Around here, you are the Man of the Year. America doesn’t have time for anything less.
You are concerned about the future of your country. You, like Sen. Marco Rubio — who has credited NR with helping him get to Washington — look around at his colleagues and protest their lack of a “sense of urgency.”
We don’t have all the time in the world to fix what’s broken.
And what’s broken is not just a mess the government has made.
Advertisement
You read National Review Online because you know there is more to life than some smooth-talker — even an authentically inspiring one — with a political plan. It’s up to us, and the choices we make in our daily lives, to get our country back on the right track. We respect the dignity of human life not only through laws, but also by what we watch and what we do and who we are. We want government to not infringe on our rights — but we also want a culture that isn’t a poison to those we love. We want the freedom to raise our children with our values, to not have to pay for things we oppose. We want an America where we do not bitterly protest the wealthy man, but aspire to get to keep a little more of our hard-earned wages, so that we can provide for our families and help our neighbor and save a little for a rainy day or a vacation.
These are tough times — in a lot of our bank accounts and in our headlines. Uncertainty, as it will in life, abounds. And it’s presidential-primary time, so emotions are high as we all try to discern who and what is best for our country. Even as well-intentioned circular firing squads are out, you’re here on National Review Online because you know it’s a home for honest opinion and analysis and reporting. Where conservatives will hash out differences while united in core conservative values that transcend any given candidate or election. It’s a place you come to be reminded of just what those values are. It’s a practical and intellectual browse. It’s relentless in consistently offering you exactly that.
This next year is an important one. Our nation is at something of a turning point. Are we going to continue to be a beacon for freedom, for justice? Or are we going to be transformed into just another secular socialist state? Man is getting lost in the state. Human dignity and freedom are getting lost to ideology. But you stand against that. You’re not an Occupy Wall Street protester, you’re a Get America Back on Track laborer. You work hard, you raise a family, you’re an informed voter. Over these next few months, you’ll click on National Review Online daily and share a Mark Steyn or Jonah Goldberg or Andy McCarthy or Ramesh Ponnuru or Rich Lowry item with friends and family and co-workers, some of whom don’t quite see the election as you do. You’ll rely on our growing reporting staff to provide the meat and potatoes that you need to build your case.
We rely on you to make that content possible. Before you spend your final Christmas dollar on that LED Snoopy at Target, consider sending us a small investment in the future — and getting our bills paid. Simply having a website costs money, even with a stable of experts who will respond to my requests for analysis at a moment’s notice for free, day after day, year after year. Getting Bob Costa to Iowa over New Year’s costs a few dollars, after all. And New Hampshire and South Carolina and two conventions are coming as well. On the ground, we can highlight what others won’t. We can help paint the full picture, in compelling colors. And we’ll make sure that those campaigning for House and Senate service don’t get lost in the national focus.
Thanks for your support for National Review Online. Click here to donate to our final 2011 fundraising drive. National Review relies on your support; it always has. And now more than ever, with more content and more expenses, even in our frugality.
2011 Christmas Fundraising Drive
National Review
215 Lexington Ave
11th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Thanks again. And even though we have comments now, we still take e-mails. Send your wish lists to me anytime at klopez@nationalreview.com and I’ll share your ideas as we move forward.
I pray you and yours have a Merry Christmas and peaceful 2012 . . . or as peaceful as it can be in a presidential election year. We’ll be seeing a lot more of each other here, and, we hope, celebrating the opportunity to really get something good done in Washington come November.
— Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
This takes brass, to pass the hat around when conservative readers have good reason to cancel their own... subscription. It takes even more to write so much about how the day is late and next year's election is crucial, while NR's editors continue to do everything they can to pave the way for the next-in-line technocratic statist; and to flatter the readers so very much after insulting our intelligence with that poorly argued and unprincipled non-endorsement endorsement.
There are some great writers at NR, especially Steyn and McCarthy, but if the editors want to trade on those writers' justifiably stellar reputation to make more prominent their own half-baked attempts to steer elections to the moderate middle, they will do so on someone else's dime.
National Review deserves some credit for publishing McCarthy's dissenting article and Steyn's dissenting Corner post, but NR should have shown enough judgment not to make such responses necessary.
There is no reasonable criterion by which a Reaganite conservative would throw even Rick Perry under the bus while insisting that Jon Huntsman still deserves serious consideration.
And there is only one way for conservatives to lodge our dissatisfaction and have any teeth to our criticism.
At least for the moment and perhaps for the time being, I believe that National Review is an institution that "conservatives should, regretfully, exclude from consideration" for further financial support.
This comment is spot on. I donated earlier this year but have now, because of the Editorial, decided to not give again.
