National Review

{{see also|Conservatism in the United States}}

Image:William F. Buckley, Jr. 1985.jpg, the founder and first editor of National Review, pictured in 1985]]

Before National Review{{'}}s founding in 1955, the American right was a largely unorganized collection of people who shared intertwining philosophies but had little opportunity for a united public voice. They wanted to marginalize the antiwar, noninterventionistic views of the Old Right.{{sfn|Nash|2006|pp=186-193}}

In 1953, moderate Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, and many major magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post, Time, and Reader's Digest were strongly conservative and anticommunist, as were many newspapers including the Chicago Tribune and St. Louis Globe-Democrat. A few small-circulation conservative magazines, such as Human Events and The Freeman, preceded National Review in developing Cold War conservatism in the 1950s.{{sfn|Nash|2006|pp=186-193}}

In 1953, Russell Kirk published The Conservative Mind, which traced an intellectual bloodline from Edmund Burke{{sfn|Frohnen|Beer|Nelson|2006|pp=186-188}} to the Old Right in the early 1950s. This challenged the notion among intellectuals that no coherent conservative tradition existed in the United States.{{sfn|Frohnen|Beer|Nelson|2006|pp=186-188}}

A young William F. Buckley Jr. was greatly influenced by Kirk's concepts. Buckley had money; his father grew rich from oil fields in Mexico. He first tried to purchase Human Events, but was turned down. He then met Willi Schlamm, the experienced editor of The Freeman; they would spend the next two years raising the $300,000 necessary to start their own weekly magazine, originally to be called National Weekly.{{sfn|Bogus|2011|p=206}} (A magazine holding the trademark to the name prompted the change to National Review.) The statement of intentions read:{{cite book |editor-first=Gregory L. |editor-last=Schneider |title=Conservatism in America since 1930: a reader |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=U6hzBFw1ky8C&pg=PA195 |year=2003 |publisher=NYU Press |pages=195ff |isbn=9780814797990}}

Middle-of-the-Road, qua Middle of the Road, is politically, intellectually, and morally repugnant. We shall recommend policies for the simple reason that we consider them right (rather than "non-controversial"); and we consider them right because they are based on principles we deem right (rather than on popularity polls)... The New Deal revolution, for instance, could hardly have happened save for the cumulative impact of The Nation and The New Republic, and a few other publications, on several American college generations during the twenties and thirties.

{{See also|Conservatism in the United States}}

On November 19, 1955, Buckley's magazine began to take shape. Buckley assembled an eclectic group of writers: traditionalists, Catholic intellectuals, libertarians, and ex-Communists. The group included Revilo P. Oliver, Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Frank Meyer, and Willmoore Kendall, and Catholics L. Brent Bozell and Garry Wills. The former Time editor Whittaker Chambers, who had been a Communist spy in the 1930s and then turned intensely anti-Communist, became a senior editor. In the magazine's founding statement Buckley wrote:

The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that of course; if National Review is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

As editors and contributors, Buckley sought out intellectuals who were ex-Communists or had once worked on the far left, including Whittaker Chambers, William Schlamm, John Dos Passos, Frank Meyer, and James Burnham.{{cite magazine |first=John P. |last=Diggins |title=Buckley's Comrades: The Ex-Communist as Conservative |magazine=Dissent |date=July 1975 |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=370–386}} When James Burnham became one of the original senior editors, he urged the adoption of a more pragmatic editorial position that would extend the influence of the magazine toward the political center. Smant (1991) finds that Burnham overcame sometimes heated opposition from other members of the editorial board (including Meyer, Schlamm, William Rickenbacker, and the magazine's publisher William A. Rusher), and had a significant effect on both the editorial policy of the magazine and on the thinking of Buckley himself.{{cite magazine |first=Kevin |last=Smant |title=Whither Conservatism? James Burnham and 'National Review,' 1955–1964 |magazine=Continuity |year=1991 |issue=15 |pages=83–97}}{{sfn|Smant|2002|pp=33-66}}

National Review aimed to make conservative ideas respectable in an age when the dominant view of conservative thought was, as expressed by Columbia professor Lionel Trilling,{{cite web |url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjQ4Nzc2OTVjMWE1MzVkNWM5ZGYxZDUxNjY5YTFhYzU= |title=Golden Days |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070504005250/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjQ4Nzc2OTVjMWE1MzVkNWM5ZGYxZDUxNjY5YTFhYzU= |archive-date=May 4, 2007 |website=National Review Online |date=October 27, 2005}}

[L]iberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation... the conservative impulse and the reactionary impulse do not... express themselves in ideas but only... in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.

