National Review: Difference between revisions

| frequency = Monthly<ref>{{Cite web |title=Behold! A New Magazine |website=National Review |date=August 20, 2023 |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/behold-a-new-magazine/ |access-date=October 30, 2023 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616020043/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/behold-a-new-magazine/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

| total_circulation = 75,000<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NR_MediaKit_2022_.pdf|access-date=1 Jul 2022|title=National Review Media Kit 2022|author=Jim Fowler|website=National Review|archive-date=June 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616015902/https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NR_MediaKit_2022_.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

'''''National Review''''' is an [[Conservatism in the United States|American conservative]] [[Right-libertarianism|right-libertarian]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-national-review-reliable/|title=Is the National Review Reliable?|first=Phillip|last=Meylan|date=September 19, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220429183817/https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-national-review-reliable/|archive-date=2022-04-29|website=The Factual|department=Blog}}</ref> editorial magazine, focusing on news and commentary pieces on political, social, and cultural affairs. The magazine was founded by the author [[William F. Buckley Jr.]] in 1955.<ref name="rperlstein"/> Its editor-in-chief is [[Rich Lowry]], and its editor is [[Ramesh Ponnuru]].

Since its founding, the magazine has played a significant role in the development of [[conservatism in the United States]], helping to define its boundaries<ref name="rperlstein"/> and promoting [[fusionism]] while establishing itself as a leading voice on the [[American right]].<ref name="rperlstein">{{cite news |last1=Perlstein |first1=Rick |title=I thought I understood the American Right |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/magazine/i-thought-i-understood-the-american-right-trump-proved-me-wrong.html?_r=4 |access-date=June 7, 2017 |work=The New York Times |date=April 11, 2017 |archive-date=December 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221226163822/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/magazine/i-thought-i-understood-the-american-right-trump-proved-me-wrong.html?_r=4 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url= http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/national-review-magazine-opposes-donald-trump/index.html |title=National Review, conservative thinkers stand against Donald Trump |last=Byers |first=Dylan |website=CNN |date=January 21, 2016 |access-date=April 5, 2017 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616015938/https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/national-review-magazine-opposes-donald-trump/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="brooksd">{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=David |title=The Conservative Mind |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opinion/brooks-the-conservative-mind.html |access-date=June 11, 2017 |work=The New York Times |date=September 24, 2017 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616015939/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opinion/brooks-the-conservative-mind.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Before ''National Review''{{'}}s founding in 1955, the [[American right]] was a largely unorganized collection of people who shared intertwining philosophies but had little opportunity for a united public voice. They wanted to marginalize the [[antiwar]], noninterventionistic views of the [[Old Right (United States)|Old Right]].<ref>{{sfn|Nash, George H. (1976, |2006). ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945''. ISI Books: Wilmington, DE, |pp. 186–193.</ref>=186-193}}

In 1953, moderate Republican [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] was president, and many major magazines such as the ''[[Saturday Evening Post]]'', ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', and ''[[Reader's Digest]]'' were strongly conservative and anticommunist, as were many newspapers including the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' and ''[[St. Louis Globe-Democrat]]''. A few small-circulation conservative magazines, such as ''[[Human Events]]'' and ''[[The Freeman]]'', preceded ''National Review'' in developing [[Cold War]] conservatism in the 1950s.<ref>{{sfn|Nash, ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945''. |2006|pp. 186–193.</ref>=186-193}}

In 1953, [[Russell Kirk]] published ''The Conservative Mind'', which traced an intellectual bloodline from [[Edmund Burke]]<ref name="autogenerated186">{{sfn|Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy |Beer, and Jeffrey O. |Nelson (|2006) ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia''. ISI Books, Wilmington, DE, |pp. 186–188</ref>=186-188}} to the [[Old Right (United States)|Old Right]] in the early 1950s. This challenged the notion among intellectuals that no coherent conservative tradition existed in the United States.<ref name{{sfn|Frohnen|Beer|Nelson|2006|pp="autogenerated186" />186-188}}

