National Review’s publisher proudly defended his publication for taking a stand against Donald Trump, even as voices in right-leaning media have criticized the magazine’s efforts to unseat the GOP front-runner as misguided and “irrelevant.”
“God bless Greta Van Susteren and all others, we love them and wish them well, but we’re right. And time will prove us right,” Jack Fowler told the Washington Examiner’s media desk.
“Our role is to defend conservative principles,” he said. “I’ve never been prouder to be involved in National Review.”
The conservative publication released a special issue Friday morning dedicated entirely to making the conservative case against Trump’s presidential candidacy. The latest edition features 22 essays from conservative commentators, including economist Thomas Sowell and Commentary editor John Podhoretz, who argue through the magazine’s pages that the casino tycoon is neither a conservative, nor a man worthy of the Oval Office.
The issue also features a scathing denunciation from the magazine’s editorial board.
“The symposium and the editorial are directed specifically at a candidate, but it’s motivated by what this candidate is doing, and how some of his supporters are reacting, and how they’re affecting what conservatism means,” Fowler told the Examiner.
He added that the magazine’s efforts are aimed at a “larger and longer issue,” and said, “we have to defend what conservatism is, and not only for the consequences of the November election, but 2020 … and beyond.”
In its “Against Trump” editorial, National Review said of the GOP front-runner that he is “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.”
“Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot on behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as The Donald himself,” it added.
The real estate mogul responded in typical fashion Thursday evening after National Review announced its special edition, lambasting the magazine as a “dying paper.”
“It’s circulation is way down. Not very many people read him anymore. People don’t even think about The National Review,” he said. “I guess they want to get a little publicity. But that’s a dying paper. I got to tell you, it’s pretty much a dead paper.”
Trump is not alone in his disapproval, as several pundits in right-leaning media weighed in Friday with like-minded criticism, suggesting that the magazine’s efforts were neither noble nor worthwhile, and potentially went against the will of millions of GOP voters.
“National Review says subliminally ‘we are irrelevant,” Fox News’ Van Susteren said Friday on social media, “the polls show most Republicans want [Trump].”
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh appeared shocked Friday afternoon, and suggested it is unseemly for a conservative publication to try to diminish the leading GOP candidate.
“Have you ever seen this?” he asked his audience. “Do you ever remember seeing anything like this? Forget in your lifetime, because you haven’t.”
He then accused National Review of being “plenty supportive” of the so-called GOP “establishment,” which he said is running a similarly unseemly campaign to quash the candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Fox host Andrea Tantaros also accused National Review of being unwilling to fight the “establishment,” saying, “I respect @NRO but they should’ve blasted the SOURCE of conservatism crumbling which lead to Trump’s rise: THE FAILED, ELITE ESTABLISHMENT.”
National Review has published multiple editorials over the years lambasting GOP leadership for its failure to follow through on various fights in Congress.
Fox’s Chris Wallace added to the fray Friday, saying National Review’s barrage of criticism for Trump amounted to little more than a blip on the political radar.
“Honestly, I don’t think it’s a big deal,” Wallace said. “The National Review, which was the kind of Bible in the early days of the conservative movement under [founder] William F. Buckley, is not what it once was, nearly. I think most people … a lot more people are going to see our coverage of it than are actually going to see the magazine.”
Fox host Jeanine Pirro said elsewhere non-sarcastically, “The National Review needs to get in line with the rest of the Republicans. How dare they trash the frontrunner [Donald Trump]?”
Talk radio host Laura Ingraham meanwhile dubbed the magazine’s efforts a “big mistake.”
“With so much on the line for America, how is it smart to close the door to Trump’s voters and to populism in general?” she asked in a blog post. “National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.”
“NR’s attempted hit-job on Trump won’t … matter much. Folks who like Trump will continue to like him. Those who don’t will feel reconfirmed in their views,” she added.
Breitbart’s John Nolte accused the magazine of launching a “Victorian-Era attack on Donald Trump,” adding that things like the National Review symposium are “why we lose.”
Fowler, however, appeared to be unfazed by these and other criticisms, and told the Examiner that he is proud that the magazine launched 61 years ago by William F. Buckley Jr., who made his distaste for Trump no secret, continues to serve the purpose for which it was founded.
“The editorial was brilliant. I think the symposium was excellent, with the variety of voices there. If I had to do it over again, maybe I’d have a symposium with 40 people. No regrets. Zero regrets,” he said. “The point is for National Review this it to uphold its vision, which is to articulate and defend conservative principles.”
“Right now, we cannot say that, like, from ‘Network,’ throw open the window and shout, ‘I can’t take it anymore,’ and that’s totally understandable, but that’s not conservatism! That’s an attitude. And that’s channeled through Trump,” he added. “If we let prevail that anger and attitude is what [conservatism is] about, then we have lost.”