Buckley said that National Review "is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation... since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to... run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals.'{{Cite web |last=Buckley |first=William |title=Our Mission Statement |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223549/our-mission-statement/william-f-buckley-jr |publisher=National Review Online |access-date=April 27, 2012 |date=19 November 1955}}

National Review promoted Barry Goldwater heavily during the early 1960s. Buckley and others involved with the magazine took a major role in the "Draft Goldwater" movement in 1960 and the 1964 presidential campaign. National Review spread his vision of conservatism throughout the country.{{sfn|Frohnen|Beer|Nelson|2006|pp=601-604}}

The early National Review faced occasional defections from both left and right. Garry Wills broke with National Review and became a liberal commentator. Buckley's brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell Jr. left and started the short-lived traditionalist Catholic magazine, Triumph in 1966.

Buckley and Meyer promoted the idea of enlarging the boundaries of conservatism through fusionism, whereby different schools of conservatives, including libertarians, would work together to combat what were seen as their common opponents.

Buckley and his editors used his magazine to define the boundaries of conservatism—and to exclude people or ideas or groups they considered unworthy of the conservative title. Therefore, they attacked the John Birch Society (JBS), George Wallace, and anti-Semites.{{cite encyclopedia |first=Roger |last=Chapman |article=Buckley, William F., Jr |editor-first=Roger |editor-last=Chapman |encyclopedia=Culture wars: An encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices |year=2010 |volume=1 |publication-place=Armonk, New York |publisher=M. E. Sharpe |isbn=978-0-7656-1761-3 |oclc=176996812 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vRY27FkGJAUC&pg=PA58 |page=58}} Buckley's goal was to increase the respectability of the conservative movement; in 2004, current editor Rich Lowry, compiled various quotes of articles commenting on Buckley's retirement including from The Dallas Morning News: "Mr. Buckley's first great achievement was to purge the American right of its kooks. He marginalized the anti-Semites, the John Birchers, the nativists and their sort."{{cite web |url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDc3ZDExYWU5MjBiMDJiN2Q2YWM4Y2U4MWYyYTY1NzI= |title=A Personal Retrospective |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061019044636/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDc3ZDExYWU5MjBiMDJiN2Q2YWM4Y2U4MWYyYTY1NzI= |archive-date=October 19, 2006 |website=National Review Online |date=August 9, 2004}} However, others such as political historian Matthew Dallek, contend that while the mainstream view has long been that Buckley excluded Bircherism, his "gesture toward kicking out the Birchers was far more concerned with cordoning off [JBS founder] Robert Welch while retaining the support of the rank-and-file members."{{Cite book |last=Dallek |first=Matthew |title=Birchers: how the John Birch Society radicalized the American right |date=2023 |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-1-5416-7356-4 |edition= |location=New York |pages=12-13}}

In 1957, National Review editorialized in favor of white leadership in the South, arguing that "the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."{{Cite news |url=https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmustprevail-1957.pdf |title=Why the South Must Prevail |last=Buckley |first=William F. |date=August 24, 1957 |work=National Review |access-date=September 16, 2017 |volume=4 |pages=148–149 |archive-date=March 27, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327054726/https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmustprevail-1957.pdf |url-status=live |via=adamgomez.files.wordpress.com}}Quoted in {{harvnb|Judis|1988|p=138}} By the 1970s National Review advocated colorblind policies and the end of affirmative action.{{cite book |first=Laura |last=Kalman |title=Right Star Rising: A New Politics, 1974–1980 |year=2010 |page=23 |oclc=449865532 |publisher=Norton |location=New York}}

In the late 1960s, the magazine denounced segregationist George Wallace, who ran in Democratic primaries in 1964 and 1972 and made an independent run for president in 1968. During the 1950s, Buckley had worked to remove anti-Semitism from the conservative movement and barred holders of those views from working for National Review.{{sfn|Judis|1988|pp=283-287}} In 1962, Buckley denounced Robert W. Welch Jr. and the John Birch Society as "far removed from common sense" and urged the Republican Party to purge itself of Welch's influence.{{Cite web |url=http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248 |title=Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me |work=Commentary |access-date=March 9, 2008 |author=William F. Buckley Jr. |author-link=William F. Buckley Jr. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080308122414/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248 |archive-date=March 8, 2008}}

After Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Buckley and National Review continued to champion the idea of a conservative movement, which was increasingly embodied in Ronald Reagan. Reagan, a longtime subscriber to National Review, became politically prominent during Goldwater's campaign. National Review supported his challenge to President Gerald Ford in 1976 and his successful 1980 campaign.

During the 1980s, National Review called for tax cuts, supply-side economics, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and support for President Reagan's foreign policy against the Soviet Union. The magazine criticized the welfare state and would support the welfare reform proposals of the 1990s. The magazine also regularly criticized President Bill Clinton. It first embraced and then rejected Pat Buchanan in his political campaigns. A lengthy 1996 National Review editorial called for a "movement toward" drug legalization.{{cite web |title=The War on Drugs is Lost |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html |website=National Review |access-date=November 29, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20001025070707/https://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html |archive-date=October 25, 2000 |date=February 12, 1996}}

