Ramesh Ponnuru, Jonah Goldberg, and Kathryn Jean Lopez from NRO have all taken the time to address the recent criticism’s by myself, Mark Shea and others. I appreciate the fact that the writers of NRO are willing to address these concerns in The Corner and believe it speaks highly of their character and the integrity of their magazine.
But now it's time to get down to business and the gloves have to come off...
NR has from its earliest days reflected both traditionalist and libertarian impulses, seeking sometimes to reconcile and sometimes to balance them. People who are more purely libertarian or traditionalist will always find things about the magazine that bother them, or find its philosophy inadequate.
That will probably come as a surprise to those of us who have read NR since childhood (I'm only 34, by the way). I had always believed that NR was a "conservative" magazine and, contrary to popular belief, libertarianism is not a subset of conservative political philosophy. The fact that a respected writer from NRO could make such a claim shows how far we’ve come from the conservatism of Russel Kirk, Edmund Burke, and pre-‘90s WFB.
But I would remind these guys that National Review editorializes consistently and runs articles regularly against gay marriage, abortion, cloning, euthanasia, illegitimacy, divorce, day care, and gender integration in the military. Do social conservatives control so many editorial offices that it is wise of them to attack those allies they have? Is there, for that matter, any national publication of comparable circulation and prominence that has taken these positions? That has argued for the Federal Marriage Amendment as often? On cloning, the Standard might tie with us, but I doubt it.
This reminds me of the Democratic party’s attitude toward minority voters, "You don’t like what we stand for? Fine. Where else are you gonna go?" I can't speak for all social cons but you'll find me over at The Weekly Standard.
But leaving those things aside, there is no denying that the critics have a real difference of opinion with the magazine. That difference concerns the magazine’s editorial line less than its editorial policy. Should we refuse to publish articles that dissent from aspects of social conservatism? I don’t think that is a question that conservative principles can by themselves answer.
If "dissenting from aspects of social conservatism" means promoting p*rnography, then yes, I think that question can be answered by conservative principles. And the answer is that p*rn is incompatible with conservatism.
Nor can I say I have any great answer to the question. In general, I would say that we should not devote scarce space to articles that make arguments against our own positions positions when those arguments are made well and often elsewhere.
Oh? Has there been a dearth of articles supporting p*rn lately?
Now of course there are larger editorial reasons why a contrary essay might appear on our site. And, yes, it's reasonable to assume there's some kind of "endorsement" of that view. But that endorsement is not necessarily agreement on the substance. Rather, as Ramesh suggested, its presence on NRO reflects the editors' belief that the argument made therein is worth hearing, particularly by conservatives.
According to Jonah, we can assume both that the defense of Playboy was "some kind of ‘endorsement’" and that it was a view "worth hearing, particularly by conservative." I am simply stunned that Jonah would claim this is a view worth giving serious consideration. Claiming that Playboy shouldn’t even be considered p*rn, as Catherine Seipp did, is nothing more than "defining deviancy down." Should conservatives incorporate this view into our philosophy?
Second, I sometimes suspect that one of the reasons so many people "to our right" attack NR/NRO for its alleged weakness stems from the fact they are misled by the atmosphere on NRO. From the get-go, we thought it was important to have fun around here. We make jokes. We discuss pop culture. We write about what interests us. We reveal that we are humans, not the mean-spirited monks conservatives are so often caricatured as. This, too, stems from a number of editorial choices we made from the outset. But I think some decent and sincere people on the Right misunderstand the jocularity around here for a lack of sincerity. That's simply unfair and inaccurate.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As I’ve told Jonah before, he is the second funniest conservative writer in America (behind P.J. O’Rourke). The complaints aren’t about the tone, the frivolity, or the joking references to pop culture. It’s about endorsing evil. P*rn degrades women, ruins families, and destroys lives. There’s nothing funny about it. No one is jumping on NRO because Jonah called the French, "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys." (Now that’s funny!)
But when you add these -- and a few other -- factors together, one can see how the perception that we are a bunch of glib, worldly, libertarian go-along/get-along Republicans starts to spread. On the substance, I think this perception is debunked very easily. But I'm not sure what we can do about the perception.
Taking a defensive posture is a poor excuse for making a serious argument. Either the editors are wrong and they should apologize or they are right and they should be able to defend their position on conservative principles.
But it also, I think, challenges us a to take into account diverse opinion on the right more than scarce space might allow in Dead Tree, and, even, at times, to print something like that Siepp piece, which I don’t agree with—Playboy has contributed to a whole host of evils—because it does attract some new readers.
Finally, someone has the audacity to admit the truth. NRO didn’t run the piece because it was a worthy article deserving of attention; they didn’t run it because it added to the cultural conversation; they didn’t run it because it was thought-provoking. They published it because it would "attract some new readers."
