A world without NR is a world without sanity.
Imagine, for a moment, a world without National Review and National Review Online. I think most of our readers would agree that such a world would be poorer — in wisdom, wit, respectful debate, and laughter. (And if you do agree, please consider pitching in with a donation to help us meet our spring fundraising goal.) But if NR ceased to exist, it would be a boon for some — namely, those who’d greatly benefit if the conservative principles that NR stands for were unrepresented and undefended in the marketplace of ideas.
Imagine a world in which the AFL-CIO could tweet “We all need to seize the means of production” and not find itself on the receiving end of Kevin Williamson’s pen.
Or a world in which politicians and talking heads could get away with constitutionally and morally illiterate attacks on unborn life without the patient schooling of Alexandra DeSanctis.
Or a world in which a Democratic presidential candidate could propose a national gun registry and not have his plan dismantled point by point by Charlie Cooke.
Full-throated defenses of our nation’s foundational principles are only going to get more necessary in the coming years, because every generation has to rediscover them for itself. If this weren’t the case, socialism would not be the hot new thing.
As the historian Deirdre Nansen McCloskey wrote in the most recent issue of National Review, “the young ‘socialists’ nowadays have not cracked any books at all, even Marx’s. They rely on blog posts by nonreaders.” One way to combat such ignorance is with blog posts — and full-length essays, podcasts, and videos — by people who have cracked a few books.
Creating and publishing those things takes a lot of resources, though. So we at National Review have always relied, gratefully, on our readers for financial support. And we’re asking you once again to please give whatever you can to help us in this crucial enterprise.