In 1985, National Review and Buckley were represented by attorney J. Daniel Mahoney during the magazine's $16 million libel suit against The Spotlight.{{cite news |last=Archibald |first=George |date=October 25, 1985 |title=Jury begged not to let Buckley 'punish and destroy' Spotlight |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000100200005-7.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170123065429/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000100200005-7.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 23, 2017 |work=The Washington Times |location=Washington, D.C. |page=3-A |access-date=August 29, 2017}}

Victor Davis Hanson, a regular contributor since 2001, sees a broad spectrum of conservative and anti-liberal contributors:

{{blockquote|In other words, a wide conservative spectrum—paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, tea-party enthusiasts, the deeply religious and the agnostic, both libertarians and social conservatives, free-marketeers and the more protectionist—characterizes National Review. The common requisite is that they present their views as a critique of prevailing liberal orthodoxy but do so analytically and with decency and respect.see {{Cite web |last=Hanson |first=Victor Davis |date=1 December 2015 |title=The Home of Intellectual Populism Could Use Your Help |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418697/home-intellectual-populism-could-use-your-help-victor-davis-hanson |website=National Review}}}}

The magazine has been described as "the bible of American conservatism".{{Cite magazine |last=Hari |first=Johann |date=July 2, 2007 |title=Titanic: Reshuffling the deck chairs on the 'National Review' cruise |magazine=The New Republic |page=31 |volume=237 |issue=1 |issn=0028-6583 |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/64804/titanic}}

In 2015, the magazine published an editorial titled "Against Trump", calling Donald Trump a "philosophically unmoored political opportunist" and announcing its adamant and uniform opposition to his presidential candidacy for the Republican nomination for president.{{Cite web |date=January 21, 2016 |title=Against Trump |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616015939/https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace/ |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |access-date=August 8, 2018 |website=National Review}} After Trump's 2016 electoral victory over Hillary Clinton, and through his administration, the National Review editorial board continued to criticize him.{{Cite web |date=July 17, 2018 |title=The Mouth That Toured |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/trump-putin-meeting-finland-pathetic/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616015942/https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/trump-putin-meeting-finland-pathetic/ |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |access-date=August 8, 2018 |website=National Review}}{{Cite web |date=July 3, 2018 |title=Against the Trump Trade Bill |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/donald-trump-trade-bill-wto-tariff-problematic/ |website=National Review |access-date=August 8, 2018 |archive-date=August 20, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012516/https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/donald-trump-trade-bill-wto-tariff-problematic/ |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |date=May 2, 2018 |title=Keep the Pressure on Kim |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/north-korea-kim-jong-un-talks-keep-pressure-on/ |website=National Review |access-date=August 8, 2018 |archive-date=August 20, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012517/https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/north-korea-kim-jong-un-talks-keep-pressure-on/ |url-status=live}}{{primary source inline|date=October 2023}} However, some National Review and National Review Online contributors took more varied positions on Trump. Hanson, for instance, supports him,{{Cite web |last=Beinart |first=Peter |date=July 13, 2018 |title=The 'To Be Sure' Conservatives |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/to-be-sure/565094/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616021427/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/to-be-sure/565094/ |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |access-date=August 8, 2018 |website=The Atlantic}} while others, such as editor Ramesh Ponnuru and contributor Jonah Goldberg, have remained uniformly critical of Trump.{{Citation needed|date=June 2024}} In a Washington Post feature on conservative magazines, T.A. Frank noted: "From the perspective of a reader, these tensions make National Review as lively as it has been in a long time."{{Cite news |last=Frank |first=T.A. |date=January 25, 2018 |title=Welcome to the Golden Age of Conservative Magazines |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/01/25/feature/why-conservative-magazines-are-more-important-than-ever/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116083725/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/01/25/feature/why-conservative-magazines-are-more-important-than-ever/ |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |access-date=December 6, 2022 |work=The Washington Post}}

As Trump announced his run for reelection in 2022 and throughout 2023, National Review editorialized regularly against him and his candidacy.{{Cite web |last=Cooke |first=Charles C. W. |date=January 25, 2023 |title=Trump has completely lost his grip of reality |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/01/trump-has-completely-lost-his-grip-on-reality/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230425002029/https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/01/trump-has-completely-lost-his-grip-on-reality/ |archive-date=April 25, 2023 |website=National Review}}{{Cite web |last=Cooke |first=Charles C. W. |date=March 21, 2023 |title=Pick one: conservatism or Trump |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/pick-one-conservatism-or-trump/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230425002031/https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/pick-one-conservatism-or-trump/ |archive-date=April 25, 2023 |website=National Review}}{{Cite web |last=Mastrangelo |first=Dominick |date=2022-11-16 |title=National Review on Trump in 2024: 'No' |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3737958-national-review-on-trump-in-2024-no/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240323194519/https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3737958-national-review-on-trump-in-2024-no/ |archive-date=March 23, 2024 |access-date=2024-03-23 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}

A popular web version of the magazine, National Review Online ("N.R.O."), includes a digital version of the magazine, with articles updated daily by National Review writers, and conservative blogs. The online version is called N.R.O. to distinguish it from the printed magazine. It also features free articles, though these deviate in content from its print magazine. The site's editor is Phillip Klein, who replaced Charles C. W. Cooke.{{Cite web |last=Gold |first=Hadas |date=June 16, 2018 |title=Charles C. W. Cooke named Online editor at National Review |url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/charles-w-cooke-named-national-review-online-editor-224428 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160617150840/http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/charles-w-cooke-named-national-review-online-editor-224428 |archive-date=June 17, 2016 |access-date=June 18, 2016 |website=Politico}}

Each day, the site posts new content consisting of conservative, libertarian, and neoconservative opinion articles, including some syndicated columns, and news features.

