Jump to content

National Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snowman304 (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 20 August 2024 (→National Review Online: updated citations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is about the American magazine. For other uses, see National Review (disambiguation).

National Review
National Review cover for August 30, 2010
Editor-in-ChiefRich Lowry
CategoriesEditorial magazine, American conservatism
FrequencyMonthly[1]
PublisherE. Garrett Bewkes IV[2]
Total circulation
(2022)		75,000[3]
FounderWilliam F. Buckley Jr.
First issueNovember 19, 1955; 68 years ago (1955-11-19)
CompanyNational Review, Inc.
CountryUnited States
Based inNew York City, New York, U.S.
LanguageEnglish
Websitenationalreview.com
ISSN0028-0038
This article is part of a series on
Conservatism
in the United States
Schools
Principles
History
Intellectuals
Politicians
Jurists
Commentators
Activists
Literature
Concerns
Parties
Active

Defunct

Think tanks
Media

Newspapers

Journals

TV channels

Websites

Other

Other organizations

Economics

Gun rights

Identity politics

Nativist

Religion

Watchdog groups

Youth/student groups

Miscellaneous

Other

Movements
Related

National Review is an American conservative[4] editorial magazine, focusing on news and commentary pieces on political, social, and cultural affairs. The magazine was founded by the author William F. Buckley Jr. in 1955.[5] Its editor-in-chief is Rich Lowry, and its editor is Ramesh Ponnuru.

Since its founding, the magazine has played a significant role in the development of conservatism in the United States, helping to define its boundaries[5] and promoting fusionism while establishing itself as a leading voice on the American right.[5][6][7]

History

Background

See also: Conservatism in the United States
William F. Buckley Jr., the founder and first editor of National Review, pictured in 1985

Before National Review's founding in 1955, the American 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 the antiwar, noninterventionistic views of the Old Right.[8]

In 1953, moderate Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, and many major magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post, Time, and Reader's Digest were strongly conservative and anticommunist, as were many newspapers including the Chicago Tribune and St. Louis Globe-Democrat. A few small-circulation conservative magazines, such as Human Events and The Freeman, preceded National Review in developing Cold War conservatism in the 1950s.[8]

In 1953, Russell Kirk published The Conservative Mind, which traced an intellectual bloodline from Edmund Burke[9] to the Old Right in the early 1950s. This challenged the notion among intellectuals that no coherent conservative tradition existed in the United States.[9]

A young William 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 purchase Human Events, but was turned down. He then met Willi Schlamm, the experienced editor of The Freeman; they would spend the next two years raising the $300,000 necessary to start their own weekly magazine, originally to be called National Weekly.[10] (A magazine holding the trademark to the name prompted the change to National Review.) The statement of intentions read:[11]

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)... The New Deal revolution, for instance, could hardly have happened save for the cumulative impact of The Nation and The New Republic, and a few other publications, on several American college generations during the twenties and thirties.

Founding

See also: Conservatism in the United States

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 included Revilo P. Oliver, Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Frank Meyer, and Willmoore Kendall, and Catholics L. Brent Bozell and Garry Wills. The former Time editor Whittaker 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:[12]

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 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.[13] 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 publisher William A. Rusher), and had a significant effect on both the editorial policy of the magazine and on the thinking of Buckley himself.[14][15]

National Review aimed to make conservative ideas respectable[5] in an age when the dominant view of conservative thought was, as expressed by Columbia professor Lionel Trilling,[16]

[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 that National 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 of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals.'[12]

Goldwater era

National Review promoted Barry 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.[17]

The early National Review faced occasional defections from both left and right. Garry Wills broke with National Review and became a liberal commentator. Buckley's brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell Jr. left and started the short-lived traditionalist Catholic magazine, Triumph in 1966.

