Dear Reader (and those of you following the summary of this on AttackWatch.com),
I was going to start this with an Obama joke along the lines, “If you love me, you’ll donate to NRO.” But there are a few problems. First, I’d hate to seem like I think you people owe me anything or that I take it for granted that you all love me. Anyone who’s peered into the Ark of the Covenant face-melting maelstrom that is my e-mail inbox knows that’s not the case. Second, as Tina Turner said, “Ike! I’m calling 911!” Oh sorry, wrong quote. As Tina Turner said, “What’s love got to do, got to do with it?”
Last, and most important, Obama has no intention or expectation that his “must-pass” bill will be passed. Meanwhile, we really, really need this fundraising appeal to work.
Advertisement
Every time I write one of these pitches I hear from readers who think this approach — what marketing experts and economists call “this PBS crap” — is un-conservative, even vaguely socialist. The argument seems to boil down to: If we can’t make it in the market without passing the collection plate among the congregation, we must be doing something wrong.
I just don’t get this. Churches and synagogues ask for donations; does that make them socialist or liberal? We know that conservatives are more generous with their money than liberals are. Are all those philanthropic rightwingers just saps, or crypto-socialists, or crypto-socialist saps? Are they secretly giving to liberal causes? NRO makes some money from advertising. The print magazine makes money from advertising, subscriptions, and cruises. But it doesn’t cover everything. In effect, NRO works for tips. And the tips, unfortunately, have to come from you, the reader.
NRO straddles two worlds. We are a for-profit organization that rarely makes any profit to speak of, and whatever profit we do make goes back into the mission. I think at this point you can guess what the mission is: to make the case for conservative policies and ideas as best we can. Part of that business model requires asking the people who get value — however defined — from this site to pitch in as best they can.
And when I say “ask,” I mean ask. When President Obama and the New York Times say “ask” they mean “command.” President Obama constantly says his proposals would simply “ask” for more money from the “rich.” But that’s not what they mean, at all. If passed, the government would “ask” taxpayers for money the same way Don Corleone “asked” Jack Woltz to put Johnny Fontane in that movie.
No, I’m not saying that the government is a criminal enterprise. But I am saying that it is criminally dishonest to say that tax hikes simply amount to “asking” people for more money. It’s not really a request if saying no involves being sent to prison.
Well, this is a request you can refuse. If you can’t swing sending us a few bucks, don’t. If you don’t think we’re worth it, don’t.
But if you can afford it. And if you do think we’re worth it. If you think the message is right and the arguments are right and the cause is right. Then please help out as best you can. We need the money to keep doing what we do. That’s not socialism; it’s math, as the president might say.
I'll tell ya, I'd love to be able to say without hesitation that NR/NRO is worth a contribution above and beyond the cost of a print subscription.
Some of the writers are great -- Steyn, McCarthy, Kurtz, Goldberg, and Lileks in print -- but they sometimes seem to be the exception and not the rule, what with Derbyshire's thinly veiled antagonism to religion, Steorts' bizarre defense of "gay marriage," and Lopez' history of unprincipled cheerleading for Romney.
Just in the last day or two, Nicole Gelinas has written Corner post after Corner post defending her bizarre position that Social Security isn't analogous to a private-sector Ponzi scheme: that's poor timing for this fundraising drive.
In the original mission statement, Buckley aspired to create "a vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion."
Until National Review more consistently approximates that goal, it will always be tough for me to donate without hesitation.
Dittos. But I would add Rob Long and Ross Douthat to the plus collumn.
I would also point out that the bizarre, occasional left turns, are the exception not the rule. However, every time NR goes Left, it does hurt their fundraising, at least when it comes to my wallet.
I wouldn't include Douthat, but I made a glaring omission in not mention VDH.
The more I think about it, the more I think the solid writers do outweigh the questionable, numerically and in terms of the amount and quality of their writing.
Still...