It also features two blogs:

• The Corner{{Cite web |title=The Corner |website=National Review |url=http://corner.nationalreview.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050922232245/http://corner.nationalreview.com/ |archive-date=September 22, 2005}} is a selection of postings from a group of the site's editors and affiliated writers discussing the issues of the day.
• Bench Memos{{Cite web |title=Bench Memos |website=National Review |url=http://bench.nationalreview.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060830063646/http://bench.nationalreview.com/ |archive-date=August 30, 2006 |access-date=August 30, 2006}} provides legal and judicial news and commentary.

Markos Moulitsas, who runs the liberal Daily Kos web-site, told reporters in August 2007 that he does not read conservative blogs, with the exception of those on N.R.O.: "I do like the blogs at the National Review—I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere," he said.{{Cite web |date=August 2, 2007 |title=Markos speaks |url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Markos_speaks.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616021557/https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2007/08/markos-speaks-002493 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |website=Politico |department=Ben Smith Blog |first=Ben |last=Smith}}

The N.R.I. works in policy development and helping establish new advocates in the conservative movement. National Review Institute was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. in 1991 to engage in policy development, public education, and advocacy that would advance the conservative principles he championed.{{cite web |url=http://nationalreviewinstitute.org/ |title=National Review |publisher=National Review Institute |access-date=June 18, 2010 |archive-date=January 10, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110152050/http://nationalreviewinstitute.org/ |url-status=dead}}

In 2019, the Whittaker Chambers family prevailed on the N.R.I. to cease an award in Chambers' name, after an award to people whom the family found objectionable.{{cite news |first=Jess |last=Bravin |author-link=Jess Bravin |title=Whittaker Chambers Award Draws Criticism{{snd}}From His Family: Family members say the conservative icon would be appalled by the recipients of the National Review's prize |work=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/whittaker-chambers-award-draws-criticismfrom-his-family-11553765402 |date=28 March 2019 |access-date=30 March 2019 |archive-date=March 30, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190330031902/https://www.wsj.com/articles/whittaker-chambers-award-draws-criticismfrom-his-family-11553765402 |url-status=live}}{{cite news |title=National Review Institute ends Whittaker Chambers Award amid his descendants' outcry over recipients |work=Washington Examiner |url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/national-review-institute-ends-whittaker-chambers-award-amid-his-descendants-outcry-over-recipients |date=29 March 2019 |access-date=30 March 2019 |archive-date=March 30, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190330144240/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/national-review-institute-ends-whittaker-chambers-award-amid-his-descendants-outcry-over-recipients |url-status=live}}{{cite web |first=David |last=Chambers |title=Withdraw Whittaker |publisher=WhittakerChambers.org |url=https://whittakerchambers.org/about/whittaker-chambers-award/ |date=31 March 2019 |access-date=31 March 2019 |archive-date=August 4, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804113517/https://whittakerchambers.org/about/whittaker-chambers-award/ |url-status=live}}

As with most political opinion magazines in the United States, National Review carries little corporate advertising. The magazine stays afloat from subscription fees, donations, and black-tie fundraisers around the country. The magazine also sponsors cruises featuring National Review editors and contributors as lecturers.{{Cite web |url=http://nricruise.com/ |title=The National Review Institute's 2024 Alaska CRUISE | June 16-23, 2024 | + Fairbanks/Denali Pre-cruise Package |website=nricruise.com |access-date=July 4, 2023 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616021429/http://nricruise.com/ |url-status=live}}

Buckley said in 2005 that the magazine had lost about $25,000,000 over 50 years.Shapiro, Gary. [http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=24259&v=6843329811 "An 'Encounter' With Conservative Publishing"], "Knickerbocker" column, The New York Sun, December 9, 2005.