Buckley and Meyer promoted the idea of enlarging the boundaries of conservatism through fusionism, whereby different schools of conservatives, including libertarians, 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 the John Birch Society, George Wallace, and anti-Semites.[5][18]

Buckley's goal was to increase the respectability of the conservative movement; in 2004, current editor Rich Lowry, compiled various quotes of articles commenting on Buckley's retirement including from The 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, the nativists and their sort."[19]

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."[20][21] By the 1970s National Review advocated colorblind policies and the end of affirmative action.[22]

In the late 1960s, the magazine denounced segregationist George 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 remove anti-Semitism from the conservative movement and barred holders of those views from working for National Review.[23] In 1962, Buckley denounced Robert W. Welch Jr. and the John Birch Society as "far removed from common sense" and urged the Republican Party to purge itself of Welch's influence.[24]

Supporting Reagan

After Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Buckley and National Review continued to champion the idea of a conservative movement, which was increasingly embodied in Ronald Reagan. Reagan, a longtime subscriber to National Review, became politically prominent during Goldwater's campaign. National Review supported his challenge to President Gerald Ford in 1976 and his successful 1980 campaign.

During the 1980s, National Review called for tax cuts, supply-side economics, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and support for President Reagan's foreign policy against the Soviet Union. The magazine criticized the welfare state and would support the welfare reform proposals of the 1990s. The magazine also regularly criticized President Bill Clinton. It first embraced and then rejected Pat Buchanan in his political campaigns. A lengthy 1996 National Review editorial called for a "movement toward" drug legalization.[25]

In 1985, National Review and Buckley were represented by attorney J. Daniel Mahoney during the magazine's $16 million libel suit against The Spotlight.[26]

Political views and content

Victor Davis Hanson, a regular contributor since 2001, sees a broad spectrum of conservative and anti-liberal contributors:

In other words, a wide conservative spectrum—paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, tea-party enthusiasts, the deeply religious and the agnostic, both libertarians and social conservatives, free-marketeers and the more protectionist—characterizes National Review. The common requisite is that they present their views as a critique of prevailing liberal orthodoxy but do so analytically and with decency and respect.[27]

The magazine has been described as "the bible of American conservatism".[28]

Trump era

In 2015, the magazine published an editorial titled "Against Trump", calling Donald Trump a "philosophically unmoored political opportunist" and announcing its adamant and uniform opposition to his presidential candidacy for the Republican nomination for president.[29] After Trump's election to the presidency and through his administration, the National Review editorial board continued to criticize him.[30][31][32][non-primary source needed]

However, following Trump's 2016 electoral victory over Hillary Clinton, some National Review and National Review Online contributors took more varied positions on Trump. Hanson, for instance, supports him,[33] while others, such as editor Ramesh Ponnuru and contributor Jonah Goldberg, have remained uniformly critical of Trump.[citation needed] In a Washington Post feature on conservative magazines, T.A. Frank noted: "From the perspective of a reader, these tensions make National Review as lively as it has been in a long time."[34]

Biden era

As Trump announced his run for reelection in 2022 and throughout 2023, National Review editorialized regularly against him and his candidacy.[35][36][37]

National Review Online

A popular web version of the magazine, National Review Online ("N.R.O."), includes a digital version of the magazine, with articles updated daily by National Review writers, and conservative blogs. The online version is called N.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 is Phillip Klein, who replaced Charles 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 two blogs:

  • The Corner[39] is a selection of postings from a group of the site's editors and affiliated writers discussing the issues of the day.
  • Bench Memos[40] provides legal and judicial news and commentary.

Markos Moulitsas, who runs the liberal Daily 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 the National Review—I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere," he said.[41]

National Review Institute

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, the Whittaker 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]

Finances

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 featuring National Review editors and contributors as lecturers.[28][46]

Buckley said in 2005 that the magazine had lost about $25,000,000 over 50 years.[47]

Presidential primary endorsements

National Review sometimes endorses a candidate during the primary election season. Editors at National 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 by National Review:

Editors and contributors

The magazine's editor-in-chief is Rich Lowry. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have included Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Peter Thiel, and Ted Cruz in the online and print edition.