I wouldn't be comfortable supporting a local church whose clergy were only mostly orthodox theists -- hey, our debauched atheist ministers are the exception, not the rule! -- and it's a shame that NR/NRO really isn't a safer haven from the idiotic assumptions of the radical, statist Left.
Jonah, I go to bed with you every night and wake up with you every morning. That's definitely worth a donation. (but you should have someone check the "donate' link--it's not allowing donations via PayPal).
First of all, if JG was looking for moolah to support his own blog, that would be worth some shekels. But to support the rest of the mess, not so attractive.
However, I see the whole "please give generously if you really like us" plea to be unseemly for a conservative publication. At least for goodness sake get some sex appeal going with your "ask". (Note PETA's latest engaging efforts to attract attention).
If you are going to do a beggar's fundraiser, at least do it flamboyantly. This type of stodgy black and white, print only, style is so...Republican. Seriously, the picture of the can with a greenback sticking out of it is pitiful. I know you have phones. Call some jokewriters or cartoonists and get some CONTENT related to your plea. At least sidewalk buskers give a performance for the extra coin in the case.
Don't any of you at NRO have friends with friends in marketing or advertizing? Have you discreetly inquired about what a REAL fundraising campaign might look like?
And finally, I do not think this is a "socialist" style ploy. This is good old ancient-form begging, truly the world's oldest profession. It way predates socialism. This is poverty dust-grovelling.
I read NRO frequently. Most of the time I agree with what the writers say. Sometimes I don't. But, either way, they provide a service that I use. Therefore, I do not have any objection to paying for their services. It seems pretty simple to me.
I think the best argument for the idea of a donation to NRO is likening it to a political campaign. I don't know about the rest of the NRO readers, but I do try to send a few dollars to politicians that I like. Heck, I consider it a civic duty.
NRO (not perfectly, but mostly) delivers a message that stands for freedom in this country. There have been times that I've disagreed vehementaly with the editors (like when, the day before the Budget Amendment vote, they came out against it.. seemed like they could have formed an opinion a bit earlier!).
Even so, they frame intelligent arguments and actually help drive the conservative movement. For the long-term viability of our country, we owe NRO a debt of gratitude.
The fact that Jonah is one of the brightest thinkers of my generation is just icing on the cake. (You can slide me that $20 later, JG. :) )
Your church analogy fails. The church is a not-for-profit organization that isn't selling anything in any real sense. National Review is an for-profit organization "business" that should be sustaining on revenue streams from advertising and subscription fees.
The product, as mentioned before, lacks in certain conservative qualities, which perhaps is why it doesn't make a profit, much less make ends meet.
My supposition is that if NR fired Ponnuru, Derbyshire, Steorts, Douthat, Gelinas, Lopez et al. you might see a profit.
Please pardon us for commenting in the comment portion of this noble publication.
As for coming up with "something constructive or sod off", how about:
Your rather pinched perspective slamming a humorous dialogue about the irony of this self-proclaimed champion of capitalism resorting to beggary for fundraising seems to adequately make my earlier point about the colorless and monotone thematic content of NRO's pitch for fundraising.
"Churches and synagogues ask for donations; does that make them socialist or liberal?"
Yes, it does. The whole point of churches is that it's a risk-sharing organization among the collective community - the rich give and the poor receive. This model worked when populations were relatively homogeneous and the church could be counted on to raise and distribute enough money to manage poverty and hunger relatively well.
That's good socialism. But when the time for churches as social hubs passed, the need for socialistic income/risk-sharing was no longer being met. So, unless someone can come up with a better model, now we ask the government to do it.
Same is true of donation-supported organizations like yours. They make a product that is desired by the collective, but that wouldn't succeed in the cash market. It's a public good, and, like the many public goods that are supplied by the government (and formerly by churches), it's much easier to fund them when you have the power to tax (which is really just a collective agreement to provide these sorts of goods).
tl;dr: the church is a socialist organization and so are you. But that's a good thing.
Follow