National Review sometimes endorses a candidate during the primary election season. Editors at National Review have said, "Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate."{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors |title=Nationalreview.com Romney for President |work=National Review |access-date=October 17, 2011 |archive-date=October 16, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111016093021/http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors |url-status=live}} This statement echoes what has come to be called "The Buckley Rule". In a 1967 interview, in which he was asked about the choice of presidential candidate, Buckley said, "The wisest choice would be the one who would win... I'd be for the most right, viable candidate who could win."{{Cite web |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IqwyAAAAIBAJ&dq=buckley%20rightward%20viable-candidate&pg=646%2C313367 |title=A Trip into Idea Land with Bill Buckley |access-date=October 17, 2011 |work=The Miami News |date=April 18, 1967}}{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

These candidates were endorsed by National Review:

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break}}

• 1956: Dwight Eisenhower
• 1960: No endorsement{{Cite web |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285934/editorial-my-take-jonah-goldberg |title=The Editorial – My Take |author=Jonah Goldberg |website=National Review |date=December 15, 2011 |access-date=June 14, 2013}}
• 1964: Barry Goldwater
• 1968: Richard Nixon
• 1972: John M. Ashbrook
• 1976: Ronald Reagan
• 1980: No endorsement
• 1984: Ronald Reagan
• 1988: George H. W. Bush
• 1992: No endorsement
• 1996: No endorsement
• 2000: George W. Bush
• 2004: No endorsement
• 2008: Mitt Romney{{Cite web |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors |title=Romney for President |author= |date=December 11, 2007 |website=National Review |access-date=October 17, 2011 |archive-date=October 16, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111016093021/http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors |url-status=live}}
• 2012: No endorsement
• 2016: Ted Cruz{{Cite web |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432682/ted-cruz-national-review-endorses-texas-senator-president |title=Ted Cruz for President |website=National Review |date=March 11, 2016 |access-date=May 20, 2016}}
• 2020: No endorsement{{cite news |title=The Task Ahead |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-task-ahead/ |access-date=29 November 2020 |work=National Review |date=15 October 2020 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616014226/https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-task-ahead/ |url-status=live}}

{{col-end}}

{{more citations needed|section|date=November 2017}}

The magazine's editor-in-chief is Rich Lowry. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have included Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Peter Thiel, and Ted Cruz in the online and print edition.

Contributors to National Review (N.R.) magazine, National Review Online (N.R.O.), or both:

{{div col|colwidth=22em}}

• Elliott Abrams
• Richard Brookhiser, senior editor
• Charles C. W. Cooke, editor of N.R.O..
• Frederick H. Fleitz
• John Fund, N.R.O. national-affairs columnist
• Jim Geraghty
• Paul Johnson
• Roger Kimball
• Larry Kudlow
• Stanley Kurtz
• Yuval Levin
• James Lileks
• Rob Long, N.R. contributing editor
• Kathryn Jean Lopez
• Rich Lowry, N.R. editor
• Andrew C. McCarthy
• John McCormack, N.R. Washington, D.C. correspondent
• John J. Miller, N.R. national political reporter
• Stephen Moore, financial columnist
• Deroy Murdock
• Jay Nordlinger
• John O'Sullivan, N.R. editor-at-large
• Ramesh Ponnuru
• David Pryce-Jones
• Tom Rogan
• Noah Rothman
• Reihan Salam
• Armond White

{{div col end}}

{{div col|colwidth=15em}}

• Renata Adler
• Steve Allen
• Wick Allison
• W. H. Auden
• Edward C. Banfield
• Jacques Barzun
• Peter L. Berger
• Tom Bethell
• Allan Bloom
• George Borjas
• Robert Bork
• L. Brent Bozell Jr.
• Peter Brimelow
• Pat Buchanan
• Jed Babbin
• Myrna Blyth
• Christopher Buckley
• William F. Buckley Jr., founder
• James Burnham
• John R. Chamberlain
• Whittaker Chambers
• Mona Charen
• Shannen W. Coffin
• Robert Conquest
• Richard Corliss
• Robert Costa
• Ann Coulter
• Arlene Croce
• Ted Cruz
• Guy Davenport
• John Derbyshire
• Joan Didion
• John Dos Passos
• Rod Dreher
• Dinesh D'Souza
• John Gregory Dunne
• Max Eastman
• Eric Ehrmann
• Thomas Fleming
• Samuel T. Francis
• David French
• Milton Friedman
• David Frum
• Francis Fukuyama
• Eugene Genovese
• Paul Gigot
• Nathan Glazer
• Jonah Goldberg
• Mark M. Goldblatt
• Stuart Goldman
• Paul Gottfried
• Michael Graham
• Ethan Gutmann
• Ernest van den Haag
• Victor Davis Hanson
• Jeffrey Hart
• Henry Hazlitt
• Will Herberg
• Christopher Hitchens
• Harry V. Jaffa
• Arthur Jensen
• John Keegan
• Willmoore Kendall
• Hugh Kenner
• Florence King
• Phil Kerpen
• Russell Kirk
• Charles Krauthammer
• Irving Kristol
• Dave Kopel
• Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
• Michael Ledeen
• Fritz Leiber
• John Leonard
• Mark Levin
• John Lukacs
• Arnold Lunn
• Richard Lynn
• Alasdair MacIntyre
• Harvey C. Mansfield
• Malachi Martin
• Frank Meyer
• Scott McConnell
• Forrest McDonald
• Ludwig von Mises
• Alice-Leone Moats
• Raymond Moley
• Thomas Molnar
• Charles Murray
• Richard Neuhaus
• Robert Nisbet
• Michael Novak
• Robert Novak
• Michael Oakeshott
• Kate O'Beirne
• Conor Cruise O'Brien
• Revilo P. Oliver
• Thomas Pangle
• Isabel Paterson
• Ezra Pound
• Paul Craig Roberts
• Murray Rothbard
• William A. Rusher, publisher, 1957–88
• J. Philippe Rushton
• Steve Sailer
• Pat Sajak
• Catherine Seipp
• Daniel Seligman
• Ben Shapiro
• John Simon
• Joseph Sobran
• Thomas Sowell
• Mark Steyn
• Whit Stillman
• Theodore Sturgeon
• Thomas Szasz
• Allen Tate
• Jared Taylor
• Terry Teachout
• Taki Theodoracopulos
• Katherine Timpf
• Ralph de Toledano
• Auberon Waugh
• Evelyn Waugh
• Richard M. Weaver
• Robert Weissberg
• Frederick Wilhelmsen
• George F. Will
• Kevin D. Williamson
• Garry Wills
• James Q. Wilson
• Tom Wolfe
• Byron York
• R. V. Young

