If mainstream conservatism is a “philosophically flabby movement,” and I won’t argue that it isn’t, this is not evidence of its success but simply of its exhaustion and lack of imagination. Perhaps conservatism should thrive on loss and defeat, but I see little evidence that the conservative movement in America understands that it has already lost on many fronts. There is an illusion of success that the most recent election has kept alive, but it is a temporary one.
As the campaign for the Republican nomination for president gets
weirder by the minute, what does it mean to be an American conservative? Daniel Larison and Corey Robin debate the
changing nature of conservatism.
Bonus:
A Liberal Reads the Great Conservative Works
posted by villanelles at dawn
on Nov 11, 2011 -
110 comments
Ed Whelan, a lawyer and conservative law pundit at National Review has been
making
the rounds criticizing Sopreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, largely for her statements regarding judges making policy. publius, a pseudonymous legal blogger, wrote a harshly
critical post of Whelan's behavior, accusing him of being a willing stooge of the right-wing - a "legal hitman"
In response Whelan
outed publius, publishing his identity on the National Review website. publius
added his side of the story. It's also worth reading
Volokh's take on the original policy debate, which publius and Whelan each use in defense of their position
posted by crayz
on Jun 7, 2009 -
117 comments
Don Luskin dismisses high school economics as Democrat propaganda in the
National Review:
Be that as it may, there is no unique virtue to inflation-adjusting — except that it makes all changes in income look worse, which well serves the liberal agenda of the Times’s economic reporting during an election year.
The
National Review has always been conservative, but I'm unaware of when a writer for a mainstream publication has so explicitly dismissed something as common-sensical as
real dollars. What's next? Gravity? Heliocentrism?
Via Brad DeLong.
posted by goethean
on Oct 4, 2004 -
16 comments
National Review, Pro-Drug? I was searching for information of drug use in Vietnam and during wars in general, when I found this gem. Scroll halfway down to a very interesting pro-drug discussion between the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience and Mr. William Buckley. A little dated (1990), but I never thought I'd come out of an article thinking to myself, "Maybe all drugs should be legal."
posted by geoff.
on Jun 4, 2004 -
18 comments
Forget Fiction And Non-Fiction, Bud: Is The Book Liberal Or Conservative? The
National Review's bestseller list (
scroll down and click) is starkly divided into "Conservative Bestsellers" and "Liberal Bestsellers". Is this a quirky innovation and deliberate provocation or just plain stupid and sad? Does such a dichotomy in fact exist? How would the literature of the world fit into such a classification? (
This isn't the end of the world as we know it, is it?)
posted by MiguelCardoso
on Apr 14, 2004 -
50 comments
Punk the National Review - a potentially-petty exercise in journalistic credibility. The
National Review has recently engaged in printing anonymous e-mails from readers who "used to know" the Democratic candidates and just happen to have damaging stories about them. Blogger Ted Barlow is offering a $10 Amazon gift certificate to anyone who can get their anonymous story published. "If you possess an email address and an eye-opening story, you've passed the rigorous fact-checking that has made
National Review and the
Penthouse Forum world-famous."
posted by XQUZYPHYR
on Feb 3, 2004 -
26 comments
"A little invasion is precisely what Canada needs" wrote Jonah Goldberg last November. According to Rush Limbaugh, Canada isn't a country, it's a
"country". Tucker Carlson on CNN has said Canada "should be bombed" so that they are taught a lesson. Doesn't he remember
April 17th? No matter. Since Canada will never be able to defend itself from the US using conventional means, it's time for Canada to reactivate it's nuclear weapons program.
posted by johnnydark
on Feb 28, 2003 -
31 comments
The Moon Also Rises. Or how about: Ask Not For Whom the Moon Rises...
Both Karl Marx and Mohammed agree, he da' man..err...True Parent! He's serious but I'm laughing. Please God, make him stop!! Falwell and the right wingers actually suck up to this guy!
posted by nofundy
on Jul 25, 2002 -
9 comments
Even if it works, using the detah penalty as deterrent is morally flawed The mere fact that an orthodontist in Cleveland feels more anxious about crime shouldn't make the state more "right" to take a life. And, if you are in favor of the death penalty, the mere fact that the same orthodontist feels comfortable leaving his door unlocked shouldn't mean that a murderer should pay less of a price for killing a child.
posted by magullo
on May 24, 2002 -
45 comments
"The Myth of Ownership." Financial Columnist Stephen Moore's review of a new book which claims that it is a "compelling fantasy that we earn our income and the government takes some of it away from us."
posted by Ty Webb
on Apr 24, 2002 -
28 comments
If This Be War. This essay by a military historian puts the current muddle of conflicted opinions about war into historical perspective with startling clarity.
Thanks to the Little Green Footballs weblog. I find interesting stuff there every day.
posted by Tubes
on Oct 25, 2001 -
10 comments
Family fude.. to fly, or not to fly? That is the question.. mother and daughter have debate over flying the American flag.. sad sad sad world it is today.. well.. at least her daughter has good sense..
posted by KimmishKim
on Sep 27, 2001 -
33 comments
Rebuild It, Bigger! America will find an appropriate way to mourn. But if we must have a shrine or monument for our remorse, let's put it on the 200th floor, right next to the antiaircraft guns.
posted by dagny
on Sep 14, 2001 -
13 comments
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Ann Coulter, as always an island of calm reflection.
posted by rcade
on Sep 13, 2001 -
96 comments
Unocal seems responsible for driving up gas prices by taking shameless advantage of regulations and patent law. Why did our government get ambushed by a basic loophole that any first-year lawyer would think of? Maybe it's involved with too many things to do anything right?
posted by marknau
on Aug 29, 2001 -
8 comments
Catholic Church offered solution to AIDS crisis? Though I certainly lean more left than right, I have The National Review in print an online for many years to get some balance in my media intake. I must say, they have run numerous articles online of late that I felt were well-reasoned, fair and insighful.
This, however, is crap.
"Many have tut-tutted the Church for opposing condoms even as an AIDS prevention tool. Some have even called the Church complicit in AIDS deaths. But, as it has turned out,
condoms aren't a very good AIDS-prevention tool after all. [emphasis mine] "
So now condoms are not useful for preventing AIDS. Did we miss something?
posted by 4midori
on Jun 15, 2001 -
27 comments
