 | |
 Cover for August 30, 2010 | |
| Editor-in-Chief | Rich Lowry |
|---|---|
| Categories | Editorial magazine,American conservatism |
| Frequency | Monthly[1] |
| Publisher | E. Garrett Bewkes IV[2] |
| Total circulation (2022) | 75,000[3] |
| Founder | William F. Buckley Jr. |
| First issue | November 19, 1955; 70 years ago (1955-11-19) |
| Company | National Review, Inc. |
| Country | United States |
| Based in | New York City,New York, U.S. |
| Language | English |
| Website | www |
| ISSN | 0028-0038 |
National Review is anAmerican conservative[4] editorial magazine, focusing on news and commentary pieces on political, social, and cultural affairs. The magazine was founded byWilliam F. Buckley Jr. in 1955.[5]National Review's editor-in-chief isRich Lowry, and its editor isRamesh Ponnuru.
Since its founding, the magazine has played a significant role in the development ofconservatism in the United States, helping to define its boundaries[5] and promotingfusionism while establishing itself as a leading voice on the American right.[5][6][7] WhileNational Review is generally supportive ofRepublican politicians and policy priorities, the magazine has been critical of PresidentDonald Trump since the2016 presidential election.[8]
BeforeNational Review's founding in 1955, theAmerican right was a largely unorganized collection of people who shared intertwining philosophies but had little opportunity for a united public voice. They wanted to marginalize theantiwar, noninterventionistic views of theOld Right.[9]
In 1953, moderate RepublicanDwight D. Eisenhower was president, and many major magazines such as theSaturday Evening Post,Time, andReader's Digest were strongly conservative and anticommunist, as were many newspapers including theChicago Tribune andSt. Louis Globe-Democrat. A few small-circulation conservative magazines, such asHuman Events andThe Freeman, precededNational Review in developingCold War conservatism in the 1950s.[9]
In 1953,Russell Kirk publishedThe Conservative Mind, which traced an intellectual bloodline fromEdmund Burke[10] to theOld Right in the early 1950s. This challenged the notion among intellectuals that no coherent conservative tradition existed in the United States.[10]
A youngWilliam F. Buckley Jr. was greatly influenced by Kirk's concepts. Buckley had money; his father grew rich from oil fields in Mexico. He first tried to purchaseHuman Events, but was turned down. He then metWilli Schlamm, the experienced editor ofThe Freeman; they would spend the next two years raising the $300,000 necessary to start their own weekly magazine, originally to be calledNational Weekly.[11] (A magazine holding the trademark to the name prompted the change toNational Review.) The statement of intentions read:[12]
Middle-of-the-Road, qua Middle of the Road, is politically, intellectually, and morally repugnant. We shall recommend policies for the simple reason that we consider them right (rather than "non-controversial"); and we consider them right because they are based on principles we deem right (rather than on popularity polls)... TheNew Deal revolution, for instance, could hardly have happened save for the cumulative impact ofThe Nation andThe New Republic, and a few other publications, on several American college generations during the twenties and thirties.
On November 19, 1955, Buckley's magazine began to take shape. Buckley assembled an eclectic group of writers: traditionalists, Catholic intellectuals, libertarians, and ex-Communists. The group includedRevilo P. Oliver,Russell Kirk,James Burnham,Frank Meyer, andWillmoore Kendall, and CatholicsL. Brent Bozell andGarry Wills. The formerTime editorWhittaker Chambers, who had been a Communist spy in the 1930s and then turned intensely anti-Communist, became a senior editor. In the magazine's founding statement Buckley wrote:[13]
The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that of course; ifNational Review is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.
As editors and contributors, Buckley sought out intellectuals who were ex-Communists or had once worked on the far left, including Whittaker Chambers,William Schlamm,John Dos Passos, Frank Meyer, and James Burnham.[14] When James Burnham became one of the original senior editors, he urged the adoption of a more pragmatic editorial position that would extend the influence of the magazine toward the political center. Smant (1991) finds that Burnham overcame sometimes heated opposition from other members of the editorial board (including Meyer, Schlamm, William Rickenbacker, and the magazine's publisherWilliam A. Rusher), and had a significant effect on both the editorial policy of the magazine and on the thinking of Buckley himself.[15][16]
National Review aimed to make conservative ideas respectable[5] in an age when the dominant view of conservative thought was, as expressed by Columbia professorLionel Trilling,[17]
[L]iberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation... the conservative impulse and the reactionary impulse do not... express themselves in ideas but only... in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.