{{div col end}}

• L. Brent Bozell Jr.
• Neal B. Freeman
• George Will, 1973–76{{cite web |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/george-f-will.html |title=George F. Will: Daily Beast bio |website=The Daily Beast |access-date=August 31, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116232453/http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/george-f-will.html |archive-date=January 16, 2014 |url-status=dead}}
• Neal B. Freeman, 1978–81
• John McLaughlin, 1981–89
• William McGurn, 1989–1992
• Kate O'Beirne
• Robert Costa, 2012–13
• Eliana Johnson, 2014–16

According to Philip Bump of The Washington Post, National Review "has regularly criticized and rejected the scientific consensus on climate change".{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/14/why-the-national-reviews-global-temperature-graph-is-so-misleading/ |title=Why this National Review global temperature graph is so misleading |last=Bump |first=Philip |date=December 14, 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523172448/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/14/why-the-national-reviews-global-temperature-graph-is-so-misleading/ |url-status=live}} In 2015, the magazine published an intentionally deceptive graph which suggested that there was no climate change.{{Cite news |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-graph-national-review_us_567054efe4b0fccee1700f96 |title=This Is How Climate Change Deniers Are Tricking You |last=O'Connor |first=Lydia |date=December 15, 2015 |work=HuffPost |access-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616014904/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-graph-national-review_n_567054efe4b0fccee1700f96 |url-status=live}}{{Cite news |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/one-chart-shows-how-climate-change-deniers-are-skewing-statistics-to-fit-their-view-2015-12?r=US&IR=T |title=One chart shows how climate change deniers are skewing statistics to fit their view |work=Business Insider |date=December 20, 2015 |access-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-date=March 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308051302/https://www.businessinsider.com/one-chart-shows-how-climate-change-deniers-are-skewing-statistics-to-fit-their-view-2015-12?r=US&IR=T |url-status=live}} The graph set the lower and upper bounds of the chart at -10 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit and zoomed out so as to obscure warming trends.

In 2017, National Review published an article alleging that a top NOAA scientist claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration engaged in data manipulation and rushed a study based on faulty data in order to influence the Paris climate negotiations.{{Cite news |url=https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/ |title=No Data Manipulation at NOAA |date=February 9, 2017 |work=FactCheck.org |access-date=May 22, 2018}} The article largely repeated allegations made in the Daily Mail without independent verification.{{Cite web |date=March 27, 2017 |first=Christelle |last=Perrin |url=https://science.feedback.org/blogosphere-amplified-daily-mails-unsupported-allegations-climate-data-manipulation-david-rose/ |title=How the blogosphere spread and amplified the Daily Mail's unsupported allegations of climate data manipulation |website=Science Feedback |publisher=Climate Feedback |access-date=September 16, 2024 |archive-date=August 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240819051244/https://science.feedback.org/blogosphere-amplified-daily-mails-unsupported-allegations-climate-data-manipulation-david-rose/ |url-status=live}} The scientist in question later rejected the claims made by National Review, noting that he did not accuse NOAA of data manipulation but instead raised concerns about "the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability".