I don’t mean to toot my own horn but…did I call it or what?*
I don’t think that’s necessarily selling out.
Yes, Ms. Lopez, it is. But, heh, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Presumably—and, again, I’ve read e-mails to support this—those folks come back and get to hear our arguments on cloning and abortion and the family, the Iraq war, the idiocy of Howard Dean, the holes in the Clark record, etc. And sometimes they’ll hate our arguments, but often they’ll let us know. And, in the end, we’re all often better for it.
I get it. Defending p*rn is just the gateway drug to get them in the door. Then NRO can hook them on some hardcore conservatism! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
I wanna make sure we educate the choir, but I also want to evangelize. We might have to show a little leg sometimes to do that.
If "showing some leg" will help the evangelization efforts why not just go all the way. Why not have a full-spread layout of Ann Coulter? Or maybe show some topless shots of the girls at Hillsdale College?
Who’s right and who’s well Right? I’ll let you, dear reader, be the judge.
*** As anyone who has spent more than five minutes in the blogosphere knows, libertarianism is a remarkably fast-growing political movement. Many people are crossing over and yet still keeping one foot in the "conservative" camp. This opens a huge, underserved market that will need a magazine that reflects this syncretistic philosophy. Could NR be positioning itself to fill the void?
1
While I'm personally glad to see NR/NRO take a more libertarian tone, I have to admit that I'm more than a little underwhelmed by the arguments of Lopez, Ponnuru and Goldberg in justifying/excusing/denying the fact that they have done so.
Much as I admire and enjoy the work of the NR/NRO gang, I've noticed that while they seldom mind being attacked from the Left -it's expected- it's rather obvious that being attacked from the Right is a little tougher for them to bear. Which, unfortunately, is likely going to happen more and more often as the more kneejerk Republicans in their midst are dragged left by the current Republican leadership.
I wouldn't recommend canceling your subscription, though, Joe. I think you're more open to libertarianism than you might think, at least the Christian libertarianism we've been advocating. NR/NRO isn't the Republican party, the NROniks aren't power-hungry individuals without principles and they've actually done enough service for the Right's cause to allow them some benefit of the doubt.
Of course, if they eventually follow the Republican party into endorsing 100 percent taxation, mandatory homosexuality, human sacrifice and global UN sovereignty, I'll join you in dropping my subscription.
posted on 01.17.2004 5:34 AM2
If you really doubt my claim that NR has always been influenced by libertarianism, just read Kevin Smant's recent biography of Frank Meyer. Also, I think you're failing to distinguish between the claims that "you must support us in anything we do because you have nowhere else to go" and that "you shouldn't throw away allies when you don't have many." Assuming, of course, that we are allies.
posted on 01.17.2004 9:20 AM3
kevin smant nee kari stone?
the born again neocon chickenhawk draftdodger?
oh dear...
posted on 01.17.2004 11:36 AM4
Overall, Joe, I think you have pretty good critique of NR's critique of the critique of NR (whew!). I agree that putting a pro-pornography article on the website is not the best way to go about "evangelizing" the world of the left. In fact it shows that there is little if any difference from the world of the left (the Seipp article reads like something one might find on Salon!). While I'm all for the public square and even seeing opposing viewpoints in NR, articles like Seipp's have a way of undermining the entire effort.
posted on 01.17.2004 11:41 AM5
Great post, Joe, as always.
Hey i was thinking, maybe if you put up an "Evangelical Babe of the Day", your site might get more traffic...
Just a thought...
:P
posted on 01.17.2004 1:10 PM6
I'm in my late 40's and have read NR for as long as I can remember. I couldn't provide you with any stats, but libertarianism has always struck me as part of NR's conversation. It comes, it goes, depending on the issue. Just as a matter of history, it's long been part of the NR landscape, though I'd say usually in the background.
I'm not qualified to diagram a political taxonomy, but the goal of limiting the central government and its spending is one example of a belief shared by libertarians and many traditional conservatives.
Let's just say libertarians and NR have full diplomatic relations, and usually maintain cordial contact with their respective ambassadors. But they differ.
posted on 01.17.2004 2:18 PM7
Hey Christopher,
I wrote this post late last night and wish I had been more careful in my wording. You’re absolutely right; NR has always tended toward libertarianism, especially on fiscal issues.
But libertarianism has itself shifted over the past couple of decades. Defending Playboy as a matter that should be left to individual used to be considered libertarian. Now claiming that it's not only okay but downright naive to consider it p*rn is considered a conservative position.
