I read National Review for the political reporting, which is as good as it has ever been. Eliana Johnson and Tim Alberta, separately and in tandem, have done excellent work this campaign season.* And for the cultural commentary: Did you all catch that essay on Mary Shelley by M. D. Aeschliman a few days ago? Go take a few minutes to read it. And for the arguments about policy, and philosophy, and law. And for the satire: I never LOL, but I did laugh out loud at the end of Rob Long’s list of the Grinch’s social-justice demands at Christmastime.

NR has always been worth reading, and supporting, for the quality of the work. At this moment the work is especially important. It’s an exciting time to be a conservative. (Alright, maybe a little too exciting.) What conservatism means seems at the moment to be up for grabs. In a way we have not had to do for many decades, we have to hash out who we are, what we believe, why we believe it, and what actions must follow from it. We’re not infallible at NR, individually or collectively. But we are, I think, keeping our eyes open and our wits about us, at a time when not all conservatives are.

A good working definition of the American conservative enterprise is the conservation of the political inheritance we have received from the Founders. It’s a task that, however paradoxical it might seem, requires from conservatives a constant willingness to think anew. Much of the thinking we have to do is going to take place, as it has taken place for decades, in National Review. If you agree, please consider making a donation.

* From NR I learned a bit of Buckley Latin: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. That’s not intended here.