A young [[William F. Buckley Jr.]] was greatly influenced by Kirk's concepts. Buckley had money; his father grew rich from oil fields in Mexico. He first tried to purchase ''[[Human Events]]'', but was turned down. He then met [[Willi Schlamm]], the experienced editor of ''[[The Freeman]]''; they would spend the next two years raising the $300,000 necessary to start their own weekly magazine, originally to be called ''National Weekly''.<ref>{{cite booksfn|first=Carl T.|last=Bogus|title=Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HvGHFnwPljAC&pg=PT206|year= 2011|publisher=[[Bloomsbury Publishing|Bloomsbury]] |isbnp=9781608193554206}}</ref> (A magazine holding the trademark to the name prompted the change to ''National Review''.) The statement of intentions read:<ref>{{cite book|editor-first=Gregory L. |editor-last=Schneider|title=Conservatism in America since 1930: a reader|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=U6hzBFw1ky8C&pg=PA195|year=2003|publisher=NYU Press|pages=195ff|isbn=9780814797990}}</ref>

On November 19, 1955, Buckley's magazine began to take shape. Buckley assembled an eclectic group of writers: traditionalists, Catholic intellectuals, libertarians, and ex-Communists. The group included [[Revilo P. Oliver]], [[Russell Kirk]], [[James Burnham]], [[Frank Meyer (political philosopher)|Frank Meyer]], and [[Willmoore Kendall]], and Catholics [[L. Brent Bozell Jr.|L. Brent Bozell]] and [[Garry Wills]]. The former ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' editor [[Whittaker Chambers]], who had been a Communist spy in the 1930s and then turned intensely anti-Communist, became a senior editor. In the magazine's founding statement Buckley wrote:<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501030730.asp Our Mission Statement], ''National Review Online'', November 19, 1955<name="Mission_Statement"/ref>

As editors and contributors, Buckley sought out intellectuals who were ex-Communists or had once worked on the far left, including Whittaker Chambers, [[Willi Schlamm|William Schlamm]], [[John Dos Passos]], Frank Meyer, and James Burnham.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=John P. |last=Diggins, "|title=Buckley's Comrades: The Ex-Communist as Conservative", ''|magazine=Dissent'' |date=July 1975, Vol. |volume=22 Issue |issue=4, pp. |pages=370–386}}</ref> When James Burnham became one of the original senior editors, he urged the adoption of a more pragmatic editorial position that would extend the influence of the magazine toward the political center. Smant (1991) finds that Burnham overcame sometimes heated opposition from other members of the editorial board (including Meyer, Schlamm, William Rickenbacker, and the magazine's publisher [[William A. Rusher]]), and had a significant effect on both the editorial policy of the magazine and on the thinking of Buckley himself.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Kevin |last=Smant, "|title=Whither Conservatism? James Burnham and 'National Review,' 1955–1964," ''|magazine=Continuity,'' |year=1991, Issue |issue=15, pp. |pages=83–97; Smant, ''Principles and Heresies: Frank S. Meyer and the Shaping of the American Conservative Movement'' (2002) pp. 33–66}}</ref>{{sfn|Smant|2002|pp=33-66}}

''National Review'' aimed to make conservative ideas respectable<ref name="rperlstein"/> in an age when the dominant view of conservative thought was, as expressed by Columbia professor [[Lionel Trilling]],<ref>[{{cite web |url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjQ4Nzc2OTVjMWE1MzVkNWM5ZGYxZDUxNjY5YTFhYzU= |title=Golden Days] {{Webarchive|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070504005250/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjQ4Nzc2OTVjMWE1MzVkNWM5ZGYxZDUxNjY5YTFhYzU= |archive-date=May 4, 2007 }}, ''|website=National Review Online'', |date=October 27, 2005.}}</ref>

Buckley said that ''National Review'' "is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation... since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to... run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals.'<ref name="Mission_Statement">{{Cite web|last=Buckley|first=William|title=Our Mission Statement|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223549/our-mission-statement/william-f-buckley-jr|publisher=National Review Online|access-date=April 27, 2012|date=19 November 1955}}</ref>

