Leaving National Review

I decided to finally cancel my subscription to National Review. Below is the letter I sent to them requesting my cancellation. I also worked in Customer Service jobs enough to know he will never look at this. Chances are this will get passed around by a few entry level reps who will get a good laugh out if this. The smart ones will take it as a wake up call to look for another job. I sent this via snail mail, so obviously the links below do not appear in my letter to Editor in Chief, Rich Lowry.

Mr. Lowry:

Please cancel my subscription and refund the remaining balance. I’ve been meaning to send this letter to you for some time, but haven’t had the time to get the right words for why I am doing so. I’ve been a subscriber for a number of years – I’m not sure when I first subscribed, probably around 5-10 years ago. Even though I could access most of your content online for free, I liked the print subscription for its portability, and more importantly, financially helping one of the most important voices in advancing Conservatism. Or, at least, you were.

As the President Trump era has shown, NR seems to have shifted to some anti-Trump Conservatism, Inc. mouthpiece. Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I’m not some #MAGA sycophant. I came of age in New Jersey back in the 80s, and had a front row seat to The Rise of Trump. When I was younger I found him to be an an overrated bore, and still have not forgiven him for destroying the USFL. And no, I’m not kidding about that. When 2016 came about I wasn’t too happy about Trump being the choice I’d have to settle for after my first two choices, Walker and Cruz fell short of nomination. But once Donald Trump became the Republican nominee… you know the rest. I’m the last one who has to be reminded of our president’s character flaws, but I also know that he is the best person to advance Conservative principles. NR seems more about pursuing academic perfection, real world be damned. To give examples:

Travis Kavulla’s What Is the Green New Deal? took a bizarre approach to a policy that is the anti-Reece’s Peanut Butter Cup – two horrible tastes that are disgusting together. Unlike Obamacare (as in Republicans failing to offer alternatives), which seemed to be the justification for your proposal, how about pushing to educate about the actual destructiveness of The New Deal and using your data and research skills for helping to publicize the seemingly countless wrong predictions about ecological apocalypse that Leftists have been proclaiming to be 5-10 years away for decades?

While I know that Jonah Goldberg has left NR, his tiresome anti-Trump rhetoric became a practically mandatory ingredient in almost every column he wrote.  A great example of this was how he almost made it to the end before marring his otherwise excellent column, Everyone a Conscript.

Daniel Foster’s Against the Rage Machine tut-tutted the deplatforming of Alex Jones while supporting The New York Times retention of the bigoted Sarah Jeong, because it would be unseemly to demand that Leftists live up to the standards they impose on the rest of the country. Sadly, it seems that National Review has failed to notice how Leftists increasingly use bold, tyrannical and violent means to threaten Conservatives. Do you truly believe that NR will never face the threat of deplatforming, de-monetizing, and now de-banking?

On that note, in one of your roundups in the week, you included a blurb condemning The Proud Boys, and more specifically their use of violence. While they have absolutely crossed the line at times, the only reason that they exist is because of how the press and local governments have either ignored or quietly endorsed the thuggery of various Antifa groups. You are aware of charges being dropped against the majority of the Inauguration Day rioters, Berkeley’s “Professor Bikelock” being given probation for his assault, or how Antifa has taken over the streets of Portland. Perhaps if you directed more energy into the funders and enablers of these groups, then the Proud Boys  wouldn’t be necessary?

Your publication’s reactions to The Covingtonn Crucifixion was disgraceful. Without rehashing how various members of NR reacted, there was one takeaway that was truly disturbing. The statements made by NR writers were made not because they were true, but more importantly, because NR writers wanted it to be true. That says far more about the culture of NR than the initial reactions.

David French can’t seem to figure out how Evangelical Christians can still support Donald Trump. After a few years one would think that Mr. French would actually try talking to a Conservative outside of one of the NR cruises or some think tank summit. For that matter, it would do most of your writing and editorial staff some good.

If there is one article that sums up what National Review has become, go back and read CPAC is the Party of the Right. I know you’ve already read it, but go back and really look at what the post was saying. Yes, I know that the Happy Warrior page is supposed to be lighthearted but this post reminded me of a similar one I had read in The Nation years back covering NASCAR. Both pieces read like an anthropologist studying some primitive culture in hopes of understanding them.

Young people have no reason to come to NR. When instead of supporting young Conservatives being attacked by The Radical Left you didn’t even bother getting facts straight before joining the mob. Instead of supporting young personalities like Laura Loomer or Steven Crowder (both of whom are great examples of rough around the edges Conservatives who could use support), the most youthful aspect of National Review is a podcast by a forty-something who lives in the beltway. As much as
I love Jim Geraghty’s Three Martini Lunch, even the name of this podcast is a reference that even most Gen-Xers won’t get. Where exactly is your plan to recruit your next generation of cruise ship attendees? And before I leave this point, the main reason I continue to read and listen to Geraghty is that, unlike the rest of the NR staff who dislikes our president as a person, 99 percent of the time Jim’s criticism is constructive. At least someone besides Victor Davis Hanson at NR understands that Conservative principles are more important than the person advancing them.
I know that the magazine of Buckley will carry on fine without me, and you’re no doubt aware that your days are numbered with or without me. Eventually you’ll go the way of The Standard, and your staff will have no trouble finding other publications, or maybe even some deep pocketed foreign Leftist as Bill Kristol did.

Or maybe the Leftist crocodiles you seem intent on appeasing won’t wait to eat you last. You’re no doubt aware of how Tucker Carlson and other media figures have been treated by the mobs. If they decide that National Review is their next target, do you not think for a second that they won’t hesitate to start coming to your homes, calling for boycotts against the vineyards that supply your wine club, or doxxing employees of your cruise ships? Just don’t expect being the leaders of the Vichy Conservatives to provide any cover. And more significantly, don’t expect any of the Conservatives you’ve been sneering at to give a damn.

Please refund my subscription balance to my mailing address. I wish you all of the best in your endeavors. Just so there’s no misunderstanding, this is not a hard breakup. I fully support your right to your views and the need for them to be broadcast to the public. But given how they seem to be more self serving than advancing the principles you claim to support, I can no longer give my financial support. To steal Jonah’s writing style, I’m sure you’ll get the funding you need when your Bud Fox bags the elephant.

Regards,

Brother Bob

Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook Also Gab and MeWe.

Cross posted at Flopping Aces

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog