National Review

From Conservapedia
(Redirected from The National Review)
Jump to: navigation, search

The National Review is a formerly influential political newsmagazine, created by William F. Buckley in 1955 and currently edited by Rich Lowry. Along with the the American Spectator and the now-defunct Weekly Standard, it was once regarded as one of the "Big Three" of conservative magazines. Neither the National Review nor the Weekly Standard have been particularly conservative on social issues.

The National Review is dominated by Never Trumpers.[1] The National Review joined with liberals in criticizing a high school boy who peacefully stood his ground against political hostility. National Review was humiliated by having to pull its article that falsely attacked the Kentucky high students by claiming that they "might as well have just spit on the Cross."[2] The National Review is neoconservative in philosophy, though not as neoconservative as the Weekly Standard was. The National Review is prominent in the Never Trump movement. It has promoted numerous left-wing policies.[3]

Victor Davis Hanson, a writer who left the National Review, explained his dismay with the publication: "I thought they would be champions of the middle class, but I don’t think they were. I don’t think they wanted to be."[4]

Early history[edit]

James Burnham 2.jpg

Founded in 1955, The National Review was originally met with harsh criticism from progressive activists. Ranging anywhere from "fascist", "Nazi", and other common buzzwords and epithets that have been used for decades, they tried to marginalize the publication to prevent it from ever becoming successful.[5]

Four Horsemen of Progressivism[edit]

In 2009, National Review ran a series of four articles attempting to highlight the history of progressivism and how it relates to today.[6][7] They highlighted Richard T. Ely,[8] John Dewey,[9] Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,[10] and Herbert Croly.[11]

Shift to the Left[edit]

From its beginning, Buckley and the National Review moved to ostracize any conservative – usually strong, consistent conservatives such as the John Birch Society - who disagreed with their moderate and internationalist version of "conservatism."[3] After the passing of Buckley, National Review drifted increasingly in favor of the "well-fed Right" that Buckley lamented so many years ago, being strongly in favor of Paul Ryan for House Speaker, and considering Mitch McConnell as the "best Republican Senate leader in a generation."[12] During the 2008 Presidential election, former National Review contributor Wick Allison publicly endorsed communistic Democrat Barack Hussein Obama over neoconservative Republican John McCain, although the magazine itself did not endorse Obama.[13] It was home to many anti-Trump commentators during and after the 2016 presidential election.

National Review writer David French has attacked consistent conservatives, including Steve Bannon and Franklin Graham.[14]

Recently, the Review published an article by Charles C. W. Cooke attempting to discourage support for President Trump's inevitable 2024 campaign.[15] The article claims that President Trump is not the best option for the Republican Party, and suggests that a third run is a "preserve of the demented fringe". The article is Establishmentarian to its core, even down to its elite vernacular, only further cementing the publication's lack of touch with the conservative base. Paleoconservative commentator Vince Dao responded to the article in a video, saying that it is indicative of how those in control of the Republican Party have always truly felt about President Trump: "...this is exactly how most of the Republican Establishment feels, this article right here. This article tells you a lot about how people like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Kevin McCarthy, Tim Scott, all of those Establishment Republicans who didn't like Trump, never liked Trump all along, but kind of, like, got along board with him... just to, you know, stay alive politically".[16]

See also[edit]

External links[edit]