Contributors

Contributors to National Review (N.R.) magazine, National Review Online (N.R.O.), or both:

Past contributors

Washington editors

Controversies

Climate change

According to Philip Bump of The Washington Post, National Review "has regularly criticized and rejected the scientific consensus on climate change".[55] In 2015, the magazine published an intentionally deceptive graph which suggested that there was no climate 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 the National 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 the Daily Mail without independent verification.[59] The scientist in question later rejected the claims made by National 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 scientist Michael E. Mann sued National Review after columnist Mark Steyn accused Mann of fraud and referenced a quote from Competitive Enterprise Institute writer Rand Simberg that called Mann "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."[60][61][62] Civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several publications such as The Washington Post expressed support for National Review in the lawsuit, filing amicus briefs in their defense.[63]

Barack Obama

Further information: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

On June 9, 2008, National Review correspondent Jim Geraghty published an article asking Obama to release his birth certificate. It was this column that brought conspiracy theories about Obama to mainstream attention.[64] Prior to this column, every piece that alleged Obama's citizenship conspiracy theories only got dozens of hits, but after the National Review piece, conspiracy theories would garner hundreds of hits within days,[64] according to Loren Collins, who has tracked the origins of the birther movement for years.[64] Geraghty's article "became fodder for cable television."[65] Obama released his birth certificate a few days after this column.[64] In a 2009 editorial, the National Review editorial board called conspiracies about Obama's citizenship "untrue."[66]

One National Review article suggested Obama's parents could be communists because "for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or '60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics".[67][68]

Ann Coulter 9/11 column

Two days after the 9/11 attacks, National Review published a column by Ann 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]

Jeffrey Epstein

In 2019, The New York Times reported that National Review was one of three news outlets (along with Forbes and HuffPost) that had published stories written by Jeffrey Epstein's publicists.[71] The National Review article was written by Christina Galbraith, Epstein's publicist at the time the article was published in 2013. The National 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]

