Friday, January 22, 2016

WOW National Review Has Sent Out a Letter About Cancellations in the Wake of the Trump Attack Edition

Last night, National Review published a special edition of its magazine, devoted to attacking Donald Trump.
Less than 12 hours later, NR publisher Jack Fowler sent the below letter to "friends of the magazine." 
This is a very unusual letter. It suggests to me that cancellations to the magazine must be pouring in because of the Trump attack edition.
There is a big difference between neocons, old right anti-interventionist conservatives and grassroots followers.
The old right anti-interventionist conservatives cancelled subscriptions to NR decades ago. The grassroots followers, who never understood the split, despite its significance, are likely leading the cancellation onslaught.  They lean conservative but don't get all the factions and nuances. It would be easy for them to become Trump supporters. The special edition just showed them that they are different from the neocons running the show at NR.
The neocons running NR are probably realizing that they just blew up a significant amount of their subscription base--which they are now realizing weren't neocons.
This is probably the best thing that has occurred to date because of the Trump campaign. NR is taking on water. It is exposing the fact that the number of true neocons is minuscule.
Dear Friend,
Today is a big day for National Review. Our editors have made a very forceful defense of conservatism, of principle, and against the politics of attitude, in our editorial, Against Trump.
We have received angry calls, and cancel ­my­ subscription demands. One in particular broke my heart. Well, let’s hope time heals.
None of this was unexpected. 
But: We have also received very strong expressions of support from many NR friends. People who believe ­­ and they are right to believe this ­­ that the main reason National Review exists is to do the very thing it is doing today.
Defending conservative principle. Defending it from being marginalized, or recast as emotion and bluster instead of as an expression of reason and intelligence.
On behalf of Rich Lowry and my colleagues, thank you for standing with us. Or, better, thanks for letting us stand alongside you as we embrace the Buckley mission: To stand athwart history, yelling stop.
Best,
Jack Fowler
Publisher
National Review
 -RW
(ht  Jay Stephenson)(

21 comments:

  1. Bob, for what it's worth, I would not change one word of this analysis. Absolutely everything here is exactly right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Tom
      You have Always despised NR, Straussians, conservatives
      And you think it's a hilarious thing that the Trump is are deserting NR Don't you realise a Trump Presidency will be worse for you than any other, to include Clinton??

      Delete
    2. I concur. A disaster. Let them choose it if they will, but I will have no part of it!

      Delete
    3. The media is against Trump. Who Knew!

      Delete
  2. I hate Trump and I hate conservatives so as a libertarian Im enjoying this fight.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We don't have a dog in this fight. It's nice to see NR getting rocked though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looked at the list of names, and only Sowell stands out as, um, non-neocon. Seriously though TRUMP can and should write an executive order requiring the registration of neocon lobbyists as foreign agents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have to be honest, I'm no fan of a Trump presidency as I think it would be (I can be wrong). However, it's nothing short of a delight to watch him short circuit mainstream media.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. From his comments about the crime illegal aliens cause to the Wall Street rip off that is "free trade" and now this. As someone who dump NR back in 1990 over the Buckley smear of Buchanan I'm delighted at this latest bit of stupidity by the Neocons. Hopefully, NR will go down for the count.

    Sowell ought to be ashamed of himself for writing the trash that he did. He could have save himself the trouble by simply writing "Trump is Hitler" and be done with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sowell is 85. Perhaps his mind is going. Happens to a lot of brilliant people when they get that old.

      Delete
    2. That could be the case. Sowell has a much finer mind than what one would believe from came out of Cuckservative Review.

      Delete
  7. Ask yourself who the Neocons at the National Review would rather see in office, Hillary or Trump, and then ask yourself why you let these sick creeps hijack Conservatism? I stopped reading that garbage years ago. The Week is infinitely better (I like Dougherty a lot).

    I hate the National Review.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Neo-cons seriously dislike Trump, and in my view that is his single really worthy merit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why should you care. You have a history of opposition to NR dating back to WFB's questioning of Paul's stuff, its airing and support for Strauss, opposition to the Rothbardians, etc.
    And now when they oppose the Birther conspiracy semi real TV demagogue Trump, who is dangerous to libertarians as well as everyone else, you think the trouble at NR is funny and deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "None of this was unexpected..." Excuse me, but BoolSheet. It was entirely unexpected. NR simply surrounds itself with Neocons, and so believes that all who read their BS are like-minded warmongers.

    This letter wouldn't even exist if this was "unexpected." One can only hope that NR never recovers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...the Buckley mission: To stand athwart history, yelling stop." That's clearly a most constructive agenda... for modern-day dinosaurs. I like the sound of "To stand athwart the HIGHWAY of history..." better; it conjures up more interesting images...

    ReplyDelete
  12. number of 'true' neocons is enormous! what are you talking about?
    also - don't forget that Donald got into politics solely because of his birtherism back in 2012 which galvanized all the romney supporters into Muslim hating neocons.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm constantly amazed by the amount of psychics out there who KNOW what a candidate will do if elected to Office. You would think that the hit/miss ratio of predictions on Obama would discourage such pregnostication, but ir doesn't. Personally, I think NR died with Buckley.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What the Nation Review did is correct. Trump will no accept critiques and I don't want another presidential apprentice.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Burn, baby, burn, let the National Review burn.

    Gary Johnson 2016

    ReplyDelete
  16. It seems that there isn't a bag of popcorn big enough for this season's political side show.

    ReplyDelete