Et Tu National Review?

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

The National Review was founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley, Jr. It defined its’ purpose in a statement of intentions:

“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)…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review

Bill Buckley, the son of an oil baron, was born to wealth and privilege. He was a lieutenant in the Army from 1943 until 1945 when he entered Yale and became a member of Skull and Bones, along with future President George H.W. Bush. In 1953 Buckley became prominent for his book “God and Man at Yale”. So when he founded the National Review he was already prominent in Conservative circles. Oh yes, it should be mentioned he was a CIA field agent under E. Howard Hunt, from 1951 through 1953.

“George H. Nash, a historian of the modern American conservative movement, believed that Buckley was “arguably the most important public intellectual in the United States in the past half century… For an entire generation, he was the preeminent voice of American conservatism and its first great ecumenical figure.”[6] Buckley’s primary contribution to politics was a fusion of traditional American  political conservatism with laissez-faire economic theory and anti-communism, laying groundwork for the new American conservatism of U.S. presidential candidates Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan“. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

Whether you like the National Review or not, you must admit that it is the single most important magazine of the Conservative movement in America and has been so since its’ founding. As you can see from their mission statement above they claim to eschew popularity and polls, serving higher priciples. I was therefore interested to come across a story this week that calls into question their true dedication to higher principles, or perhaps one of their principles is merely naked greed.

Nation of Change, an informative progressive web news outlet, ran a story by Lee Fang, their investigative reporter. The story dealt with cash donations given to the National Review, by PhRMA the lobbying entity of the pharmaceutical industry: http://www.nationofchange.org/exclusive-conservative-magazine-national-review-buoyed-drug-lobbyist-cash-1322751505  The story discloses that PhRMA  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhRMA  gave the National Review Institute $205,000 in 2009. This institute is the non-profit that supports the magazine. This amount constituted about one third of the institute’s income in 2009.

The time period in which PhRMA made its contribution coincided with helpful political attacks emanating from the pages of the National Review. The National Review took a leading role demonizing a cost-saving proposal from the Obama administration that could diminish millions, if not billions, in pharmaceutical company profits. In 2009, President Obama fought to deliver reform by cutting some of the waste out of the health care system. His first signature accomplishment, the stimulus, contained some initial funding of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER). CER would set up an independent body to develop a system to find the best medical outcomes, and in doing so, save up to $700 billion by some estimates in annual health spending. PhRMA recognized quickly that CER would most likely steer medical professional towards prescribing more generic medications over branded drugs, thus slicing a sizable share of corporate profits“. 

PhRMA also launched at series of attack ads at this time all aimed at ensuring that the government not put in place these restraints on their huge profits. This is a sad, yet telling tale, of the real motives behind the modern Conservative movement, as exemplified by its most respected institution.

The thrust of the article demonstrates intertwining of the modern Conservative movement with the needs of the most powerful corporations. Going back to the quote from conservative historian Nash above:” Buckley’s primary contribution to politics was a fusion of traditional American political conservatism with laissez-faire economic theory” we can see the changes that have been made to old fashioned American conservative belief by this  overlay of a doctrine of corporate laissez-faire. For 56 years the National Review has gradually reshaped Conservative thought from one of protection of the founding principles of this country into a pro-corporate rooting section. As the world’s economy has evolved this pro-corporate stance has further evolved into a pro-multinational corporate stance. In essence this movement no longer focuses on the needs of the United State of America, but instead caters to the “Captains” of “The New World Order”.

It might be noticed that nowhere above did I use the term business. This was intentional on my part because I’d like to make the further point that the modern Conservative movement is essentially an anti-business operation. In order for Capitalism to be a workable economic system it requires a dynamic market. The dynamics must mean that people with ideas, entrepreneurs if you will, must be free to enter the market at even a rudimentary level and thus be free to succeed or fail, based on the novelty of their innovation and/or the quality of product and/or service they deliver. When one talks of businesses and markets it should include the entire spectrum of the marketplace, not just those corporations who have become gigantic by absorbing less wealthy entities. The multi-national corporations by their nature stifle a free marketplace and in truth inhibit rapid innovation wherever they can.

This is the change that Bill Buckley has wrought, an American movement whose leaders no longer strive to uplift their country. Though to be charitable, I’m not sure he foresaw where the movement he set in motion was going, in the end he must share the damnation. This damnation that is responsible for the decline of this country and the uplifting of a Multi-National Corporate Empire.

43 thoughts on “Et Tu National Review?”

  1. Mespo,

    You caught my drift, it was the sarcasm that Anon is so fond of using. While
    my skills may not be up to the task of clarifying it, there is actually a common thread in most of my guest blogs, which is the attempt to bring medieval feudalism back to the world via re-institution of a class of Nobles. We have our bread and circuses in sport, our celebrity obsession and a surfeit of TV programming to make us hunger for the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Family political dynasty’s have become the norm and nepotism is an accepted method of obtaining employment. The other aspect necessary is being accomplished by a shrinking middle-class and the rising number of salary serfs. Add to this a soupcon of demonizing a despised “Other”, mocking the failure of those unable to find work and you have a recipe for the reemergence of a feudal economy. Our new nobility though won’t be Barons and Earls, but CEO’s, Entrepreneurs, Governors, Senators and Congressman.