References

  1. ^ "Behold! A New Magazine". National Review. August 20, 2023. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved October 30, 2023.
  2. ^ "Garrett Bewkes". National Review. January 27, 2017. Retrieved February 2, 2017.
  3. ^ Jim Fowler. "National Review Media Kit 2022" (PDF). National Review. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
  4. ^ Meylan, Phillip (September 19, 2022). "Is the National Review Reliable?". Blog. The Factual. Archived from the original on April 29, 2022.
  5. ^ a b c d e f Perlstein, Rick (April 11, 2017). "I thought I understood the American Right". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 26, 2022. Retrieved June 7, 2017.
  6. ^ Byers, Dylan (January 21, 2016). "National Review, conservative thinkers stand against Donald Trump". CNN. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved April 5, 2017.
  7. ^ Brooks, David (September 24, 2017). "The Conservative Mind". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved June 11, 2017.
  8. ^ a b Nash 2006, pp. 186–193.
  9. ^ a b Frohnen, Beer & Nelson 2006, pp. 186–188.
  10. ^ Bogus 2011, p. 206.
  11. ^ Schneider, Gregory L., ed. (2003). Conservatism in America since 1930: a reader. NYU Press. pp. 195ff. ISBN 9780814797990.
  12. ^ a b Buckley, William (November 19, 1955). "Our Mission Statement". National Review Online. Retrieved April 27, 2012.
  13. ^ Diggins, John P. (July 1975). "Buckley's Comrades: The Ex-Communist as Conservative". Dissent. Vol. 22, no. 4. pp. 370–386.
  14. ^ Smant, Kevin (1991). "Whither Conservatism? James Burnham and 'National Review,' 1955–1964". Continuity. No. 15. pp. 83–97.
  15. ^ Smant 2002, pp. 33–66.
  16. ^ "Golden Days". National Review Online. October 27, 2005. Archived from the original on May 4, 2007.
  17. ^ Frohnen, Beer & Nelson 2006, pp. 601–604.
  18. ^ Chapman, Roger, ed. (2009). Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices. Vol. 1. p. 58. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  19. ^ "A Personal Retrospective". National Review Online. August 9, 2004. Archived from the original on October 19, 2006.
  20. ^ Buckley, William F. (August 24, 1957). "Why the South Must Prevail" (PDF). National Review. Vol. 4. pp. 148–149. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 27, 2019. Retrieved September 16, 2017 – via adamgomez.files.wordpress.com.
  21. ^ Quoted in Judis 1988, p. 138
  22. ^ Kalman, Laura (2010). Right Star Rising: A New Politics, 1974–1980. New York: Norton. p. 23. OCLC 449865532.
  23. ^ Judis 1988, pp. 283–287.
  24. ^ William F. Buckley Jr. "Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me". Commentary. Archived from the original on March 8, 2008. Retrieved March 9, 2008.
  25. ^ "The War on Drugs is Lost". National Review. February 12, 1996. Archived from the original on October 25, 2000. Retrieved November 29, 2020.
  26. ^ Archibald, George (October 25, 1985). "Jury begged not to let Buckley 'punish and destroy' Spotlight" (PDF). The Washington Times. Washington, D.C. p. 3-A. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 23, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2017.
  27. ^ see Hanson, Victor Davis (December 1, 2015). "The Home of Intellectual Populism Could Use Your Help". National Review.
  28. ^ a b Hari, Johann (July 2, 2007). "Titanic: Reshuffling the Deck Chairs on the National Review Cruise". The New Republic. Vol. 237, no. 1. p. 31.
  29. ^ "Against Trump". National Review. January 21, 2016. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  30. ^ "The Mouth That Toured". National Review. July 17, 2018. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  31. ^ "Against the Trump Trade Bill". National Review. July 3, 2018.
  32. ^ "Keep the Pressure on Kim". National Review. May 2, 2018.
  33. ^ Beinart, Peter (July 13, 2018). "The 'To Be Sure' Conservatives". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  34. ^ Frank, T.A. (January 25, 2018). "Welcome to the Golden Age of Conservative Magazines". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 16, 2020. Retrieved December 6, 2022.
  35. ^ Cooke, Charles C. W. (January 25, 2023). "Trump has completely lost his grip of reality". National Review. Archived from the original on April 25, 2023.
  36. ^ Cooke, Charles C. W. (March 21, 2023). "Pick one: conservatism or Trump". National Review. Archived from the original on April 25, 2023.
  37. ^ Mastrangelo, Dominick (November 16, 2022). "National Review on Trump in 2024: 'No'". The Hill. Archived from the original on March 23, 2024. Retrieved March 23, 2024.
  38. ^ Gold, Hadas (June 16, 2018). "Charles C. W. Cooke named Online editor at National Review". Politico. Archived from the original on June 17, 2016. Retrieved June 18, 2016.
  39. ^ "The Corner". National Review. Archived from the original on September 22, 2005.
  40. ^ "Bench Memos". National Review. Archived from the original on August 30, 2006. Retrieved August 30, 2006.
  41. ^ Smith, Ben (August 2, 2007). "Markos speaks". Ben Smith Blog. The Politico. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024.
  42. ^ "National Review". National Review Institute. Archived from the original on January 10, 2016. Retrieved June 18, 2010.
  43. ^ Bravin, Jess (March 28, 2019). "Whittaker Chambers Award Draws Criticism – From His Family: Family members say the conservative icon would be appalled by the recipients of the National Review's prize". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on March 30, 2019. Retrieved March 30, 2019.