In 2014, climate scientist Michael E. Mann sued National Review for defamation after columnist Mark Steyn accused Mann of fraud and referenced a quote from Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) writer Rand Simberg that called Mann "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."{{Cite news |url=https://theweek.com/articles/451963/national-review-doomed |title=Is National Review doomed? |work=The Week |date=January 30, 2014 |access-date=October 2, 2018 |archive-date=October 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002141839/https://theweek.com/articles/451963/national-review-doomed |url-status=live}}{{Cite news |last=Timmer |first=John |date=December 30, 2016 |title=Climate researcher's defamation suit about insulting columns is on |url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/climate-researchers-defamation-suit-about-insulting-columns-is-on/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002141609/https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/climate-researchers-defamation-suit-about-insulting-columns-is-on/ |archive-date=October 2, 2018 |access-date=October 2, 2018 |work=Ars Technica |language=en-us}} Civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several publications such as The Washington Post expressed support for National Review in the lawsuit, filing amicus briefs in their defense.{{Cite news |last=Adler |first=Jonathan H. |date=2021-10-24 |title=Media and rights organizations defend National Review, et al. against Michael Mann |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/13/media-and-rights-organizations-defend-national-review-et-al-against-michael-mann/ |access-date=2024-09-23 |work=The Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}} In February 2024, Mann was awarded over $1 million from Steyn and Simberg. He intends to appeal a 2021 ruling saying that the CEI and National Review could not be held liable.{{Cite web |last=Goldman |first=David |last2=Afshar |first2=Paradise |date=2024-02-09 |title=Climate scientist awarded more than $1 million in damages from conservative writers who defamed his work |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/09/media/michael-mann-national-review-climate-defamation/index.html |access-date=2024-09-23 |website=CNN Business |language=en}}

{{further|Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories}}

In June 2008, National Review correspondent Jim Geraghty published an article encouraging Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in order to debunk false rumors circulating on conservative forums and blogs. Geraghty's column may have brought these conspiracy theories about Obama to mainstream attention.{{Cite news |title=No, Hillary Clinton didn't feed the birther movement |url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/20/hillary-clinton-and-birther-movement-still-no-ther/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240616014905/https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/sep/20/hillary-clinton-and-birther-movement-still-no-ther/ |archive-date=June 16, 2024 |access-date=May 22, 2018 |work=PolitiFact |language=en}}{{Cite news |last=Smith |first=Ben |author-link=Ben Smith (journalist) |last2=Tau |first2=Byron |author-link2=Byron Tau |date=April 22, 2011 |title=Birtherism: Where it all began |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20200616004248/https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563 |archive-date=June 16, 2020 |access-date=October 16, 2024 |work=Politico}} Karen Tumulty wrote in Time that Geraghty's article "became fodder for cable television."{{Cite news |last=Tumulty |first=Karen |author-link=Karen Tumulty |date=June 12, 2008 |title=Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work? |url=https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1813978,00.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230714133900/https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1813978,00.html |archive-date=July 14, 2023 |access-date=October 16, 2024 |work=Time}} Obama released his birth certificate a few days after Geraghty's column, and Geraghty wrote that there was "no reason" to doubt its authenticity. In a July 2009 column, the National Review editorial board called conspiracies about Obama's citizenship "untrue."{{cite web |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2009/07/born-usa-editors/ |title=Born in the U.S.A. - National Review |website=National Review |date=July 28, 2009 |access-date=August 2, 2018 |archive-date=April 1, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401181243/https://www.nationalreview.com/2009/07/born-usa-editors/ |url-status=live}}

One National Review article suggested Obama's parents could be communists because "for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or '60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics".{{Cite book |url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/208566/the-new-hate-by-arthur-goldwag/9780307742513/ |title=The New Hate by Arthur Goldwag |pages=5 |access-date=May 22, 2018 |archive-date=May 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523095843/https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/208566/the-new-hate-by-arthur-goldwag/9780307742513/ |url-status=live}}

Two days after the September 11 attacks, National Review published a column by Ann Coulter in which she wrote of Muslims, "This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."{{Cite web |url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/292798/weapons-of-mass-deception-by-sheldon-rampton/9781585422760 |title=Weapons of Mass Deception by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber |publisher=Penguin Random House |pages=145–146 |access-date=January 9, 2019 |archive-date=August 20, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012551/https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/292798/weapons-of-mass-deception-by-sheldon-rampton/9781585422760/ |url-status=live}} National Review later called the column a "mistake" and fired Coulter as a contributing editor.{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/10/02/national-review-cans-columnist-ann-coulter/4128f3be-7a64-47e9-a350-eb801757d376/ |title=National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter |first=Howard |last=Kurtz |date=October 2, 2001 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=January 9, 2019 |archive-date=January 9, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190109155518/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/10/02/national-review-cans-columnist-ann-coulter/4128f3be-7a64-47e9-a350-eb801757d376/ |url-status=live}}

In 2019, The New York Times reported that National Review was one of three news outlets (along with Forbes and HuffPost) that had published stories written by Jeffrey Epstein's publicists.{{Cite news |last=Hsu |first=Tiffany |date=2019-07-21 |title=Jeffrey Epstein Pitched a New Narrative. These Sites Published It. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/business/media/jeffrey-epstein-media.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=2019-07-22 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=December 13, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191213104224/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/business/media/jeffrey-epstein-media.html |url-status=live}} The National Review article was written by Christina Galbraith, Epstein's publicist at the time the article was published in 2013. The National Review bio for Galbraith described her as a science writer. National Review retracted the article in July 2019 with apologies and spoke of new methods being used to better filter freelance content.

