‘National Review’ magazine remains my constant companion, even when I sometimes disagree with her. Indeed, NR’s mission has been just and worthy, as she has remained adamantly anti-communist, pro-life, and just about right on every social issue, while accommodating the variety of “sects” within the American conservative movement.
Sometime around 1981 or so, Bill Buckley was on one of the prime-time news shows, debating the ambassador from the Soviet Union. I was with my mom, and we were on a mini-vacation in Kansas City, staying at our beloved (now gone) White Haven Motor Lodge. I remember the day well, as I had just purchased Genesis’s 1978 album, And Then There Were Three. And, Kansas City was, for us, the mother city, the great metropolis, and we annually visited its Plaza and other hotspots around Christmas time.
In terms of argumentation, Buckley took no prisoners, and I was astounded by his depth of knowledge and by his logic. The Soviet ambassador was full of pomp and stuffy arrogance, but his answers were trite, contrived, and wearisome. Even though I was only in junior high, I knew that Buckley had handily won the debate. As the final credits were about to roll, Buckley turned to the ambassador and said something to the effect of “it really doesn’t matter what you say, as you say it only because when you return to your room, you’ll get a bullet in the head if you’ve not towed the party line.”
To say I was, at that moment, smitten with Buckley would be a grand understatement. This guy became my hero, and my mom—a Goldwater Republican—and I ended up talking about Buckley’s history and his magazine, National Review. My mom especially stressed what a “character” Buckley was and how he had, through fun and mischief, built up the conservative movement over years, making it respectable as well as vital and important.
Interestingly enough, I had first encountered Buckley while I was in sixth grade, as I had been given—along with one of my classmates, LuAnne—the assignment to explore the then-current discussion about America’s role regarding the Panama Canal, and Buckley had been instrumental in those debates. But, in sixth grade, I had very few opinions about the world (that is, the world beyond science fiction and J.R.R. Tolkien), and Buckley had struck me as just another interesting writer in a world full of writers.
My first real encounter, then, with the man had been his debate with the Soviet ambassador. He had on his side, righteousness and goodness and truth, and he wielded these deftly.
Beginning in the fall of 1982–my freshman year in high school—as I began my own obsessive debate career, I began to consume National Review on a bi-weekly basis. If anything, I was frustrated that NR didn’t come out weekly! Again, Buckley astounded me, not only by the topics that he covered, but, especially by his command of the English language. Generally, I would flip through the magazine upon first receiving it, checking out the photos and the cartoons, then I would turn to the reprint of Buckley’s columns, and, finally, I would read the magazine, article by article. It was almost a religious ritual.
That ritual, which began that autumn of 1982, has remained a habit and a norm of my life to this day. Through college—especially through my friend, Liz, and her rather generous father—and through graduate school, NR informed my own ideas, taught me the English language, and kept me company.
Yes, I knew that NR had had its purges and had made its enemies—from the John Birchers to the Ayn Randers and beyond—and I’ve often disagreed with NR’s take on international trade and America’s position on tariffs, but she has remained adamantly anti-communist (she’s as anti-communist today as she was in 1982), pro-Catholic, pro-life, and just about right on every social issue. She has also remained, for the most part, big tent and accommodating of the vast variety of “sects” within the American conservative movement—no easy feat!
I am especially grateful to how welcoming and generous NR has been to the present journal, The Imaginative Conservative, over the last decade. My favorite writer at NR, publisher Jack Fowler, has praised TIC for years now, and he has stressed again and again how important this journal is in its promotion of the cultural aspects of conservatism. As publisher of the central organ of American conservatism, Jack could have easily ignored us, but he didn’t. In fact, he did quite the opposite, welcoming us into the larger world of serious media. Another ritual I love is getting—right about noon every Saturday—Jack’s weekly email, which is always tied together by some movie or baseball theme, and which usually contains props for an essay (or essays) in The Imaginative Conservative.