''National Review'' promoted [[Barry Goldwater]] heavily during the early 1960s. Buckley and others involved with the magazine took a major role in the "Draft Goldwater" movement in 1960 and the 1964 presidential campaign. ''National Review'' spread his vision of conservatism throughout the country.<ref>{{sfn|Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy |Beer, and Jeffrey O. |Nelson, eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia''. (|2006) |pp. 601–604</ref>=601-604}}

Buckley and his editors used his magazine to define the boundaries of conservatism—and to exclude people or ideas or groups they considered unworthy of the conservative title. Therefore, they attacked the [[John Birch Society]], [[George Wallace]], and anti-Semites.<ref name="rperlstein"/><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |editor-first=Roger |editor-last=Chapman, ''|encyclopedia=Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices'' (|year=2009) vol. |volume=1 p. |page=58}}</ref>

Buckley's goal was to increase the respectability of the conservative movement; in 2004, current editor [[Rich Lowry]], compiled various quotes of articles commenting on Buckley's retirement including from [[The Dallas Morning News]]: "Mr. Buckley's first great achievement was to purge the American right of its kooks. He marginalized the anti-Semites, the John Birchers, the [[Nativism (politics)|nativists]] and their sort."<ref>[{{cite web |url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDc3ZDExYWU5MjBiMDJiN2Q2YWM4Y2U4MWYyYTY1NzI= |title=A Personal Retrospective] {{Webarchive|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061019044636/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDc3ZDExYWU5MjBiMDJiN2Q2YWM4Y2U4MWYyYTY1NzI= |archive-date=October 19, 2006 }}, ''|website=National Review Online'', |date=August 9, 2004}}</ref>

In 1957, ''National Review'' editorialized in favor of white leadership in the South, arguing that "the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmustprevail-1957.pdf|title=Why the South Must Prevail|last=Buckley|first=William F.|date=August 24, 1957|work=National Review|access-date=September 16, 2017|volume=4|pages=148–149|archive-date=March 27, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327054726/https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmustprevail-1957.pdf|url-status=live |via=adamgomez.files.wordpress.com}}</ref><ref>Quoted in John B. {{harvnb|Judis, ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (2001) |1988|p. =138}}</ref> By the 1970s ''National Review'' advocated colorblind policies and the end of [[affirmative action]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Laura |last=Kalman, ''|title=Right Star Rising: A New Politics, 1974–1980'' (|year=2010) p. |page=23 |oclc=449865532 |publisher=Norton |location=New York}}</ref>

In the late 1960s, the magazine denounced segregationist [[George Wallace]], who ran in Democratic primaries in 1964 and 1972 and made an independent run for president in 1968. During the 1950s, Buckley had worked to remove [[anti-Semitism]] from the conservative movement and barred holders of those views from working for ''National Review''.<ref>{{sfn|Judis, ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' |1988|pp. 283–287</ref>=283-287}} In 1962, Buckley denounced [[Robert W. Welch Jr.]] and the [[John Birch Society]] as "far removed from common sense" and urged the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] to purge itself of Welch's influence.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248|title=Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me|work=Commentary|access-date=March 9, 2008|author=William F. Buckley Jr.|author-link=William F. Buckley Jr.|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080308122414/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248|archive-date=March 8, 2008}}</ref>

{{blockquote|In other words, a wide conservative spectrum—[[Paleoconservatism|paleo-conservatives]], [[neo-conservatives]], [[tea party movement|tea-party]] enthusiasts, the deeply [[religious]] and the [[agnostic]], both [[libertarians]] and [[social conservatives]], [[free market|free-marketeers]] and the more [[protectionism|protectionist]]—characterizes ''National Review''. The common requisite is that they present their views as a critique of prevailing [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal orthodoxy]] but do so analytically and with decency and respect.<ref>see [{{Cite web |last=Hanson |first=Victor Davis |date=1 December 2015 |title=The Home of Intellectual Populism Could Use Your Help |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418697/home-intellectual-populism-could-use-your-help-victor-davis-hanson Hanson, "The|website=National Home of Intellectual Populism Could Use Your Help" NRO 1 December, 2015]Review}}</ref>}}