There is a difference between writing an endorsement where you praise the various candidates strengths, and one where you decide to completely thrash one (and dismiss several other) candidates.
You should have taken the first route instead of the second.
"There are some great writers at NR, especially Steyn and McCarthy, but if the editors want to trade on those writers' justifiably stellar reputation to make more prominent their own half-baked attempts to steer elections to the moderate middle, they will do so on someone else's dime."
RE: "This takes brass, to pass the hat around when conservative readers have good reason to cancel their own... subscription."
As I predicted over on the editorial thread -- we're gonna see a *whole* lot more fundraising appeals in 2012 in consequence of readers recognizing the direction that NRO has taken.
I'm dumbstruck over an attempt to solicit money from readers, or at this point former readers of NR. Are you not reading your mail at this point? What else could explain the tone deafness?
"have an inkling" The Ironic Capcha strikes again?
Well, Kathryn, you could start by apologizing for the body slam of Newt, retracting the editorial, and asking forgiveness for running it. Seek a second portion of forgiveness for offering the insultingly lame excuse that you were in a hurry to make the end of the year deadline.
For the record, I don't think you "sold out" or are part of an "Establishment." You just displayed really poor judgment and lousy logic.
Have you thought about seeking other work and offering your job to Andy McCarthy instead? A little regime change at NR would suit me nicely. I'd be a lot more inclined to send money to NR if a few rear ends got kicked.
I'm saddened and shocked by some of the comments made above.
For the record, I have taken no pleasure whatsoever in the editorializing and hatchet job done to a few of the candidates. Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment? Sound familiar?
I am saddened too that conservatives would launch into any type of ideological purity battle; please save it for after the eventual R nominee has defeated OBama and sent him back to Chicago. A weakened and divided conservative community, beset by petty acrimony left over from a hyper-partisan GOP primary? Certainly atop Axelrod or Carville's Christmas list but not my own.
Donate to the campaign to elect Ritt Mormney?
I don't think so. Actions have consequences.
You folks are a lot thicker than I might have thought...but then again, I'm old enough to remember Firing Line. The Tea Party will have your lunch money.
If I wanted to contribute I'd just make my payment to Mitt's campaign instead and cut out the middle-people - or is that little people.
Your Newt slam has consequences. Live with it or change.
"Even as well-intentioned circular firing squads" Ahh, so we're just well-intentioned dolts to demand better of a conservative magazine and editorial board.
Being told that "Just vote Romney you fools" is joyous. Never mind that not a *single* one of your who proudly stated he was the last great hope has dealt with the video surfacing that shows Romney saying he'll "keep the good parts" of Obamacare.
::crickets chirping" on that end but you will of course speak up to demand coin from us?
No thank you. About six months back, NRO took its final steps away from being an optimistic defender of conservatism and instead became the magazine equivalent of my crotchety old uncle.
Look back at the majority of your articles and posts, and you will see that NRO has truly embodied the ethos of a "Party of No". No Angle, No O'Donnell, No 9-9-9, no to Perry's economic proposals, no trump debates, no no no. All you guys can do is criticize.
Is it any wonder that your latest "Labour of Love" (Captcha FTW!) editorial was a Dis-endorsement? You've lost the will to stand for anything, because you've been too busy tearing down anyone who showed the slightest flaws. You have helped create the environment the Right now lives in- where the most likely Primary winner is the one too afraid to take a stand on anything- who has to focus-group-test every statement, move last on policy proposals and speak in such vague terms that no one knows what he means.
If NRO weren't so focused on winning and instead focused on articulating a conservative message, I might be inclined to give again. But that day appears a long way off.
As soon as O'Donnell won the primary, NRO and others teared into her faster than the MSM. Then after she lost, they smugly said "We told you so." They are doing the same with Newt. They brought out the long knives, and now that he has dropped back into the pack, they are smugly saying "We told you so." Makes me sick.
Contribute to NR. No thanks. Other comments here summarize my view.
Maybe you can make up the lost contributions from ordinary NRO readers with large donations from Romney supporters. Or you could save a lot of money by paying the editorial board what they are actually worth.
To quote our Vice President, "This is a big f*****g deal."
My bet is the damage your intemperate hit-piece has done to your reader support will last the duration of the current election cycle. Maybe longer. Most appalling is that ordinarily sensible Mark Steyn seems to have lost his marbles and joined in the feeding frenzy.
In Steyn's defense, he's been equally wary of both Tweedlemitt and Tweedlenewt (his terms of endearment), for the same reason: they both exhibit a statist tendency that is insufficient to the crises we face.
The opposition to Newt from the editors, I wouldn't mind nearly so much, if I thought it was similarly rooted in principle.
Follow