I’ll never forget meeting Jack. We were “friends” on social media, though we’d not met personally, and I had recently revealed that our statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary had been stolen from our front yard. I gave a talk on Russell Kirk at Yale, shortly after this had happened. As I was leaving the platform, Jack (whom, again, it must be remembered, I didn’t know yet personally) grabbed my arm, introduced himself, and assured me that whoever had stolen my Virgin Mary was going to hell! I laughed out loud at this, utterly amused by Jack’s personality and convictions. Jack, I knew immediately, carried on the wonderfully quirky mix of intelligence and mischievousness that Buckley had so well established.
Indeed, as I look at NR today, she remains a constant companion, even when I disagree with her (as friends sometimes do). Writers such as Jack, John Miller, Kyle Smith, Kathryn Lopez, and others keep alive Buckley’s wondrous and gregarious spirit. From its beginnings in 1955, NR has sought to build up conservatism rather than tear it apart. Building, as we all know, is difficult; destruction is easy.
As I continue to get my NR “breaking news” updates, read her editorials on this or that political or cultural atrocity, devour Jack’s Saturday emails, buy the newest books recommended by her, and listen to her many podcasts, I’m honored by her friendship and happily acknowledge her just and worthy mission.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is an undated handout photo of National Review magazine founder William F. Buckley Jr. This image is in the public domain and appears here courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
I could not have better described my feelings about NATIONAL REVIEW, to which I have subscribed since 1978.
Thank you, Dr. Birzer.
Thank you, Albert!
The supposedly current wing of Conservatism would be wise to emulate Bill Buckley’s fusionist philosophy of adding, not subtracting, multiplying, not dividing the different strains of conservatism instead of their “US vs THEM” vision.
As I have written on these pages not to long ago what is passing for conservatism today has no need for any intellectual publications like National Review nor any think tanks due to its contempt for experts, science or anyone with an opinion other than theirs. They fail to understand the contest for voters must also be a contest for ideas and conservatism is an intellectual movement dedicated to ideas that often have political and social applications. The impulse to improve and the impulse to conserve both are necessary to a healthy functioning society. Conservatism is all about the way positive outcomes depend not only on our ideas but our actions, our character, our courage and our determination.
Populism today is masquerading as Conservatism but more closely mirrors George Wallace’s pandering to voters worst instincts of fear, hatred, and divisiveness which proves populism can exist alongside either party on any political spectrum.
Thanks, Mandy. We are of the same mind.
Mandy: In what ways are populists or conservatives who disagree with you “anti-science”?
Also, though you don’t owe me a reply, I had posed the question, below, to you in the previous NR Article. Would you take a moment to reply if time permits?
As for you, Mandy, you give the game away when you cite the authors “distaste for science” and “credentialed experts”. What is science? Is it whatever a scientist says or is observable facts obtained through rigorous study? For instance, I’ve been told that when Dawkins says there’s no God that it’s “science”. As for credentialing, you’ll have to forgive the justified doubt of everybody whose spent even a modicum of time observing “credentialed experts” because those handing the credentials seem quite corrupted and those who they credential are happily indoctrinated and playing along with the system as long as it doesn’t eat them. Am I to be impressed with Anthony Fauci when he tells me to skip Easter dinner with family but encourages people to “hook-up” with strangers on Tinder? How about when he tells us we need economic stimulus: is that science?
Brian Walsh:
I wrote you a reply the previous article but it wasn’t posted probably due to the fact I also replied to another person. I can only suppose who ever monitors the post wanted to limit responses and not have conversations that lasted forever.
I don’t know what you refer to by “I give the game away”, You hit on the definition fairly closely by saying it is what a scientist discovers after observing facts through rigorous study. We could probably go into more detail but you sound like you understand the process of what it takes to verify a scientific discovery. I have no idea who told you what Dawkins says is gold nor under what circumstances they said it so I can’t answer your question. The same goes for your supposed Dr. Fauci quote. Any answer I give would be me assuming some facts or statement which might have been taken out of context and running with it. I don’t answer assumptions or hypothesis. Finally to answer your question Conservatism does not place its faith in all seeing experts or visionary leaders. It would rather trust in the wisdom that has been accumulated through generations of trial and error, and institutions and customs that embody it. In its present form populism with its contempt not just for experts but the whole notion of expertise has degraded into something closer to nihilism. Its belief in alternate facts is indistinguishable from the lefts post modern relativism interpretation of the truth.