  44. ^ "National Review Institute ends Whittaker Chambers Award amid his descendants' outcry over recipients". Washington Examiner. March 29, 2019. Archived from the original on March 30, 2019. Retrieved March 30, 2019.
  45. ^ Chambers, David (March 31, 2019). "Withdraw Whittaker". WhittakerChambers.org. Archived from the original on August 4, 2020. Retrieved March 31, 2019.
  46. ^ "The National Review Institute's 2024 Alaska CRUISE | June 16-23, 2024 | + Fairbanks/Denali Pre-cruise Package". nricruise.com. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved July 4, 2023.
  47. ^ Shapiro, Gary. "An 'Encounter' With Conservative Publishing", "Knickerbocker" column, The New York Sun, December 9, 2005.
  48. ^ "Nationalreview.com Romney for President". National Review. Archived from the original on October 16, 2011. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
  49. ^ "A Trip into Idea Land with Bill Buckley". The Miami News. April 18, 1967. Retrieved October 17, 2011.[permanent dead link]
  50. ^ a b c d e Jonah Goldberg (December 15, 2011). "The Editorial – My Take". National Review. Retrieved June 14, 2013.
  51. ^ "Romney for President". National Review. December 11, 2007. Archived from the original on October 16, 2011. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
  52. ^ "Ted Cruz for President". National Review. March 11, 2016. Retrieved May 20, 2016.
  53. ^ "The Task Ahead". National Review. October 15, 2020. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved November 29, 2020.
  54. ^ "George F. Will: Daily Beast bio". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on January 16, 2014. Retrieved August 31, 2014.
  55. ^ a b Bump, Philip (December 14, 2015). "Why this National Review global temperature graph is so misleading". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 23, 2018. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  56. ^ O'Connor, Lydia (December 15, 2015). "This Is How Climate Change Deniers Are Tricking You". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  57. ^ a b "One chart shows how climate change deniers are skewing statistics to fit their view". Business Insider. December 20, 2015. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  58. ^ a b "No Data Manipulation at NOAA". FactCheck.org. February 9, 2017. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  59. ^ "How the blogosphere spread and amplified the Daily Mail's unsupported allegations of climate data manipulation". Climate Feedback. March 27, 2017. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  60. ^ "Is National Review doomed?". The Week. January 30, 2014. Archived from the original on October 2, 2018. Retrieved October 2, 2018.
  61. ^ "Opinion | Whatever happened to Michael Mann's defamation suit? (2017 edition)". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2018.
  62. ^ "Climate researcher's defamation suit about insulting columns is on". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on October 2, 2018. Retrieved October 2, 2018.
  63. ^ Adler, Jonathan H. (August 13, 2014). Media and Rights Organizations Defend National Review, et al. against Michael Mann." The Washington Post. Retrieved March 11, 2019.
  64. ^ a b c d "No, Hillary Clinton didn't feed the birther movement". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  65. ^ Tumulty, Karen (June 12, 2008). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Archived from the original on June 16, 2024. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  66. ^ "Born in the U.S.A. - National Review". National Review. July 28, 2009. Archived from the original on April 1, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
  67. ^ Perlstein, Rick (April 11, 2017). "I Thought I Understood the American Right. Trump Proved Me Wrong". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 17, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  68. ^ The New Hate by Arthur Goldwag. p. 5. Archived from the original on May 23, 2018. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  69. ^ "Weapons of Mass Deception by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber". Penguin Random House. pp. 145–146. Retrieved January 9, 2019.
  70. ^ Kurtz, Howard (October 2, 2001). "National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 9, 2019. Retrieved January 9, 2019.
  71. ^ a b Hsu, Tiffany (July 21, 2019). "Jeffrey Epstein Pitched a New Narrative. These Sites Published It". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved July 22, 2019.

Bibliography

  • Bogus, Carl T. (2011). Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism. New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1596915800. OCLC 707329314.
  • Frohnen, Bruce; Beer, Jeremy; Nelson, Jeffrey O., eds. (2006). American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books. ISBN 1-932236-44-9. OCLC 64690866.
  • Judis, John B. (1988). William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-1797-2.
  • Nash, George (2006) [1978]. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 (30th anniversary ed.). Wilmington, DE: ISI Books. ISBN 1933859121. OCLC 124536175.
  • Smant, Kevin J. (2002). Principles and Heresies: Frank S. Meyer and the Shaping of the American Conservative Movement. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books. ISBN 1882926722. OCLC 50036266.

Further reading


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Review&oldid=1241224701"