That National Review has decided to, in essence, endorse Mitt Romney should come as no surprise to anyone. That they should do it in a clearly underhanded, weasily manner only cements its place as a journal that no longer bears any resemblance to an intellectually significant conservative magazine of opinion.
National Review hasn’t officially endorsed Romney. What they have chosen to do instead is cast aside any candidate that might actually have a chance at winning the nomination other than Romney.
After spending the better part of its op-ed trashing Newt Gingrich, and doing so in the exaggerated fashion that has become the hallmark of the establishment set, (For a more measured and fair assessment of Newt’s ideology, see Dan McLaughlin’s post at Red State.) National Review sets its eyes on the rest of the field.
Gingrich is not the only candidate whom we believe conservatives should, regretfully, exclude from consideration for the presidency. Governor Perry has done an exemplary job in Texas but has seemed curiously and persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage. Republican presidential candidates have not been known for their off-the-cuff eloquence in recent decades, but conservatism should not choose a standard-bearer who would have to spend much of his time untying his own tongue. Representative Bachmann’s rise early in the primary season reflected the public’s hunger for sincere conviction; her later descent, following among other things her casual repetition of false anti-vaccine rumors, its desire that conviction be married to judgment. Representative Paul’s recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence.
In other words, conservatives should ignore the four most popular candidates after Romney. Now I share National Review’s feelings about Ron Paul, and somewhat agree with its assessment of Michelle Bachmann, but their judgment on Rick Perry is so unbecoming of what was once the most important journal of opinion in the conservative movement.
So who does National Review think conservatives should pay attention to:
Three other candidates deserve serious consideration. Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.
I have nothing but the highest regard for Rick Santorum, but this is a joke. National Review winnows the field to two moderate squishes, one of whom has no chance at winning the nomination, and its third “viable” candidate is a solid conservative who, let’s face reality, also has little chance at knocking off Romney. In fact including Santorum in this litany is almost insulting. It’s a sop to the conservatives reading this editorial, but that’s all it is. This is like limiting the choices for winning the American League next year to the Yankees, Royals, and Mariners while excluding the Rangers, Angels, Red Sox and Rays from consideration. Oh, sure you’ve given us all a “choice,” but it’s a rigged choice that would make Vince McMahon blush.
It would have been bad enough had National Review simply endorsed Romney. Doing so in this backhanded fashion just means that there’s one less site I’ll get to visit every day.
Intellectual dishonesty is the term that applies I believe. I suppose that’s a couple of steps up from the left’s outright fabrications and name calling but sad nonetheless. Is it really helping Romney to make such a non-case case for him?
It is becoming clear that the gulf between the Beltway Repubs and their voters is wider than the gulf between them and the Dems. Both of them believe in more spending, more cronyism and more govt programs. Both Romney and Gingrich (and Huntsman) fit in with them although Newt’s personality turns them off.
Comment by Rozin — December 14, 2011 @ 9:45 pm
Intellectual dishonesty is the term that applies I believe.
Exactly. I would still object if they outright endorsed Romney, but at least they’d be intellectually honest with a straight endorsement.
Comment by Paul Zummo — December 14, 2011 @ 10:27 pm
For anyone who takes conservatism seriously, National Review certainly hasn’t been readable for at least the last 5 years as it has gone in the tank for Mitt Romney and become a big-government-advocating organ of the inside-the-Beltway GOP establishment (although I would argue that it has been unreadable going back to 2000 when they all gushed over John McCain).
We all knew National Review was going to eventually endorse Romney but this is a downright gutless and pathetic way to go about doing it.
Comment by Jay Anderson — December 15, 2011 @ 11:06 am
And as for Rick Santorum, it does seem as if he’s just thrown in as a bone to conservatives.
But also keep this in mind: of all the “true conservatives” in the race, Santorum is the one who is most firmly planted in the DC establishment wing – he’s certainly the most “Wilsonian” of the so-called “true conservatives”, which appears to be the most important criterion these days to the inside-the-beltway types, and he has proven street creds wiithin the establishment set that he will do the party’s bidding even at the expense of his pro-life credentials. This, in my mind, only further confirms my assessment that NR has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the inside-the-Beltway GOP establishment.
Comment by Jay Anderson — December 15, 2011 @ 11:47 am
The Washington Examiner endorsed Romney today. What made it an almost palatable exposition, was their admission that while his conservative “cred” has been shaky over the years, they demonstrated a clear evolution of his positions from the past to the present (which they would distinguish from flip-flopping). That, and an old adage from William F Buckley Jr, and they conclude that he is the man to beat Obama; further, that Obama’s people know this, which is why they’re dumping on Gingrich.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/romney-gops-best-choice/256896
By the way, could one of the many conservative, pro-life Catholics who endorse Santorum, take a few minutes to ask him how we’re going to PAY for a foreign policy of Wilsonian interventionalism that he wishes to continue? I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, so much as — well, Rome couldn’t afford theirs either, and look what happened.
Comment by David L Alexander — December 15, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
The Examiner editorial is a much more honest and thoughtful piece that NR’s editorial. I still disagree with it, but at least they didn’t toss their credibility overboard.
By the way, could one of the many conservative, pro-life Catholics who endorse Santorum, take a few minutes to ask him how we’re going to PAY for a foreign policy of Wilsonian interventionalism that he wishes to continue?
Santorum is more interventionist than I would like, but I don’t think this is a totally fair depiction of his foreign policy vision. That being said, this is the one area where Santorum and I don’t exactly see eye to eye. He favored our intervention – kinetic military action or whatever we called it – in Libya without thinking through the ramifications of our policy there. He’s the polar opposite of Ron Paul, and neither extreme has much appeal to me.
Comment by Paul Zummo — December 15, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
“so much as — well, Rome couldn’t afford theirs either, and look what happened.”
Actually Rome could afford its foreign policy. What Rome could not afford were endless civil wars that ravaged the empire in the third century. Diocletian and Constantine gave the empire a breathing space at the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, but ultimately the civil wars returned and fatally weakened the empire so it could not withstand the barbarian invasions of the fifth century.
Comment by Donald R. McClarey — December 15, 2011 @ 10:32 pm
I’m sure that “endless civil wars” were a drain, but the ability to settle internal matters was hardly enabled by maintaining interests in remote places. It was a drain for Rome then, and a drain for America now. More than 20 percent of the nation’s budget goes to defense. How much of that has anything to do with defending our own borders, which is the essential reason (as opposed to empire building) that any nation has an army to begin with?
Comment by manwithblackhat — December 15, 2011 @ 11:13 pm
“What Rome could not afford were endless civil wars”
Yes but don’t forget the ruinous dole (the original welfare entitlement state (or at least city) and the increasing number of nonproductive layers of society, bureaucracy and government regulations. Ring a bell?
Comment by Rozin — December 16, 2011 @ 1:44 am