Thanks for your insight
You’re most welcome, Miles. Thanks for taking the time to say thanks!
Please do not forget Victor Davis Hanson. To me, he and Jack Fowler are the only reasons to stick with NR. I highly recommend their semi-weekly podcast, as well (“Victor Davis Hanson Podcast”). Jack poses good questions and Victor dazzles.
Kelli, Victor is one of my colleagues at Hillsdale. A great, great guy.
Yes, and not just a great guy but one of our absolute best thinkers today. Any time he is talking, I stop and listen.
Interestingly in his last podcast with Jack Fowler Victor lamented the fall of many conservative publications to pure anti-Trumpism and betrayed conservatism in the process. Fowler said something about one near and dear to their respective hearts which would not be named. Victor agreed. It seemed clear to me to which publication they were referring.
There was road between fanatical embrace of Trump and anti-Trump virtue signalling that drove certain people to became leftists in essence (George Conway, David French and Co.). Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan, for instance at Daily Wire did a nice job of calling balls and strikes on him throughout his presidency. They embraced the positive policy, laughed a little at some of the silliness and scolded him on the mean-spirited bits and liberal policies he pushed.
Exactly. I also heard that comment in a recent podcast and concluded the same. Fowler confirmed as much.
As for Klavan and crew over at DW, I am a subscriber and active participant on their platform. Ben’s approach to the Trump presidency was as you (and he) stated, “calling balls and strikes.” Equally important, though, was Andrew’s self-described approach, that of defending and lauding all that was good about Trump and his policies. The reason was, to Klavan’s way of thinking, Trump was a “tragic figure”–a leader with great qualities but ultimately a fatal flaw. Nonetheless, for four long years, Trump alone stood between the Leftist media-political cabal and we the people. Failure to support Trump in his efforts to do so was simply not an option.
Thanks for reading.
I share your opinion of the excellent National Review. Thank you for offering this alternative view to balance those who say the magazine is in decline.
Thanks, Michael–NR isn’t above criticism, but she has been right far more often than wrong. Yours, Brad
I agree with your assessment of NR up to their editorial approach starting about 2015. At that time they adopted a Never-Trump stance that infected almost every article (except those of the great VDH and maybe a few others).
I would be interested to hear what you think are some ways they do deserve criticism. Maybe this was simply not the article for that. But the push-back that you are receiving to your article is a result of NR’s fanatical anti-Trumpism that for the last six years did much to divide the conservative movement, dismay many of their readers and, horrifically, help create Never-Conservativism (the next step for Never-Trumpism. Those who take this step, I’m learning, are those who voted against their conservative principles last November because they a man even though he governed as the most conservative president since Reagan).
Thanks for reading.
Thank you for this Bradley. The institution which is National Review offers a much-needed perspective, especially now. No human institution is without its faults and challenges, but NR presents an intelligent and clear voice of response to the very one-sided mainstream media. Without it we would be much the poorer.
Amen, Kevin. I can’t even imagine the years 1955 to the present without the healthy influence of NR.
A nice couple of anecdotes about Cold-War era Buckley (when he and NR were great) and Jack Fowler, but fails utterly to engage with the substance of David Deavel’s recent article here at TIC chronicling the now two-decades long decline of NR/NRO to its current woeful state.
NR/NRO and most other legacy Conservative Inc and Neo-Conman media are now only fit for the ash-heap.
Why would I spend space attacking one of my beloved colleagues? It would defeat the entire purpose of conservatism.
