National Review has a long and proud history of defying the consensus- and taste-brokers of the age. This publication’s 1955 mission statement laments that “there never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals.’” And it has fought the enforcers of that conformity, especially in journalism. The same mission statement describes the new publication as “out of place” in the same way that the New York Times, among other institutions, is in place: as ratifiers of prevailing leftism.
Sometimes, defying such institutions in the moment means they seem eventually to cotton to our position. With this in mind, I cannot help but notice the Washington Post’s recent reporting on sensory deprivation. Though the Post counts some of our own masthead as opinion contributors, it is otherwise not exactly a stalwartly conservative publication. However, a recent Post article’s admissions about the potential benefits of floatation therapy align with some NR writers’ own views.
Floatation therapy typically involves some level of immersion in a body-temperature pool of salt water in a limited-sensory environment. The Post article describes it as “a popular and often expensive form of relaxation,” and says that “a small but growing body of research suggests it may also reduce symptoms of a variety of mental health conditions,” including, potentially, eating disorders.
Floating is an activity enjoyed not only by Aaron Rodgers but also by Michael Brendan Dougherty and . . . by me. After my own adventure in sensory deprivation, I concluded that “I emerged feeling better, physically and mentally.” (You can read about my experience here.) If the Post’s apparent approbation of floating is just the beginning of the publication’s move toward National Review, well . . . come on in, the water’s fine.