I know people who refuse to read National Review because it is a conservative opinion journal. I know people who refuse to read it because it declared its official editorial opinion against then-candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.
As to the first, since it's clearly identified as a journal of conservative opinion I guess these are people who don't want to read conservative opinions. You'd think that sort of thing wouldn't go on among adults but it's 2020 so I guess so. I'll freely confess there are some liberal arguments I choose not to pay attention to, but that's because they're ones I've heard before. Liberal arguments about and interpretations of recent events, which are new, are a different matter.
As to the second, I think the magazine should clearly be held accountable for not taking that position sooner. But the GOP field was replete with candidates who were more interested in salvaging the Trump voters they thought would be left behind after his inevitable flameout than they were in making the clear case that he was of unfit character for the office. So the magazine made the second mistake rather than the first.
In any event, people who skip the magazine will miss two excellent Memorial Day essays in its online edition. One, by editor Rich Lowry, highlights the contributions African-Americans have made to the nation during its wars, putting their lives on the line for countrymen who would acknowledge little, if any, civil kinship with them before or after the fighting was over. Again and again African-Americans suited up with the idea that their sacrifice and service would prove a wedge to open the consciences of the nation as a whole to the injustice they suffered. Being proven wrong did not stop them from serving, something that needs to be remembered by articles like Lowry's. He didn't write the first, longest or best such memorial, but he keeps the idea lit and that's a good thing.
They will also miss this fantastic exploration of the role of disease in the United States armed forces before World War II by Dan McLaughlin. Prior to 1941, different diseases killed more soldiers during wartime than did enemy fire. Though these men and women did not lay down their lives defending their country and comrades from the enemy, the request to serve her placed them in harm's way and in the conditions where their lives would indeed be lost. They didn't get to come home either.
4 comments:
I used to take National Review, but as my habit is to let magazines sit until I binge read them, the takes on contemporary political situations are generally out of date by the time I'd get to them, so the whole This Week section was barely worth a skim as I already knew how those Important Pressing Political Issues would work themselves out.
I kind of liked the back matter: the columns by Lileks (and previously Steyn and, dare I say it, Derbyshire) and the book reviews. But it seems as though the book reviews section got to be people reviewing the columnists' books or political books exclusively.
So I ended up preferring First Things to National Review, and as the latter is something like $60 annually, I let it lapse.
I also apparently let First Things lapse because I ignored its "Your Subscription Is Expiring!" missive when my subscription was actually expiring like I ignore similar missives throughout my active subscription (I just renewed Reader's Digest for three years, and every month or couple of weeks I get an important offer to extend my subscription which is going to expire soon (three years).
I'd love to do the paper editions of the mags I subscribe to so I could pass them along to the local library or hospital, but the time I have to read them is often my lunch hour and it's just easier to use the tablet for them like for the other stuff I read but don't plan to keep.
The book reviews do have some variety of histories now and again but a lot of them are political books, and those don't appeal much to me unless they're by authors I already appreciate (and sometimes not even then -- Suicide of the West never figures out what it wants to do; whether or not it was worth Jonah Goldberg's time to write it didn't feel like it was worth my time to read).
There are generally four or five longer-form articles per issue that I appreciate and make me figure I spent that money OK.
Clearly, the circulation department must read your comment section a week or so in advance, as I've received an offer to resubscribe at $18.99 a year which is a little more tempting.
Another thing is that I read enough blogs all day that I prefer my magazines to have non-political content.
However, there are political magazines, and there are non-political magazines with a political slant (Saturday Evening Post comes to mind). I'm in a bit of a down period on magazine subscriptions. Most of them are freebies with memberships currently.
Clearly all the psychics have gone to work in the mailroom. I've bought my dad a couple of naval & maritime history mags that come with memberships in a historical society. I sometimes scan their offerings, but it's his thing so if they have nothing for me I'm OK ;-)
Post a Comment