I’m getting more and more email from them lately. Not sure exactly why, since their explanations are all over the map and often contradictory. Sometimes they complain about specific personalities (yours truly often prominently among them). Sometimes their complaints are built on the assumption that the Corner is NR/NRO and that it reflects our collective and official editorial stance etc.
This latter point does annoy me somewhat. I like the Corner, obviously. It was my idea and I spend quite a bit of time hanging out here. But if people don’t like it, that’s fine. If people have constructive criticism, that’s great. But the Corner is simply what it is. There are no meetings where we get together and say, “Let’s focus on this” or “Let’s be sure to ignore that.” If nobody mentions one story or another on the Corner it’s because nobody was sufficiently moved to mention it. If you took the “consensus” view on the Corner it would often contradict our editorials. I think this is a good thing in the sense it demonstrates the site and the magazine are vibrant. We don’t impose party loyalty all the way down. The Corner wouldn’t work if we did.
Apparently, according to one reader, our friend Rush Limbaugh chastised NR/NRO today based on his reading of the Corner. I didn’t hear the indictment and I don’t want to get into a big snit about it regardless. But the principle applies to lots of folks, including Rush. Don’t assume that what you read in the Corner constitutes an attempt to offer a premeditated statement of conservative principles or NR’s position on one thing or another. The Corner’s a forum and a very good one, I think. In a sense, I guess the criticism is a testament to the Corner’s success rather than its shortcomings.
Regardless, as I told one reader today who was blasting the Corner as proof for all things wrong in the world of conservatism, if you don’t like it, don’t read it. It’s like the old joke about the guy who tells his doctor “Doc, it hurts when I do this.” And the doctors says, “Well, don’t do that.”