  2. Mike S:

    ” From all accounts he was personally a nice man, loved dogs and gave to charity.”

    ********************

    That sounds a lot like another arch-conservative I know about. He liked dogs and kids and even created a system of child support and homes for unwed mothers and their offspring:

    http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/assets/images/500x/hitler-with-dog.jpg0

    http://images.theage.com.au/2009/11/10/848498/420-hitler-420×0.jpg

    Ain’t non-sequitur’s fun? Buckley used them all the time.

  3. Peel back the veneer of most any conservative phliosopher and you’ll find a carny baker selling you snake oil. Anything wrong with that? No, but you need to know who and what you’re dealing with.

    Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
    ~Bertrand Russell

  4. Puzzling,
    Buckley was right about the drug war, so what? He was a supercilious patrician, who believed in the right to rule of his class of plutocrats. He helped shape this self serving belief into a philosophy which is destructive to America. From all accounts he was personally a nice man, loved dogs and gave to charity. That doesn’t make up for the destruction he left in his wake, nor his lifelong support and friendship to the likes of E. Howard Hunt and Pat Buchanan.

  5. Mike Spindell:

    interesting, I canceled my subscription to NR a decade ago. Buckley is/was part of the problem with the conservative movement. He was a very intelligent man but I think you are right that he was a protector of the upper class status quo and not a champion of actual liberty.

    Although statism takes many forms they all tend to lead to the same place.

    I think Buckley’s problem and possibly most conservatives problem is that they believe in order and the need to control instead of just letting people live. They understand on the economic side but they do not on the political side. Whereas progressives understand on the political but do not understand on the economic side.

    A synthesis of of left and right is what we need. Throwing out the desire for control which both sides have.

  6. I did not think of this, but it is one of those things I wish I had thought of.

    “The modern republican party is no longer a political party. It has become a religious movement.”

    I can’t remember where I read that so I can give credit. I might add that the modern Republican party not only behaves as a pseudoreligion, it has the trappings and style of a fundamentalist religious organization. The last true Republican I can remember in office is Eisenhower. And Ike warned against the encroachment of the military-industrial complex taking over our society and economy. IMHO, William Buckley was a part and parcel of the M-I complex with his military and CIA background. He was an operative until the day he died.

  7. So the National Review is driven by greed for kickbacks it gets by promoting government laws favoring multinational corporations? That seems like quite an allegation based on the evidence laid out here.

    I guess the prison-industrial complex hasn’t ponied up yet to stop NR’s opposition to the drug war. Perhaps this means NR is on the take from drug cartels?

    From William F Buckley – The War on Drugs is Lost, 1996:

    We are speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen — yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect.

  8. So the National Review is driven by greed for kickbacks it gets by promoting government laws favoring multinational corporations? That seems like quite an allegation based on the evidence laid out here.

    I guess the prison-industrial complex hasn’t ponied up yet to stop NR’s opposition to the drug war. Perhaps this means NR is really on the take from drug cartels?

    From William F Buckley – The War on Drugs is Lost, 1996:

    We are speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen — yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect.

  9. Great Post Mike…..

    rcampbell,

    Ditto….

    Dredd,

    You are correct…

    Anon,

    A horse is a horse of course of course unless you are in a stock trailer in West Texas….then its a Brothel of course…….

  10. The fact that Buckley died before the contributions were made is completely irrelevant. The thrust of Mike’s piece is the legacy of greed left by Buckley and his conservative ilk and the resultant damage it has wrought upon us all—-except, of course, on the hallowed 1%ers like Mr. Buckley whose wealth and predatory business practices are ardently protected at the expense of the rest us and the country itself. This is the end result of conservatives’ it’s-all-about-me-me-me mentality.

  11. Anon,
    I always enjoy your informative perspective, whether about women or politics, especially the cogency of your discourse.

  12. “… the National Review has gradually reshaped Conservative thought from one of protection of the founding principles of this country into a pro-corporate rooting section

    Of course there is nothing wrong with a corporation per se, it is just that they have become the sinks of corruption, sinking the “economy” by morphing it into a plutonomy, and by sinking the nation’s traditional values.

    Leadership morph is at the foundation, as Mike points out, by pointing to Republican Part propaganda engines that fight with Democratic Party propaganda engines.

    Meanwhile the people suffer as those two parties become loon bags.

  13. So a conservative publication is founded in 1955, a publication which praises free-market economics and would, if it stuck to that principle, oppose government intervention in healthcare.
    In 2009, that publication receives a donation from a large pharmaceutical company. That same year, it publishes an article that opposes government intervention in healthcare.
    In 2011, a blogger connects the article to the donation, but not to the ideological bent of said publication.

    Don’t you think it’s possible that PhRMA donated because of they knew NR was an ideological ally? Although I guess it is easier to believe that the opposition is part of a vast conspiracy, rather than individuals who have honest disagreements with your own beliefs.

  14. Here’s my impression of a certain commenter:

    “Great Post Mike!”

    Guess which one!?

    Yeah, most of these sad sack sycophants.

  15. What a load of horse shit.

    Buckley died a year before those donations occurred. Your argument is weak, and propelled mainly by your desire to to damn Buckley.

    Why not just be a man about it and damn Buckley, it would have saved you a ton of effort loading up non sequitur poo to fling.

    Screw Buckley.

    See, that was easy.

Comments are closed.