All errors should be reported to

Saturday, May 18, 2019

National Review is boldly against socialism

[This is not satire.]

National Review's editors stunned observers this week by coming out against socialism. Its embrace of capitalism is surprising as in its 63 years as a publication it never showed a profit. It relies on handouts from rich men, which while it may not be socialism surely it isn't capitalism.

Nevertheless, its editors put together a very special issue of the magazine called "Against Socialism."

The new issue comes three years after its infamous "Against Trump" issue in which editors foolishly thought they were powerful enough to stop the nomination of the most exciting Republican candidate since Reagan.

That move and subsequent attack in the magazine on Donald John Trump alienated many readers who viewed the magazine as accepting the inevitability of a Hillary landslide that would flip the nation full communist.

Standing athwart history yelling stop gets you run over by the train.

But liberal friends will treat you like a pet, so that's nice.

Now Editor Rich Lowry is trying to restore some of the magazine's credibility by boldly standing against socialism.

He wrote, "If NR exists for nothing else, it is to stand up for important truths, even when they are embattled or out of favor. It is in that spirit that we have published our most recent two numbers, a twin special issue making the case for markets (our last issue) and against socialism (the issue you are reading now). If our cause wasn’t nearly as gained as we thought two decades ago, it is incumbent on us to make the argument for it more vigorously than ever. Thanks for reading."

That is an odd thing to say considering we have our first full-blown capitalist as president. Ever. President Donald John Trump offered a beleaguered public a chance to make America great again.

He has delivered on promises to cut taxes, re-negotiate trade deals, get NATO allies to live up to their agreements on defense spending, tackle illegal aliens, and appoint conservative judges.

Unemployment is at a 49-year low and the stock market is booming.

Fox News reported in February, "Capitalism is far more popular than socialism, according to a Fox News Poll of registered voters. The poll also finds economic optimism high, and the number wanting help from the government the lowest in years."

Yet Lowry wrote, "Socialism is back. T. S. Eliot said that 'there is no such thing as a Lost Cause, because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause.'"


It's as if the people at National Review think Obama is still president.

I am glad the staff at National Review say they are against socialism but now let them prove it. The magazine should embrace capitalism. Let them write for readers and not rich fat-cats.

Otherwise, they are as phony as celebrities who jet around the world to bray against global warming.

Let that free market National Review writers like to cite on Red China decide whether the magazine lives or dies. That's how it works among those of us who show a profit and pay taxes on them.


  1. “Against serial killers.”
    “Against the flu.”
    “Against blizzards.”

    When all were silent, we were the only ones who blah blah blah blah blah. This year’s Profiles In Tools award goes to: National Review!

  2. I'm sure they wish Obama was President for life. Think of the contributions they could get for fakely bravely defying his every word. I saw Jonah Goldberg flash by on Butt &co last night. When Butt asked about Barr and his investigation into Russia etc J looked like someone tied to the stake just starting to smell smoke.

  3. The NR is not a profit seeking enterprise they are the PR marketing department for the arms industry. They sell war, regime change, and covert arms for drug deals.

    It took conservatives a generation to figure that out because they don't do their research.

  4. It would be good for NR to print Rush Limbaugh's account of the first Thanksgiving so everyone of every age could learn that this country tried socialism during its first days - which nearly produced our last.

    The disastrous results of socialism left the early settlers dead and starving. It only took one year for our forefathers to choose individual freedom over enforced failure.

    1. That must have been the one and only time in history where people voted in Socialism and didn't have to shoot their way out. Thanks for the link!!!

  5. Rich fat-cats are overwhelmingly socialist these days. They didn't get to be rich fat-cats by being capitalists, apparently...

    1. In recent years I've worked for a couple of multinational corporations. World leaders in their respective fields. Both seemed embarrassed by the fact that they were in business and (shudder!) made a profit.
      Hell, it was the profit that paid for all their virtue signalling events.

  6. A while back someone showed me a street interview where a guy asked Rich Lowry about whether the government should take money from people and redistribute it to others, with the inevitable response that this was immoral and destructive. The questioner then proceeded to ask if medicare and social security were such, and Lowry launched i to a full-throated defense of the New Deal and the Social Security amendments of 1965, and also blew some anger at the interviewer for setting him up so easily.

    The original critique of conservatism against innovators was that the innovations were making policy out of whole cloth and chimerically attempting to use abstraction to rule society. The situation now seems reversed, where the so-called conservative criticizes real policies and programs with abstractions, and then when called on it, hypocritically runs to the defense of the systems he just criticized.

    This "against socialism" crap is mere virtue signaling by people with a depth of thought no greater than a mole's hutch.

  7. Lowry says thanks for reading, please clap. Pfffftt!

  8. I hope they found better writers and better reasons to oppose Socialism than the foolishness they spouted to oppose our remarkable Donald John Trump!

  9. I worked for NR from 1979-81. That was when the magazine would still attack illegal immigration. But as the years went on, the attacks got fewer and fewer until the fired Peter Brimelow and Ann Coulter. Stopped reading around that time.

  10. It's hard for me to pinpoint the exact year when NR got so boring. Other than the occasional column by VDH, they seem to be fixated on finding new ways of restating what others have long-since covered rather than providing their readers with unique insights.

  11. Haven't bothered to visit their site since 2016 and since David French considers himself the president in exile.