October 8, 2005

THEY'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY?:

Publisher’s Statement (William F. Buckley Jr., November 19, 1955, National Review)

There is, we like to think, solid reason for rejoicing. Prodigious efforts, by many people, are responsible for NATIONAL REVIEW. But since it will be the policy of this magazine to reject the hypodermic approach to world affairs, we may as well start out at once, and admit that the joy is not unconfined.

Let's face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did NATIONAL REVIEW not exist, no one would have invented it. 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; if NATIONAL REVIEW is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.


Now they stand athwart Harriet Miers yelling, Stop.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 8, 2005 4:38 PM
Comments

Apparently there was such a anti-Miers attitude at the NRO anniversary dinner that pundits are claiming Miers nomination is DOA not due to opposition from the left but from the right.

Miers may have the credentials and temperment to be a solid conservative justice but the NROs, Kristols, etc are determined to rip the party apart over this.

Posted by: AWW at October 8, 2005 6:16 PM

I heard that The National Enquier/Review is not really the conservative comic book which it appears to be, but rather a leftist tongue-in-cheek rag trying to sound as absurd as possible. That would explain all of the nonsense I've been reading in it for years. And then after seeing Chomsky make Buckley look like a kindergarten dropout on 'Firing Line' in 1969, it became apparent Buckley must be in on it too.KB

Posted by: kb at October 8, 2005 6:23 PM

Thats wherefrom the charge of elitism against NRO. They live in an echo chamber - it may have been true at the NRO dinner party that eveyone there thought the Miers nom would be DOA but the bow-tied squares at that party don't make up Bush's base.

It is exactly like the line we love to make fun of, "How could Nixon have won? No one I know voted for him!" only for the ivys its "How can Miers get confirmed? Everyone I know hates her!"

When you don't know anyone who holds the majority opinion thats your first clue that you are are an elitist.

Posted by: Shelton at October 8, 2005 6:26 PM

The Libertarians are always looking for folk.

Posted by: oj at October 8, 2005 6:28 PM

kb:

The Left first became scared of Reagan when he pummeled Buckley in the Panama Canal debate.

Posted by: oj at October 8, 2005 6:34 PM

From countering the John Birch Society on the right to leading the Gone Berserk Society on the right in 50 short years...

Posted by: John at October 8, 2005 6:57 PM

Of course the funny thing is the John Birch Society was viewed as beyond the pale because they wanted Earl Warren impeached. NRO sounds like Birchers.

Posted by: oj at October 8, 2005 7:00 PM

Yep Chomsky did a fine job on Firing Line of discrediting himself.

Maybe it was his assertion that there'd been no purges in Communist China. Or maybe his prediction that a North Vietnamese victory wouldn't lead to repression in the south. Which one can put right up there with his claims about Cambodia for sheer foolishness.

All told a tour de force for Professor Chomsky.

I can see why KB loves him.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 8, 2005 7:12 PM

I'm just waiting to see who'll be the first pundit among those who attended the NRO bash to have their own personal Pauline Kael moment when Miers' nomination goes through.

Posted by: John at October 8, 2005 7:27 PM

kgb strikes again.

Posted by: obc at October 8, 2005 11:51 PM

Robert Welch was correct about Earl Warren. (his view of Eisenhower may still be in doubt, since Eisenhower may not have been a "conscious" agent of the communist)

Posted by: h-man at October 9, 2005 7:10 AM
« OUR SEAT: | Main | WHO SAID DARWINISM WAS BANAL? »