Buckley said thatNational Review "is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation... since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to... run just about everything. There never was an age ofconformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals.'[13]
National Review promotedBarry Goldwater heavily during the early 1960s. Buckley and others involved with the magazine took a major role in the "Draft Goldwater" movement in 1960 and the 1964 presidential campaign.National Review spread his vision of conservatism throughout the country.[18]
The earlyNational Review faced occasional defections from both left and right.Garry Wills broke withNational Review and became a liberal commentator. Buckley's brother-in-law,L. Brent Bozell Jr. left and started the short-livedtraditionalist Catholic magazine,Triumph in 1966.
Buckley and Meyer promoted the idea of enlarging the boundaries of conservatism throughfusionism, whereby different schools of conservatives, includinglibertarians, would work together to combat what were seen as their common opponents.[5]
Buckley and his editors used his magazine to define the boundaries of conservatism—and to exclude people or ideas or groups they considered unworthy of the conservative title. Therefore, they attacked theJohn Birch Society (JBS),George Wallace, and anti-Semites.[5][19] Buckley's goal was to increase the respectability of the conservative movement; in 2004, current editorRich Lowry, compiled various quotes of articles commenting on Buckley's retirement including fromThe Dallas Morning News: "Mr. Buckley's first great achievement was to purge the American right of its kooks. He marginalized the anti-Semites, the John Birchers, thenativists and their sort."[20] However, others such as political historian Matthew Dallek, contend that while the mainstream view has long been that Buckley excluded Bircherism, his "gesture toward kicking out the Birchers was far more concerned with cordoning off [JBS founder]Robert Welch while retaining the support of the rank-and-file members."[21]
In 1957,National Review editorialized in favor of white leadership in the South, arguing that "the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."[22][23] By the 1970sNational Review advocated colorblind policies and the end ofaffirmative action.[24]
In the late 1960s, the magazine denounced segregationistGeorge Wallace, who ran in Democratic primaries in 1964 and 1972 and made an independent run for president in 1968. During the 1950s, Buckley had worked to removeanti-Semitism from the conservative movement and barred holders of those views from working forNational Review.[25] In 1962, Buckley denounced Robert W. Welch Jr. and the John Birch Society as "far removed from common sense" and urged theRepublican Party to purge itself of Welch's influence.[26]
After Goldwater was defeated byLyndon Johnson in 1964, Buckley andNational Review continued to champion the idea of a conservative movement, which was increasingly embodied inRonald Reagan. Reagan, a longtime subscriber toNational Review, became politically prominent during Goldwater's campaign.National Review supported his challenge to PresidentGerald Ford in 1976 and his successful 1980 campaign.
During the 1980s,National Review called for tax cuts,supply-side economics, theStrategic Defense Initiative, and support for President Reagan's foreign policy against theSoviet Union. The magazine criticized thewelfare state and would support thewelfare reform proposals of the 1990s. The magazine also regularly criticized PresidentBill Clinton. It first embraced and then rejectedPat Buchanan in his political campaigns. A lengthy 1996National Review editorial called for a "movement toward" drug legalization.[27]
In 1985,National Review and Buckley were represented by attorneyJ. Daniel Mahoney during the magazine's $16 million libel suit againstThe Spotlight.[28]
 | This section needs to beupdated. The reason given is: Needs information related to the 2024 Trump presidential campaign and second Trump presidency. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(April 2025) |
Victor Davis Hanson, a regular contributor since 2001, sees a broad spectrum ofconservative and anti-liberal contributors:
In other words, a wide conservative spectrum—paleo-conservatives,neo-conservatives,tea-party enthusiasts, the deeplyreligious and theagnostic, bothlibertarians andsocial conservatives,free-marketeers and the moreprotectionist—characterizesNational Review. The common requisite is that they present their views as a critique of prevailingliberal orthodoxy but do so analytically and with decency and respect.[29]
The magazine has been described as "the bible ofAmerican conservatism".[30]
In 2015, the magazine published an editorial titled "Against Trump", callingDonald Trump a "philosophically unmoored political opportunist" and announcing its adamant and uniform opposition to hispresidential candidacy for the Republican nomination for president.[31] After Trump's2016 electoral victory overHillary Clinton, and through his administration, theNational Review editorial board continued to criticize him.[32][33] However, someNational Review andNational Review Online contributors took more varied positions on Trump. Hanson, for instance, supports him,[34] while others, such as editor Ramesh Ponnuru and contributorJonah Goldberg, have remained uniformly critical of Trump.[35][36] In aWashington Post feature on conservative magazines, T.A. Frank noted: "From the perspective of a reader, these tensions makeNational Review as lively as it has been in a long time."[37]
A popular web version of the magazine,National Review Online ("N.R.O."), includes a digital version of the magazine, with articles updated daily byNational Review writers, and conservative blogs. The online version is calledN.R.O. to distinguish it from the printed magazine. It also features free articles, though these deviate in content from its print magazine. The site's editor isPhillip Klein, who replacedCharles C. W. Cooke.[38]
Each day, the site posts new content consisting of conservative, libertarian, and neoconservative opinion articles, including some syndicated columns, and news features.