The magazine has been described as "the bible of [[conservatism in the United States|American conservatism]]".<ref name="TitanicReshufflingDeckChairsNRCruise-NewRepublic">{{Cite magazine |last=Hari, |first=Johann |date=July 2, "2007 |title=Titanic: Reshuffling the Deck Chairs on the National Review Cruise", in ''|magazine=The New Republic'', vol.|page=31 |volume=237, |issue =1, July 2, 2007 (in ''MasterFile Premier'' (EbscoHost) (PDF) (subscription may be required)), p.&nbsp;31}}</ref>

In 2015, the magazine published an editorial entitledtitled "Against Trump", calling him[[Donald Trump]] a "philosophically unmoored political opportunist" and announcing its adamant and uniform opposition to his [[2016 Republican Party presidential primaries|presidential candidacy]] for the Republican nomination for president.<ref>{{citeCite web |date=January 21, 2016 |title=Against Trump |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace/ |titleurl-status=Againstlive Trump|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616015939/https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace/ |websitearchive-date=NationalJune Review16, 2024 |access-date=JanuaryAugust 218, 20162018 |website=National Review}}</ref> After Trump's election to the presidency and through his administration, the ''National Review'' editorial board continued to criticize him.<ref>{{citeCite web |date=July 17, 2018 |title=The Mouth That Toured |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/trump-putin-meeting-finland-pathetic/ |titleurl-status=Thelive Mouth That Toured|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616015942/https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/trump-putin-meeting-finland-pathetic/ |websitearchive-date=NationalJune Review16, 2024 |access-date=JulyAugust 178, 2018 |website=National Review}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite web |date=July 3, 2018 |title=Against the Trump Trade Bill |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/donald-trump-trade-bill-wto-tariff-problematic/|title=Against the Trump Trade Bill |website=National Review |access-date=JulyAugust 38, 2018 |archive-date=August 20, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012516/https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/donald-trump-trade-bill-wto-tariff-problematic/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{citeCite web |date=May 2, 2018 |title=Keep the Pressure on Kim |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/north-korea-kim-jong-un-talks-keep-pressure-on/|title=Keep the Pressure on Kim |website=National Review |access-date=MayAugust 28, 2018 |archive-date=August 20, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012517/https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/north-korea-kim-jong-un-talks-keep-pressure-on/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=October 2023}}

However, following Trump's [[2016 United States presidential election|2016 electoral victory]] over [[Hillary Clinton]], some ''National Review'' and ''National Review Online'' contributors took more varied positions on Trump. Hanson, for instance, supports him,<ref>{{citeCite web |last=Beinart |first=Peter |date=July 13, 2018 |title=The 'To Be Sure' Conservatives |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/to-be-sure/565094/ |titleurl-status=Thelive 'To|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616021427/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/to-be-sure/565094/ Be|archive-date=June Sure'16, 2024 Conservatives|firstaccess-date=Peter|last=BeinartAugust 8, 2018 |website=[[The Atlantic]] |date=July 13, 2018}}</ref> while ''National Review'' contributorsothers, such as editor Ramesh Ponnuru and contributor [[Jonah Goldberg]], have remained uniformly critical of Trump.<ref>{{cite web |last=Robinson |first=EmeraldCitation needed|date=June 29, 2018 |title=The Collapse of the Never-Trump Conservatives |url=https://spectator.org/the-collapse-of-the-never-trump-conservatives/ |access-date=December 6, 2022 |work=The American Spectator}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=December 20232024}} In a ''[[Washington Post]]'' feature on conservative magazines, T.A. Frank noted: "From the perspective of a reader, these tensions make ''National Review'' as lively as it has been in a long time."<ref>{{citeCite news |last=Frank |first=T.A. |date=January 25, 2018 |title=Welcome to the Golden Age of Conservative Magazines |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/01/25/feature/why-conservative-magazines-are-more-important-than-ever/|title=Welcome to the Golden Age of Conservative Magazines|newspaperurl-status=Thelive Washington Post|firstarchive-url=Thttps://web.Aarchive.org/web/20201116083725/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/01/25/feature/why-conservative-magazines-are-more-important-than-ever/ |last=Frank|archive-date=JanuaryNovember 2516, 20182020 |access-date=December 6, 2022 |work=The Washington Post}}</ref>

