National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. (National Review) |
A friend of mine observed last week that I ought to add one of those New York Times–esque political-sentiment needles to my profile page on Twitter, to record for my audience whether, at any given moment, I am an Unreconstructed RINO Squish or a Pathological Trump Cultist. The remark was occasioned by his bemusement at a couple of rollercoaster days on which I had found myself cast at various points in the proceedings as both a champion of truth and light and as an enemy of all that is good and true. "You could embed the meter at the top," he suggested, "so we can track the size of each swing."
He had a point. On the first day in question, I had first been shouted at from the right, after I had argued that the willful use of recess appointments would represent a disgraceful abdication of the Senate's authority (this, apparently, is a RINO Squish position), before later being shouted at from the left, after I had argued that Article II of the Constitution gives the president almost total control of his own branch (this, it seems, is a Trump Cultist view). On Day Two, that order was reversed. In the morning, my defense of the nomination of Pete Hegseth was proof that I'd become a hopeless Trump Cultist, while, in the evening, my staunch opposition to the nomination of Matt Gaetz was evidence that my nascent RINO Squishdom had reached its final form.
The truth, of course, is that I was — and I am — neither of those things. None of us here at National Review are. We're conservatives, yes. But conservatives whose aims and interests transcend whatever transient fights happen to be on television this week. If you appreciate this kind of principles-based journalism and advocacy, however out of place it might seem today, might I request that you consider a donation to NR's fall webathon? Due to the overwhelming response from hundreds of donors, we've just raised our goal to $150,000. |
To the purely instrumental mind, our daily output may indeed look confusing, but, properly understood, that is a feature not a bug. Unlike the legacy media, we are open about our biases — since 1955, we have advertised ourselves as a Journal of Conservative Opinion — and, unlike the mindless partisans who attempt to police our national discourse, we do not consider it our role to pick a side and unyieldingly echo its catechism. If we like a policy, we say so. If we dislike a nominee, we oppose him. If we think that someone whom we usually dislike is correct for a change, we'll happily point that out, too. Our only loyalty is to our readers — to whom we owe our honesty, industry, and respect, and nothing else besides. Often, we disagree with one another, and, as we have since we were founded, we make sure to note that, too. This is a place where conservatives and libertarians, social conservatives and free marketeers, hawks and noninterventionists, and many other figures on the right and center-right convene to make the arguments they believe in. To conceive of it any other way is to misunderstand our scheme. The good news is that, for all the sound and fury, it turns out that people like this approach. The bad news is that it costs money to produce. It is, all things considered, probably for the best that we do not have a single billionaire benefactor to underwrite our operation. But, at times, it sure can make things precarious. So, if you like what we do, please do consider giving to our webathon. Every dollar you give goes to helping us maintain our staff, host our website, print our magazine, record our podcasts and videos, and more. Cheers, Charles C. W. Cooke Senior Editor National Review |
|
|
|
Comments
Post a Comment