I don’t understand this reply. The point of my comment wasn’t that I expect you “attack one of your beloved colleagues” who recently wrote an anti-NR article (Far from attacking, I would hope every sensible conservative would agree with his well-reasoned take!), but that you acknowledge the issues he raised instead of obliquely critiquing him by just not addressing his article plainly at all, and instead writing a piece of pure puffery for a legacy organ that has, like most of Conservative Inc for the last 30 years frankly, helped conserve nothing (except perhaps its own donor gravy train). Talk about “defeating the entire purpose of conservatism!”…Which is what exactly for the likes of NRO, FoxNews, TAC, etc, these days?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I believe that your most important line in this article was this one: “She has also remained, for the most part, big tent and accommodating of the vast variety of “sects” within the American conservative movement—no easy feat!”
Conservatism has shared values but is not monolithic. I believe the strength of NR (and this website, as well) is in giving a place to the variety of voices within the Conservative movement.
Thank you, Jason. I think we’re much agreed.
I can’t help but feel that this article is a somewhat veiled “rebuttal” to an earlier article published here (Standing Athwart or Pulling the Plug at National Review?). The responses to (and compliments of) this article also seem to be making a vague gesture in that direction.
From both this article and the responses I derive two points:
1. That NR is still a worthy conservative platform. 2. That NR still represents a “big tent” of conservative ideas.
The first point will strike anyone who has read NR recently as dubious (the piece “Standing Athwart” reinforces this point). The second point must be read in light of the numerous conservative voices that have been exiled from National Review’s pages and its web presence.
I don’t see how anyone can look at the current dystopia that is America and not see magazines like The Weekly Standard and National Review as having played a significant role in our surrender.
Veiled? In what way? Like a woman in a pre-Vatican II Mass? Why would I need to veil anything? I’ve been here from day one, and from day one I’ve liked NR.
Yes, I meant veiled like a woman at a pre-Vatican II Mass. Exactly.
Or, perhaps, I meant that the article in question is not identified as a rebuttal to to the other piece, does not attempt to refute what is alleged in the other piece, but appears to be an attempt to undermine the overall thesis of the original article by following closely on its heels and depicting a different (and more positive) picture of the National Review that employed David French and fired John Derbyshire.
It was just a feeling I had.
I started reading NR in my high school reference library, along with American Spectator and some other things. In my college days (early 1980), someone donated to our librarian an enormous box of National Reviews that probably went back to the founding days. She had no use for it, so it went to one of the men’s dorms where we all spent a semester enjoying the many history and political lessons therein.
Sounds like a great story, KE. Thank you!
If conservatism can’t conserve a republic, what good is it, or its supine mouth organ?
Placing the diverse views on National Review aside for a moment, I find Mr. Birzer’s willingness to engage with his readers, both fans and critics, to be a refreshing change of pace. For sometimes, as a reader/commentator, it can feel like we are speaking into a void when an author makes no effort to engage with his or her audience. Moreover, Mr. Birzer’s replies to his interlocutors are a valuable source of instruction on how an author might respectfully reply to accolades and criticism alike.
I owe a lot to National Review. As a Vista Volunteer in the late 1960s, I was about as ignorant of politics and political philosophy as any rube from Louisiana could be. So I was unprepared to understand or refute the Alyinskyite indoctrination dispensed at the U. of Oregon, Eugene. Later, on assignment in West Oakland and on an Indian reservation in Nevada, the volunteers and “leaders” were progressive liberals, anarchists, and most were fans of Chairman Mao, as improbable as that now seems.
Like Mr. Birzer, my first exposure to Chairman Bill was one of his exhilarating TV debates. After that first exposure, I began reading NR, cover to cover, and accumulating counterarguments to harden my reactionary disposition. NR sent me to many sources, who helped fill in both politically and culturally
I’m still grateful to the magazine, but started to detach after the dismissal of the great Joe Sobran, on whose thought and style I still frequently draw for entertaining enlightenment.
I discovered National Review at a neighborhood library in 1964 and have read it ever since. I even found my husband by advertising in its classified section in 1991. My husband, a Seattle liberal, used to argue with Bill Buckley while watching Firing Line….and finally realized he was really a conservative.
We have been saddened to see the attacks on Trump and his supporters (as we are) but continue to subscribe.
BTW, I discovered Russel Kirk’s “gothic” novels several years ago and loved them as much as any of his writings.