InAs Trump announced his run for reelection in 2022 and throughout 2023, ''National Review'' editorialized regularly against Trump'shim and his [[2024Donald UnitedTrump States presidential election|2024 presidential campaign|candidacy]].<ref>[{{Cite web |last=Cooke |first=Charles C. W. |date=January 25, 2023 |title=Trump has completely lost his grip of reality |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/01/trump-has-completely-lost-his-grip-on-reality/ "Trump|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230425002029/https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/01/trump-has -completely -lost -his -grip of -on-reality"],/ ''National Review'', January|archive-date=April 25, 2023 |website=National Review}}</ref><ref>[{{Cite web |last=Cooke |first=Charles C. W. |date=March 21, 2023 |title=Pick one: conservatism or Trump |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/pick-one-conservatism-or-trump/ "Pick|url-status=live one|archive-url=https: //web.archive.org/web/20230425002031/https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/pick-one-conservatism -or-trump/ Trump"],|archive-date=April ''National Review''25, March2023 21,|website=National 2023Review}}</ref><ref>{{primaryCite sourceweb |last=Mastrangelo |first=Dominick inline|date=February2022-11-16 |title=National Review on Trump in 2024: 'No' |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3737958-national-review-on-trump-in-2024-no/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240323194519/https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3737958-national-review-on-trump-in-2024-no/ |archive-date=March 23, 2024 |access-date=2024-03-23 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

A popular web version of the magazine, ''National Review Online'' ("N.R.O."), includes a digital version of the magazine, with articles updated daily by ''National Review'' writers, and conservative blogs. The online version is called ''N.R.O.'' to distinguish it from the printed magazine. It also features free articles, though these deviate in content from its print magazine. The site's editor is [[Philip Klein (editor)|Phillip Klein]], who replaced [[Charles C. W. Cooke]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gold |first=Hadas |date=June 16, 2018 |title=Charles C. W. Cooke named Online editor at National Review |url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/charles-w-cooke-named-national-review-online-editor-224428 |titleurl-status=Charleslive C|archive-url=https://web. Warchive. Cooke org/web/20160617150840/http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/charles-w-cooke-named Online -national-review-online-editor-224428 at National Review|website=Politico|first=Hadas|last=Gold|archive-date=June 1617, 20182016 |access-date=June 18, 2016 |website=Politico}}</ref>

* '''The Corner'''<ref>{{citeCite web |title=The Corner |website=National Review |url=http://corner.nationalreview.com/|title=The Corner|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050922232245/http://corner.nationalreview.com/ |archive-date=September 22, 2005}}</ref> –is a selection of postings from a select group of the site's editors and affiliated writers discussing the issues of the day.

* '''Bench Memos'''<ref>{{citeCite web |title=Bench Memos |website=National Review |url=http://bench.nationalreview.com/|title=Bench Memos|accessurl-datestatus=Augustdead 30, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060830063646/http://bench.nationalreview.com/ |archive-date=August 30, 2006 |urlaccess-statusdate=deadAugust 30, 2006}}</ref> –provides legal and judicial news and commentary.

[[Markos Moulitsas]], who runs the [[Liberalism in the United States|liberal]] ''[[Daily Kos]]'' web-site, told reporters in August 2007 that he does not read conservative blogs, with the exception of those on N.R.O.: "I do like the blogs at the ''National Review''—I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere," he said.<ref>[{{Cite web |date=August 2, 2007 |title=Markos speaks |url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Markos_speaks.html "Markos |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616021557/https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2007/08/markos-speaks"],-002493 Ben|archive-date=June Smith16, blog2024 in ''|website=[[Politico|The Politico'',]] August|department=Ben 2,Smith 2007.Blog |first=Ben |last=Smith}}</ref>

