The Current Wisdom

Your favorite magazine has been getting a bit of ink lately. It started with the Times report, quickly disavowed by Vic Gold, that George Bush finds no further use for national review. Bush supporter and NR contributor Gold tells us (in a letter to the editor two issues back) that Bush actually had no further use for the gentleman pictured on the cover of a particular issue of NR—John Anderson, as it happens. Okay, we’ll buy that. Then came a Wall Street Journal piece by Albert Hunt, describing the impact Human Events carries with Reagan activists. To underscore the special influence of the Washington weekly, Bush staffer David Keene drew a distinction between Human Events and NR. The former is read by the party faithful, said Keene, while NR is read by upper-middle-class types who discuss it on the golf course. Well, perhaps, though it comes as something of a demographic surprise to hear that thoughtful golfers now outnumber conservative Republicans.

There followed, during the same fortnight, a wire-service story quoting John Sears on the problems of the Reagan campaign. Sears, who did not leave them laughing when he departed the Reagan campaign last February, is both a credible witness and, as always, mischievously provocative. One of the major problems, says Sears, is that the candidate frequently picks up ideas directly from magazines and newspapers. These ideas—unfiltered by other and presumably wiser minds—sometimes pass unedited into the candidate’s public statements. One of the principal sources of such back-channel information, Sears charges, is none other than the notorious national review. The implication hangs tantalizingly from the tail of the Sears interview: somebody had better cut off the candidate’s subscription or the campaign (and perhaps the Western world) is in danger.

About the Author

Neal B. Freeman

Neal B. Freeman, businessman and journalist, was a director of National Review Inc. for 38 years.

Featured Tags

Presidential Election

Your favorite magazine has been getting a bit of ink lately. It started with the Times report, quickly disavowed by Vic Gold, that George Bush finds no further use for national review. Bush supporter and NR contributor Gold tells us (in a letter to the editor two issues back) that Bush actually had no further use for the gentleman pictured on the cover of a particular issue of NR—John Anderson, as it happens. Okay, we’ll buy that. Then came a Wall Street Journal piece by Albert Hunt, describing the impact Human Events carries with Reagan activists. To underscore the special influence of the Washington weekly, Bush staffer David Keene drew a distinction between Human Events and NR. The former is read by the party faithful, said Keene, while NR is read by upper-middle-class types who discuss it on the golf course. Well, perhaps, though it comes as something of a demographic surprise to hear that thoughtful golfers now outnumber conservative Republicans.

There followed, during the same fortnight, a wire-service story quoting John Sears on the problems of the Reagan campaign. Sears, who did not leave them laughing when he departed the Reagan campaign last February, is both a credible witness and, as always, mischievously provocative. One of the major problems, says Sears, is that the candidate frequently picks up ideas directly from magazines and newspapers. These ideas—unfiltered by other and presumably wiser minds—sometimes pass unedited into the candidate’s public statements. One of the principal sources of such back-channel information, Sears charges, is none other than the notorious national review. The implication hangs tantalizingly from the tail of the Sears interview: somebody had better cut off the candidate’s subscription or the campaign (and perhaps the Western world) is in danger.