National Review moves left

Be sure not to miss my three recent posts on the historic betrayal of conservatism by the leading conservative magazine. This is, of course, something that I have been writing about for years. But over the past week—in National Review’s turn away from Mitt Romney and turn toward John McCain, and in NR senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru’s column in Time telling Republicans and conservatives that conservatism is defunct and that they must pursue McCain-type politics—it was made explicit.

National Review abandons Romney
Lowry eager for McCain
The conservative betrayal that tops them all

- end of initial entry -

Bill Carpenter writes:

Somewhat disappointing, but not surprising after what you have quoted from Ponnuru for the past year. The fatal flaw at NR, however, seems to go deeper than the last year. I never paid much attention to it because it always seemed a little precious and parochial, a little smug, a sort of New Yorker for conservatives. The smugness seemed to be based on an assumed possession of the Truth that did not have to be justified or explained. It could more easily serve as the organ of the Tories than of American conservatism. The fatal flaw, I think, lies in the affectation of a Tory disdain for ideology which spreads to a disdain for thought and reason. Such disdain can be positive if the instincts of the group that manifests it are sufficiently ordered for the preservation of a certain community or civilization. However, if it is merely an affectation, the trademark of a certain faction or network that is not organized sub-rationally, it contributes neither to the intellectual culture of the nation nor to the survival of a valuable sub-culture. It becomes an inferior Weekly Standard. Hopefully it is a temporary situation. With different leadership, it could turn around.

LA replies:

Excellent analysis. Indeed, by pointing to the fact that NR does not represent a genuine conservatism, Mr. Carpenter implicitly raises the question whether it is worthwhile for us (for me) to read and criticize NR. And I think the answer is, even if NR is in reality not conservative, in our actual society it represents what people understand to be conservatism (which is why a reader thought it was self-evidently ridiculous of me to say that NR is not conservative.). Its conservatism represents the self-understanding of that which calls itself the conservative movement. But in reality, as I say, it is not conservative. Therefore, as part of the process of articulating a true conservatism, the false conservatism of NR must be critiqued and resisted.

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote:

“Therefore, as part of the process of articulating a true conservatism, the false conservatism of NR must be critiqued and resisted.”

Amen! Otherwise you are betraying true conservatism, which means that you are at very least tacitly appoving of the ascendency of false conservatism. It has always been understood in law that there are “crimes of commission” as well as “crimes of omission.” Neglecting to critique the move to a liberal conservatism is like a crime of omission against genuine conservatism; something that a true conservative cannot abide. As I recall this was also brought up in the Dreher discussion.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 12, 2008 11:08 PM | Send