In 2019, the [[Whittaker Chambers]] family prevailed on NRIthe N.R.I. to cease an award in Chambers' name, after an award to people whom the family found objectionable.<ref name=WSJ-Award>{{cite news|first=Jess|last=Bravin|author-link=Jess Bravin|title=Whittaker Chambers Award Draws Criticism{{snd}}From His Family: Family members say the conservative icon would be appalled by the recipients of the National Review's prize|work= Wall Street Journal|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/whittaker-chambers-award-draws-criticismfrom-his-family-11553765402|date=28 March 2019|access-date=30 March 2019|archive-date=March 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190330031902/https://www.wsj.com/articles/whittaker-chambers-award-draws-criticismfrom-his-family-11553765402|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=WEF-Award>{{cite news|title=National Review Institute ends Whittaker Chambers Award amid his descendants' outcry over recipients|work=Washington Examiner|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/national-review-institute-ends-whittaker-chambers-award-amid-his-descendants-outcry-over-recipients|date=29 March 2019|access-date=30 March 2019|archive-date=March 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190330144240/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/national-review-institute-ends-whittaker-chambers-award-amid-his-descendants-outcry-over-recipients|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first=David|last=Chambers|title=Withdraw Whittaker|publisher=WhittakerChambers.org|url=https://whittakerchambers.org/about/whittaker-chambers-award/|date=31 March 2019|access-date=31 March 2019|archive-date=August 4, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804113517/https://whittakerchambers.org/about/whittaker-chambers-award/|url-status=live}}</ref>

As with most political opinion magazines in the United States, ''National Review'' carries little corporate advertising. The magazine stays afloat from subscription fees, donations, and black-tie fundraisers around the country. The magazine also sponsors cruises featuring ''National Review'' editors and contributors as lecturers.<ref name="TitanicReshufflingDeckChairsNRCruise-NewRepublic" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://nricruise.com/|title=The National Review Institute's 2024 Alaska CRUISE &#124; June 16-23, 2024 &#124; + Fairbanks/Denali Pre-cruise Package|website=nricruise.com|access-date=July 4, 2023|archive-date=June 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616021429/http://nricruise.com/|url-status=live}}</ref>

''National Review'' sometimes endorses a candidate during the primary election season. Editors at ''National Review'' have said, "Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors|title=Nationalreview.com Romney for President|work=National Review|access-date=October 17, 2011|archive-date=October 16, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111016093021/http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors|url-status=live}}</ref> This statement echoes what has come to be called "The Buckley Rule". In a 1967 interview, in which he was asked about the choice of presidential candidate, Buckley said, "The wisest choice would be the one who would win... I'd be for the most right, viable candidate who could win."<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IqwyAAAAIBAJ&dq=buckley%20rightward%20viable-candidate&pg=646%2C313367 |title= A Trip into Idea Land with Bill Buckley|access-date=October 17, 2011|work=The Miami News|date=April 18, 1967}}{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

* 2008: [[Mitt Romney]]<ref>{{Cite web|url= http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors |title= Romney for President|author= <!--Not stated-->|date= December 11, 2007|website= National Review|access-date= October 17, 2011|archive-date= October 16, 2011|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111016093021/http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors|url-status= live}}</ref>

* 2020: ''No endorsement''<ref>{{cite news |title=The Task Ahead |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-task-ahead/ |access-date=29 November 2020 |work=National Review |date=15 October 2020 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616014226/https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-task-ahead/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

* [[Tom Rogan]]

