congressional staffer for four years and then as executive director of a public policy organization in Texas for five legislative sessions. I did a little writing here for my own enjoyment. For a variety of reasons I needed a change and needed to pull away from that world. The reality is I was burned out and didn’t want to spend all of my energy on politics. I started a business on the side and eventually took a huge leap of faith walking away from a steady paycheck to run the business full time. These days I don’t have a lot of time (or desire) to write about politics and public policy. I still stop by to read but don’t comment a lot. I guess nobody bothered to turn off my contributor status. Maybe I’ll start writing here again one day but for now I don’t have a lot to contribute as my mental energy is primarily focused on trying to make my business survive the Biden recession.
I hope that answers your question.
Sorry you see it that way, but you are wrong.
He was rude, and anyone should be able to see that. That is last I am going to say about Jack Fowler now, but I am going to say something more in depth about National Review and Mark Steyn.
I understand, and happen to disagree on that count as well. He’s actually written a number of critical articles on aspects of the so-called deep state. But I recognize that I have a minority view on that.
So let me clarify my statement: National Review looked to get the Lawsuit dismissed instead of going all the way to do as much damage as possible to Mann. In doing so, it protected National Review, but it did not move the ball on the field in any way. It did not strike a blow against lawfare, and it is not seek to put Mann in his place for all time. It was an immediate win instead a long term one.
Thus, it is clear that Mark Steyn wanted to go “all the way” as it were, and open discovery on Mann, and force the evidence into the open. This, in order to deal a blow against the Climate Change lie as well as lawfare in general.
We have National Review, on the one side, going for the fastest and least expensive win it could get, with Mark Steyn wanting to fight for a bigger, more expensive win.
Nothing in the three above paragraphs is false as far as I know. National Review did get the suit dismissed in 2021. That is a fact. It was not how Steyn wanted to fight. That is a fact. I am open to evidence that these facts are wrong, and that National Review did in fact, want the same sort of big fight as Steyn. Please supply that.
So, now we get to my pithy statement: National Review wanted to get hit by the pitcher (Win with a dismissal) and Mark Steyn wanted to hit a home run (Discovery! and Damage to Lawfare). What I wanted to see the leader of conservatism do, was fight the good fight and score a run. They did not do that. They acted, like most institutions do, to protect the institution over having the fight. Now, that is the right of the organization. It is also my right to be disappointed in that decision and to deride it as what it was: Risk Averse.
The hour is short, and the barbarians are at the gates. Climate change lies are about to plunge Europe into a darkness not known since WWII. The time to be risk averse is long past. I expected better from the Magazine claiming the mantel of “Standing Athwart History Yelling ‘Stop!'” I did not get it.
So, unless someone can prove otherwise, this is how the facts are to me. Based on, I might add, the clues that are out there to see.
You don’t have a clue.
Sounds like an echo. Maybe even a rude one. Another reason for me to go to Confession.
By the way, I am a paying member of Ricochet, at the highest level of giving. I guess one of the benies is that I shut my piehole.
Red Herring what you wrote above how one former writer parted from NR — as opposed to the impression that he was tossed out, as someone implied above — was quite accurate.
OK, so everything I said in the above paragraphs is false? In the above I am not saying anyone was tossed out. Please point out to me where I get it wrong. Help me understand what actually happened. I am open to hearing that. That is what members who post at Ricochet do.
Bryan, check your private messages.
And yet you invited his attention.
You don’t get it
So why haven’t you corrected or given us any of the story? I think Drew was justified in saying that you are being rude by simply dismissing the story as bunk yet you will not say one word why. If Bryan doesn’t have a clue, then you won’t give a clue. Whether accurate or not, you are giving us the impression that your explanation will be weak.
In his last paragraph, he confirms what I said was true. You have had the story ever since I pointed out that tidbit at the end of the Douthit piece one of you posted. The reason Steyn left is a rather benign one, yet NR has been attacked for years over it, and even lost subscribers. Some of you have stated that is why you cancelled. Jack Fowler owes you nothing more. This isn’t a gossip column and he isn’t a gossiper.
Here is what I surmised over the years. NR was attacked by the left’s cancel culture “lawfare.” Mann had even admitted as much. It was given a chance to submit to the cancel culture but chose to fight back. Mann sued. NR and Steyn had different approaches to winning. They won and beat cancel culture. Steyn hasn’t, yet. We complain that some of the writers don’t push back against the left. Attacking them when they spent millions pushing back makes no sense.
Many of you are angry with several NR writers who dismiss your concerns, ignore the threat of the left, attack Trump, and insult you for supporting Trump. I don’t fault you for that. Don’t let it become an irrational anger.
I haven’t any inside knowledge but assume that years of unwarranted attacks on NR over choices Steyn made is a sensitive subject for him, as his reaction would seem to indicate, and I wouldn’t blame him if it is. I first met Jack in 2004 and have spent 10 weeks at sea with him on NR cruises. I have never seen him angry or rude to anyone. I have seen a speaker or two test his patience. Y’all did. It is a shame since he is one of the “good guys.” This started as a good source of info about how one magazine has lost touch with us. Now I am sorry it was promoted to the main feed.
As I recall things, Steyn wrote a column for NR decrying the growing restrictions on politically incorrect speech. As part of that column, he repeated Frank Sinatra’s “fruit cordial” joke. A pipsqueak NR editor took exception and publicly reprimanded him for his politically incorrect language towards homosexuals. Steyn objected to the public trashing. The NR pipsqueak editor-in-chief supported his subordinate pipsqueak editor and the rest is history. (I believe James took over Steyn’s column.) And yes, I seem to recall that Mr. Fowler came out at the time against much of the pipsqueakery, but to no avail.
Thank you for your patient explanation of what happened to Steyn. I have been curious about it for years but never bothered to delve into it.
This does not however, absolve Jack Fowler of his curt comment and lack of dialogue. A single sentence saying “another guy had it right” is not much of an explanation nor a dialogue of goodwill. He does owe the common courtesy of an explanation after entering the conversation and bluntly dismissing Bryan’s story, twice. I would expect that from any member of Ricochet, let alone the former publisher and editor of National Review, and I would expect a person in his position to set a better example. We were all hoping to hear the story “from the horses mouth” so to speak, not to belittle your detailed explanation of the story, Red Herring.
I don’t know anything personal about Fowler and I trust your description and judgement of him, but he didn’t come across very respectable in this conversation. His first comment (#107) was indistinguishable from a troll.
Steyn did not surmise, but said that NR’s legal refused to support and protect Steyn. If — NR jettisoned Steyn, it’s easy to see how they beat Mann. I won’t ask what the fundamental dispute between NR and Steyn was, but Steyn was pissed.
Go back and read my last post again.
When you have two sides and weren’t part of the event, you aren’t likely to get past he said, she said. I imagine after 12 years of hearing people attack NR based solely on Steyn’s comment, he has little patience to suffer the comments any longer. What do you think he would tell you other than the quote I gave you from Douthit and his confirmation what I said was true. The intimate details are none of our business. I’m a fan of Steyn but I have had enough of this Steyn pity party. I will never know all the details of that incident and don’t care. I am more concerned with the assault of free speech and cancel culture’s lawfare. I am glad NR fought and won.
Among other things, I think some people here would take issue with your claim that “NR fought and won.”
People can believe whatever they want. I have had my fill of the debate.
https://news.yahoo.com/national-review-prevails-against-michael-164216116.html
https://greenjihad.com/2021/03/20/michael-manns-lawsuit-against-national-review-dismissed/