When you see the adherents of a movement vociferate to kill
it, you know there will be no requiem for this movement when it takes a last
gasp and goes silent.
That's what is happening at the National Review at this time.
It is the publication where the Conservative movement found its voice and grew
to become a major force on the American political scene. Actually, the
publication has not turned against conservatism itself but against the
Republican Party that spearheaded the movement. And that's the Party which the
editors of National Review believe has gone so crazy, they can no longer
associate with it, let alone support it.
What exactly happened there? It happened that a parasite
abandoned the Democratic Party, which is the liberal camp standing as nemesis
to conservatism. The parasite migrated to the conservative side of the
political spectrum where it adopted the name 'new conservative' or neocon. It
invaded the Republican Party, dominated it and gradually sapped it of its
energy like the worm that consumes its host from the inside out.
With the demise of the Republican Party came the demise of
the conservative movement in America ,
and the demise of National Review. Now a shadow of its old self, it is edited
by a group that would not qualify as a shadow of its founding father … who died
a decade ago. Unaware that the publication – as it stands now – has played a
role in the saga that turned so badly, the current editors of National Review
have determined it was time to distance themselves from the Republican Party
because of what it has become.
But how did National Review play a role in the sordid saga?
The best way to tell this story is to create an analogy. Imagine the heir to an
enterprise muzzling and demoting the cadre that was put in place by his father.
He hires his high school buddies – who have no idea what they are doing – and
puts them in charge of the enterprise. When the thing sinks to a depth so low
it cannot be recovered, he blames the failure on his father's cadre and fires
everyone of them thus makes the situation even worse.
What happened in practice is that Rich Lowry who is the
current editor of the publication, gave prominence to the writings of the
neocons – those who have no idea what they are doing, – one of whom being Jonah
Goldberg, himself an editor of the publication. This had the effect of drowning
out the voices of the original conservatives who chose to move away. Confusion
spread throughout the base of the conservative movement, and that's how the
Republican Party started to go crazy.
In fact, the caliber of those who write for National Review
is so low; you get distressed reading their articles. It happens that each of
Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg wrote and published an article on the same
subject on the same day, August 5, 2016 in National Review Online. Read them
and see for yourself. Lowry's article came under the title: “The Ransom that
Dare Not Speak Its Name,” that of Goldberg came under the title: “When Is a
Ransom Not a Ransom? When It's Inconvenient to Call It That”.
The idea behind the two articles is that the writers wish to
convince the readers that what the Administration did amounts to paying a
ransom to get the American prisoners out. As devoid of merit as this subject
may be, even if we pretend it is important to tell and retell in full detail,
you would think that the writers first defined what is meant by 'paying a
ransom,' and went from there to show that this is what actually happened. But
you see none of that in either article.
Instead, Rich Lowry wants the readers to believe that the
Obama Administration committed a horrible sin – saying that “the Administration
paid Iran
a ransom for prisoners, whatever they choose to call it. It's funny how
coincidences work.” As you can see, this is so informative; you can't help but
believe it wholeheartedly.
As to Goldberg, he chose to put his analysis in the form of
an analogy, which is a legitimate approach. This is what he did, however: “One
of my favorite lines is from Henry Thoreau: 'Some circumstantial evidence is
very strong, as when you find a trout in your milk.'” But who is the trout and
who is the milk? Goldberg does not say … which is why his entire presentation
has turned into a fishy exercise.