According to Philip Bump of ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''National Review'' "has regularly criticized and rejected the scientific consensus on climate change".<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/14/why-the-national-reviews-global-temperature-graph-is-so-misleading/ |title=Why this National Review global temperature graph is so misleading |last=Bump |first=Philip |date=December 14, 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523172448/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/14/why-the-national-reviews-global-temperature-graph-is-so-misleading/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2015, the magazine published an intentionally deceptive graph thatwhich suggested that there was no [[climate change]].<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite news |url= https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-graph-national-review_us_567054efe4b0fccee1700f96 |title=This Is How Climate Change Deniers Are Tricking You |last=O'Connor |first=Lydia |date=December 15, 2015 |work=Huffington Post |access-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616014904/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-graph-national-review_n_567054efe4b0fccee1700f96 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite news |url= httphttps://ukwww.businessinsider.com/one-chart-shows-how-climate-change-deniers-are-skewing-statistics-to-fit-their-view-2015-12?r=US&IR=T |title=One chart shows how climate change deniers are skewing statistics to fit their view |work=Business Insider |date=December 20, 2015 |access-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-date=March 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308051302/https://www.businessinsider.com/one-chart-shows-how-climate-change-deniers-are-skewing-statistics-to-fit-their-view-2015-12?r=US&IR=T |url-status=live }}</ref> The graph set the lower and upper bounds of the chart at -10 and 110 degreedegrees Fahrenheit and zoomed out so as to obscure warming trends.<ref name=":3" />

In 2017, ''National Review'' published an article alleging that a top NOAA scientist claimed that the [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] engaged in data manipulation and rushed a study based on faulty data in order to influence the Paris climate negotiations.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |url= https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/ |title=No Data Manipulation at NOAA |date=February 9, 2017 |work=FactCheck.org |access-date=May 22, 2018}}</ref> The article largely repeated allegations made in the ''[[Daily Mail]]'' without independent verification.<ref>{{Cite news |url= https://climatefeedback.org/blogosphere-amplified-daily-mails-unsupported-allegations-climate-data-manipulation-david-rose/ |title=How the blogosphere spread and amplified the Daily Mail's unsupported allegations of climate data manipulation |date=March 27, 2017 |work=Climate Feedback |access-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616014904/https://climatefeedback.org/blogosphere-amplified-daily-mails-unsupported-allegations-climate-data-manipulation-david-rose/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The scientist in question later rejected the claims made by ''National Review'', noting that he did not accuse NOAA of data manipulation but instead raised concerns about "the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability".<ref name=":4" />

In 2014, climate scientist [[Michael E. Mann]] sued ''National Review'' after columnist Mark Steyn accused Mann of fraud and referenced a quote from Competitive Enterprise Institute writer Rand Simberg that called Mann "the [[Jerry Sandusky]] of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."<ref>{{Cite news |url= https://theweek.com/articles/451963/national-review-doomed |title=Is National Review doomed? |work=The Week |date=January 30, 2014 |access-date=October 2, 2018 |archive-date=October 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002141839/https://theweek.com/articles/451963/national-review-doomed |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/28/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defamation-suit-2017-edition/|title=Opinion {{!}} Whatever happened to Michael Mann's defamation suit? (2017 edition) |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=October 2, 2018|archive-date=August 20, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012527/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/28/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defamation-suit-2017-edition/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Ars Technica">{{Cite news|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/climate-researchers-defamation-suit-about-insulting-columns-is-on/|title=Climate researcher's defamation suit about insulting columns is on|work=Ars Technica|access-date=October 2, 2018|language=en-us|archive-date=October 2, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002141609/https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/climate-researchers-defamation-suit-about-insulting-columns-is-on/|url-status=live}}</ref> Civil liberties organizations such as the [[ACLU]] and the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] and several publications such as ''The Washington Post'' expressed support for ''National Review'' in the lawsuit, filing [[amicus brief]]s in their defense.<ref>Adler, Jonathan H. (August 13, 2014). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/13/media-and-rights-organizations-defend-national-review-et-al-against-michael-mann/ Media and Rights Organizations Defend ''National Review'', et al. against Michael Mann."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012551/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/13/media-and-rights-organizations-defend-national-review-et-al-against-michael-mann/ |date=August 20, 2024 }} ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved March 11, 2019.</ref>