It also features twoblogs:
Markos Moulitsas, who runs theliberalDaily Kos web-site, told reporters in August 2007 that he does not read conservative blogs, with the exception of those on N.R.O.: "I do like the blogs at theNational Review—I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere," he said.[41]
The N.R.I. works in policy development and helping establish new advocates in the conservative movement. National Review Institute was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. in 1991 to engage in policy development, public education, and advocacy that would advance the conservative principles he championed.[42]
In 2019, theWhittaker Chambers family prevailed on the N.R.I. to cease an award in Chambers' name, after an award to people whom the family found objectionable.[43][44][45]
As with most political opinion magazines in the United States,National Review carries little corporate advertising. The magazine stays afloat from subscription fees, donations, and black-tie fundraisers around the country. The magazine also sponsors cruises featuringNational Review editors and contributors as lecturers.[30][46]
Buckley said in 2005 that the magazine had lost about $25,000,000 over 50 years.[47]
National Review sometimes endorses a candidate during the primary election season. Editors atNational Review have said, "Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate."[48] This statement echoes what has come to be called "The Buckley Rule". In a 1967 interview, in which he was asked about the choice of presidential candidate, Buckley said, "The wisest choice would be the one who would win... I'd be for the most right, viable candidate who could win."[49]
These candidates were endorsed byNational Review:
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "National Review" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(November 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The magazine's editor-in-chief isRich Lowry. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such asThe Heritage Foundation andAmerican Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have includedNewt Gingrich,Mitt Romney,Peter Thiel, andTed Cruz in the online and print edition.
Contributors toNational Review (N.R.) magazine,National Review Online (N.R.O.), or both:
According to Philip Bump ofThe Washington Post,National Review "has regularly criticized and rejected thescientific consensus on climate change".[55] In 2015, the magazine published an intentionally deceptive graph which suggested that there was noclimate change.[55][56][57] The graph set the lower and upper bounds of the chart at -10 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit and zoomed out so as to obscure warming trends.[57]
In 2017,National Review published an article alleging that a top NOAA scientist claimed that theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration engaged in data manipulation and rushed a study based on faulty data in order to influence the Paris climate negotiations.[58] The article largely repeated allegations made in theDaily Mail without independent verification.[59] The scientist in question later rejected the claims made byNational Review, noting that he did not accuse NOAA of data manipulation but instead raised concerns about "the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability".[58]
In 2014, climate scientistMichael E. Mann suedNational Review fordefamation after columnistMark Steyn accused Mann of fraud and referenced a quote fromCompetitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) writer Rand Simberg that called Mann "theJerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."[60][61] Civil liberties organizations such as theACLU and theElectronic Frontier Foundation and several publications such asThe Washington Post expressed support forNational Review in the lawsuit, filingamicus briefs in their defense.[62] In February 2024, Mann was awarded over $1 million from Steyn and Simberg. He intends to appeal a 2021 ruling saying that the CEI andNational Review could not be held liable.[63]
In June 2008,National Review correspondentJim Geraghty published an article encouragingBarack Obama to release his birth certificate in order to debunk false rumors circulating on conservative forums and blogs. Geraghty's column may have brought these conspiracy theories about Obama to mainstream attention.[64][65]Karen Tumulty wrote inTime that Geraghty's article "became fodder for cable television."[66] Obama released his birth certificate a few days after Geraghty's column, and Geraghty wrote that there was "no reason" to doubt its authenticity.[64][65] In a July 2009 column, theNational Review editorial board called conspiracies about Obama's citizenship "untrue."[67]
OneNational Review article suggested Obama's parents could becommunists because "for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or '60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics".[5][68]
Two days after theSeptember 11 attacks,National Review published a column byAnn Coulter in which she wrote of Muslims, "This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."[69]National Review later called the column a "mistake" and fired Coulter as a contributing editor.[70]
In 2019,The New York Times reported thatNational Review was one of three news outlets (along withForbes andHuffPost) that had published stories written byJeffrey Epstein's publicists.[71] TheNational Review article was written by Christina Galbraith, Epstein's publicist at the time the article was published in 2013. TheNational Review bio for Galbraith described her as a science writer.National Review retracted the article in July 2019 with apologies and spoke of new methods being used to better filter freelance content.[71]
After the2024 Lebanon pager explosions, theNational Review published a cartoon ofUS RepresentativeRashida Tlaib with an exploding pager.[72] It was condemned by Tlaib asracist andIslamophobic.[73][74]Dearborn mayorAbdullah Hammoud called the cartoon "anti-Arab bigotry".[75]
