It was astonishing to find that the Washington Post has just produced a lead article on "Conservative Magazines"! [Why conservative magazines are more important than ever, by T. A. Frank, [Tweet him] January 25, 2018 ]Well, since the emphasis of the article was in actuality cuckservative publications who dislike President Trump, so perhaps not so astonishing after all.
The usual suspects were all there, Rich Lowry, Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, and a smattering of others. Surprisingly, the article even mentions Taki, but not TakiMag! Sparse coverage of the on-line world, mostly dead tree publications.
The rise of Trump has cast most conservative magazines, even supportive ones, into the wilderness. How are they faring now? Here's what I found: https://t.co/3mdqrQOoIC— T.A. Frank (@tafrank) January 29, 2018
And the insights into Rich Lowry's mindset were illuminating:
Sometime in December 2015—well after Donald Trump had vented his dislike of mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey (“not a nice person”) but before he’d attacked the New Hampshire Union Leader (“pile of garbage”) and its publisher (“Stinky”)—Rich Lowry decided it was time to make it stop. Or at least try. Lowry is the editor of National Review, the country’s preeminent conservative magazine, and Trump, in the view of Lowry and most of his colleagues, had neither the character nor the qualifications to be president. “We have a voice, and we’ve always used it, and it’s been most effective in opposition,” Lowry recalled to me recently. “And this”—Trump—“was a uniquely powerful threat.”…So it appears that Lowry is channeling William F. Buckley as follows: Conservatives are best in opposition mode (we have seen how well that has worked out!) and should not expect to win. Although he was putting it in the context of Donald Trump, it is blatantly obvious that National Review (and where applicable, the other cited publications) are very acclimated to the left dominating while NR offers token, and highly controlled opposition. Therefore it is not perceived as dangerous by the liberal establishment whose acceptance it craves, and exists in a state of benevolent dhimmitude.
As much as their contributors may differ in opinion or even dislike one another, what unites these magazines—and distinguishes them from right-wing outlets like Breitbart—is an almost quaint belief in debate as an instrument of enlightenment rather than as a mere tool of political warfare. “There’s an argument on part of the right that the left is utterly remorseless and we need to be like that,” says Lowry. “That’s the way you lose your soul and you have no standards.”
In contrast, Donald Trump is a winner (unlike McCain and Romney), does not follow the the constraints set by the left, upsetting the delicate balance that National Review wallows in. Explicitly, Trump is a threat to that comfortable state of dhimmitude so both the master and their lackeys are equally enraged, attacking Trump with a ferocity never before seen in contemporary American politics.
And Lowry's cringing statement about how the right should not be "remorseless" demonstrates both his cowardice, and indifference to the fate of Western Civilization that is being threatened by the malevolent left. When one is fighting for survival against a formidable foe then being "remorseless" is hardly a sin.
A case in point was Britain in WWII who fought tough and used every dirty trick imaginable to fend off the aggression of Nazi Germany. Rich Lowry would have been at Dover keeping his "soul and standards" intact while the Nazi invasion fleet was landing.