On June 9, 2008, ''National Review'' correspondent Jim Geraghty published an article asking Obama to release his birth certificate. It was this column that brought conspiracy theories about Obama to mainstream attention.<ref name=":0"/> Prior to this column, every piece that alleged Obama's citizenship conspiracy theories only got dozens of hits, but after the ''National Review'' piece, conspiracy theories would garner hundreds of hits within days,<ref name=":0"/> according to Loren Collins, who has tracked the origins of [[Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories|the birther movement]] for years.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/20/hillary-clinton-and-birther-movement-still-no-ther/|title=No, Hillary Clinton didn't feed the birther movement|work=PolitiFact|access-date=May 22, 2018|language=en|archive-date=June 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616014905/https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/sep/20/hillary-clinton-and-birther-movement-still-no-ther/|url-status=live}}</ref> Geraghty's article "became fodder for cable television."<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1813978,00.html|title=Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?|last=Tumulty|first=Karen|date=June 12, 2008|magazine=Time|access-date=May 22, 2018|language=en-US|issn=0040-781X|archive-date=June 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616014907/https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1813978,00.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Obama releasereleased his birth certificate a few days after this column.<ref name=":0"/> In a 2009 editorial, the ''National Review'' editorial board called conspiracies about Obama's citizenship "untrue."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2009/07/born-usa-editors/|title=Born in the U.S.A. - National Review|website=National Review |date=July 28, 2009|access-date=August 2, 2018|archive-date=April 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401181243/https://www.nationalreview.com/2009/07/born-usa-editors/|url-status=live}}</ref>

One ''National Review'' article suggested Obama's parents could be [[communism in the United States|communists]] because "for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or '60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics".<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/magazine/i-thought-i-understood-the-american-right-trump-proved-me-wrong.html|title=I Thought I Understood the American Right. Trump Proved Me Wrong.|newspaper=The New York Times |date=April 11, 2017 |access-date=May 22, 2018|language=en|last1=Perlstein |first1=Rick|archive-date=April 17, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200417182907/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/magazine/i-thought-i-understood-the-american-right-trump-proved-me-wrong.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/208566/the-new-hate-by-arthur-goldwag/9780307742513/|title=The New Hate by Arthur Goldwag|pages=5|access-date=May 22, 2018|archive-date=May 23, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523095843/https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/208566/the-new-hate-by-arthur-goldwag/9780307742513/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Two days after the 9/11 attacks, ''National Review'' published a column by [[Ann Coulter]] in which she wrote of Muslims, "This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."<ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/292798/weapons-of-mass-deception-by-sheldon-rampton/9781585422760 |title= Weapons of Mass Deception by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber |publisher= Penguin Random House |pages= 145–146 |access-date= January 9, 2019 |archive-date= August 20, 2024 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012551/https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/292798/weapons-of-mass-deception-by-sheldon-rampton/9781585422760/ |url-status= live }}</ref> ''National Review'' later called the column a "mistake" and fired Coulter as a contributing editor.<ref>{{Cite news |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/10/02/national-review-cans-columnist-ann-coulter/4128f3be-7a64-47e9-a350-eb801757d376/ |title=National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter |first=Howard |last=Kurtz |date=October 2, 2001 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=January 9, 2019 |archive-date=January 9, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190109155518/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/10/02/national-review-cans-columnist-ann-coulter/4128f3be-7a64-47e9-a350-eb801757d376/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2019, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that ''National Review'' was one of three news outlets (along with ''[[Forbes]]'' and ''[[HuffPost]]'') that had published stories written by [[Jeffrey Epstein]]'s publicists.<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Hsu |first=Tiffany |date=2019-07-21 |title=Jeffrey Epstein Pitched a New Narrative. These Sites Published It. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/business/media/jeffrey-epstein-media.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=2019-07-22 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=December 13, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191213104224/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/business/media/jeffrey-epstein-media.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The ''National Review'' article was written by Christina Galbraith, Epstein's publicist at the time the article was published in 2013. The ''National Review'' bio for Galbraith described her as a science writer. ''National Review'' retracted the article in July 2019 with apologies and spoke of new methods being used to better filter freelance content.<ref name=":5"/>

* Bridges,{{Cite Lindabook and Coyne,|last=Smant John|first=Kevin RJ. Jr.|title=Principles ''Strictlyand RightHeresies: WilliamFrank FS. Buckley Jr.Meyer and the Shaping of the American Conservative Movement'' (John|publisher=ISI WileyBooks and|year=2002 Sons|isbn=1882926722 |location=Wilmington, 2007).DE |oclc=50036266}}