I subscribed to National Review from 1972 to about 2007 — thirty-five years, starting with my freshman year in college. I had read Bill Buckley’s “Up From Liberalism” when I was in ninth grade, and spent the rest of my high school years devouring everything he’d ever published. His compendium of conservative writings, “Did You Ever See a Dream Walking?” served as my reference manual.
From there, I discovered Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, Michael Oakeshott, Keith Mano, Alan Reynolds, William F. Rickenbacker, Joe Sobran, John Simon, and many other fine writers with cogent and arresting perspectives.
Their job was to stand athwart time and yell, stop!
Alas, the magnificence of the magazine did not survive Mr. Buckley. The fall from grace actually began with the cancelling — yes, cancel culture existed in the early Nineties already, only we didn’t call it that — of Joe Sobran, for criticizing American foreign policy with respect to Israel. The liberals chose to interpret his writings as anti-Semitic, and after a lot of hmmming and harrumphing, National agreed and fired him.
Aside: it was my pleasure to have Mr. Sobran over for hamburgers and beers about a year before he died. He told me he had a Jewish girlfriend and told her he wanted to convert to Judaism.
“Whatever for?” she asked.
Sobran replied, “I don’t want people to think of me as anti-Semitic. I’d rather they think of me as a self-loathing Jew.”
I think Buckley did him wrong.
I almost canceled my subscription right then, but still had deep feelings for the publication.
When the next generation of writers had established themselves, it became clear that conservatism was taking a backseat to… something. Some say, neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism seems to mean liberals who are pro-Israel. I don’t know about that. I am, in fact, pro-Israel. The pro-Israelism doesn’t bother me; the liberalism does.
What I saw was the the writing turned into weak sauce. The positions were less emphatic and far less well-defended.
Finally, John Derbyshire broke the camel’s back. He gave a scathing review to Ben Stein’s documentary, “Intelligence Not Allowed,” which was about the blacklisting of pro-Intelligent Design academics, and bragged he hadn’t even watched the documentary he was busily excoriating.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s a breach of trust and an outrage. And that concluded my association with NR. If I click on a link that goes to NR’s web site, it is almost always by accident.
Then there was the Trump fiasco. Let’s be clear: President Trump did more to advance the conservative agenda since, at least, Ronald Reagan — and, arguably, Calvin Coolidge.
National Review wanted us to vote for Hillary instead. Or stay home, which would have resulted in the same thing.
Bill Buckley always said, “Always vote for the most conservative candidate.” National Review used that quote to tout the valueless Bush campaigns and the excruciating McCain campaign and the capitulatory Romney campaign — but somehow, conveniently, forgot Buckley’s dictum and urged us not to vote for Trump.
They didn’t make the case on the merits. Nobody can plausibly argue Hillary Clinton is more conservative than anyone. They made their case by impeaching Trump’s character.
And yes, he’s crude and crass and a braggart. That’s style, folks. Does substance matter? Apparently not. Trump lowered taxes, reduced federal regulations, shored up the borders, strengthened the military, respected the Constitution, showed China we don’t support slave labor, and stood by religious freedom. He put America first.
So let’s be clear: National Review urged us to vote for squishy Republicans because they were “the most conservative candidates,” but when someone who actually governed as a conservative is up for election, why, he’s not good enough for us. Sniff.
I hope National Review goes bankrupt tomorrow. May I never see Rich Lowry or Ramesh Ponneru or David French or Jonah Goldberg or Andrew McCarthy on TV again. I might make an exception for Victor Davis Hanson.
Just now, months later, stumbling across this article and comments….”amen” and “ditto” to everything you have said!
For Bill Buckley’s sake I hope NR will reform from its current virulent anti- trumpism — and survive.
Hi Brad,
I started reading NR at about the same time, early 80s, when I was working in the USSR and PRC. It spoke directly to me–conservative, anti-communist, Catholic.
Jack’s “Jolt” starts the weekend off just right.
P.S. NR published weekly in the early years, through ’58. Fun Fact: It used continuous pagination through ’83.