Maybe political labels really don't have meaning in a age of smorgasbord political philosophy.
posted on 01.17.2004 2:32 PM8
Hey Christopher,
You have a good point about needing to "challenge/stretch/question/grow the concept of what it means to be a conservative." I have no problem with that. But what if NRO had printed an article that defended segregation? Or abortion? Where exactly do we draw the line?
My initial complaints in my first post were probably without much merit. Those issues were matters that flirted with libertarianism but with which conservatives could still generally accept. But to me, endorsing "p*rn" goes beyond any definition of "conservative" that I want to be a part of.
posted on 01.17.2004 4:12 PM9
National Review has always characterized itself as fusionist. That has always meant a mixing of the social and economic strands of conservatism, marrying wall street economic free marketers with main street social conservatives. Frankly, both strains are each too weak to win without each other and that's always been true since the magazine was founded all those decades ago.
I believe that social conservatives have a greater problem proving their case. Sodom and Gomorra have long been buried while the USSR and PRC were living breathing examples of how bad socialism and communism were. Without such a pure and obvious example of the breakdown that occurs when social conservatism is abandoned, social conservatives had a harder row to hoe.
National Review seems to have bought into the idea of incrementalism on the subject of pornography and acting as a brake to further degradation rather than a hopeless argument for an immediate return to higher standards. The incrementalism v. Horatio at the bridge 'last stand' argument is very old and honorable people hold to each side.
posted on 01.17.2004 9:12 PM10
I can understand someone having a synapse or two misfire and let an "up with porn" piece slip through the editorial crack. But to circle the wagons and defend a morally hollow piece of writing is an indication that either, A) unabashed loyalty sits atop the virtue chart at NRO (I can accept - and appreciate - this) or B) this prose is a signal of what's to come.
If, indeed, posting this silliness was just a miscalculated gamble, then come out and say, "we blew it" and live to fight another day. [Hey, we've all written stuff or made comments that, in hindsight, we wish we could have back.]
If we find more gems bearing the same theme, I suppose National Review will be witnesses to the free market work its perfection.
It is somewhat disconcerting is for a respectable mind - like Ponnuru - to pose the question, "Do social conservatives control so many editorial offices that it is wise of them to attack those allies they have?" I don't think we are "attacking." What NRO is hearing is disappointment. Disappointment that THE conservative standard bearer thinks a porn piece is worthy of print on their site.
If they've decided they want to be a little more edgy - and open-minded - than this is just the beginning of many threads to trumpet disappointment.
Nordlinger used some of his "Impromptus" real estate to rail against porn (specifically spam); I'm sure he doesn’t appreciate that article. My thoughts are that behind the scenes they are having a few heated discussions.
And NO, Mr. Ponnuru, there ARE NOT editorial offices controlled by conservatives throughout America; that is why we (as readers AND paying subscribers) are frustrated. Your readers are loyal, don't let them down.
posted on 01.17.2004 11:11 PM11
I gave up on NR more than a decade ago, when it was clear that Big Government conservatism was their aim. They also began showing signs of moral relativism (Log Cabin Republicans come to mind) that this article simply showcases. Big Tent Republicans have simply pulled up the stakes and moved the whole tent left. You can have 'em.
When I gave up on NR, I began reading Chronicles, which is still an intellectual challenge for me on occasion. I would encourage you to find a copy of the current issue (January 2004) and read the lead articles (sit in the bookstore and read them if you can't bring yourself to buy a paleo rag). Give special attention to Thomas Fleming's lead article, called "The Conservative Search For Order". Good food for thought, anyway.
posted on 01.18.2004 10:50 AM12
Regardless of his ranking next P.J. O'Rourke, Mark Steyn is easily funnier than Goldberg.</trite>
posted on 01.18.2004 2:34 PM13
While it is true that NR was founded on an attempt to combine conservatism and libertarianism, it is important to distinguish what kind of libertarianism was involved. What the current crop of NR writers seemed to have forgotten (perhaps willfully) is that Meyers's fusionism was economic libertarianism and social conservatism, freedom and virtue, a free market and moral order. By sleight of hand, Ponnuru (and Goldberg, etc.) have used NR's established defense of free market "libertarianism" and applied it to social and moral libertarianism, as seen in the lame baloon boobs article.
The reason I suggest this ignorance is a willful one can be seen by quoting Ponnuru's own review of Smant's book on Meyers (NR June 17, 2002): "The characteristic error of libertarianism was to undermine "belief in an organic moral order"..." which, of course, is the very error Ponnuru now defends.
posted on 01.19.2004 12:01 PM14
This is a quibble, but "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" was originally said by Groundskeeper Willie on The Simpsons, not by Jonah Goldberg.
posted on 01.31.2004 10:49 AM