After the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, the National Review published a cartoon of US Representative Rashida Tlaib with an exploding pager.{{cite news |last1=Singh |first1=Kanishka |title=US lawmaker Rashida Tlaib condemns cartoon showing her with exploding pager |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmaker-rashida-tlaib-condemns-cartoon-showing-her-with-exploding-pager-2024-09-21/ |publisher=Reuters}} It was condemned by Tlaib as racist and Islamophobic.{{cite web |last1=Yang |first1=Maya |title=Rashida Tlaib condemns cartoonist for racist image of her with exploding pager |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/20/rashida-tlaib-cartoon-pager |website=The Guardian |access-date=November 27, 2024 |date=September 20, 2024}}{{cite web |title=US lawmaker Rashida Tlaib slams racist image of her with exploding pager |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/21/us-lawmaker-rashida-tlaib-slams-racist-image-of-her-with-exploding-pager |website=Al Jazeera|access-date=November 27, 2024 |date=September 21, 2024}} Dearborn mayor Abdullah Hammoud called the cartoon "anti-Arab bigotry".{{cite news |date=21 September 2024 |title=Rashida Talib condemns racist cartoon depicting her with exploding pager |url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/2497664/rashida-tlaib-condemns-racist-and-islamophobic-cartoon-depicting-her-with-exploding-pager |work=The Express Tribune |language=en}}

• List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

{{reflist|30em}}

• {{Cite book |last=Bogus |first=Carl T. |title=Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2011 |isbn=978-1596915800 |location=New York |oclc=707329314}}
• {{Cite book |title=American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia |publisher=ISI Books |year=2006 |isbn=1-932236-44-9 |editor-last=Frohnen |editor-first=Bruce |location=Wilmington, DE |oclc=64690866 |editor-last2=Beer |editor-first2=Jeremy |editor-last3=Nelson |editor-first3=Jeffrey O.}}
• {{Cite book |last=Judis |first=John B. |author-link=John Judis |title=William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives |publisher=Simon and Schuster |year=1988 |isbn=978-0-7432-1797-2 |location=New York}}
• {{Cite book |last=Nash |first=George |author-link=George H. Nash |title=The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 |publisher=ISI Books |year=2006 |isbn=1933859121 |edition=30th anniversary |location=Wilmington, DE |oclc=124536175 |orig-date=1978}}
• {{Cite book |last=Smant |first=Kevin J. |title=Principles and Heresies: Frank S. Meyer and the Shaping of the American Conservative Movement |publisher=ISI Books |year=2002 |isbn=1882926722 |location=Wilmington, DE |oclc=50036266}}

• {{Cite book |last=Allitt |first=Patrick |author-link=Patrick Allitt |title=The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0300164183 |oclc=261342762}}
• {{Cite book |last=Bayley |first=Edwin R. |title=Joe McCarthy and the Press |publisher=University of Wisconsin Press |year=1981 |isbn=0299086208 |oclc=7555013}}
• {{Cite book |last=Birzer |first=Bradley J. |url=https://archive.org/details/russellkirkameri0000birz |title=Russell Kirk: American Conservative |publisher=University Press of Kentucky |year=2015 |isbn=978-0813166186 |oclc=908071888 |url-access=registration}}
• {{Cite book |last1=Bridges |first1=Linda |title=Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement |last2=Coyne |first2=John R. Jr. |publisher=John Wiley and Sons |year=2007 |isbn=978-0471758174 |oclc=71275596}}
• {{Cite book |last=Critchlow |first=Donald T. |title=The Conservative Ascendancy: How the Right Made Political History |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0674026209 |location=Cambridge, MA |oclc=148723846}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Del Visco |first=Stephen |year=2019 |title=Yellow peril, red scare: race and communism in National Review |journal=Ethnic and Racial Studies |volume=42 |issue=4 |pages=626–644 |doi=10.1080/01419870.2017.1409900}}
• {{Cite book |last=Frisk |first=David B. |title=If Not Us, Who?: William Rusher, National Review, and the Conservative Movement |publisher=ISI Books |year=2011 |isbn=978-1935191452 |location=Wilmington, DE |oclc=1018161914}}
• {{Cite book |last=Hart |first=Jeffrey |author-link=Jeffrey Hart |title=The Making of the American Conservative Mind: The National Review and Its Times |publisher=ISI Books |year=2005 |isbn=1932236813 |location=Wilmington, DE |oclc=62875113}} {{endash}} a view from the inside
• {{Cite book |last=Hemmer |first=Nicole |title=Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |year=2016 |isbn=978-0812248395 |oclc=945028632}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Johnston |first=Savannah Eccles |year=2021 |title=The Rise of Illiberal Conservatism: Immigration and Nationhood at National Review |journal=American Political Thought |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=190–216 |doi=10.1086/713668}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Nemeth |first=Julian |year=2020 |title=The Passion of William F. Buckley: Academic Freedom, Conspiratorial Conservatism, and the Rise of the Postwar Right |journal=Journal of American Studies |volume=54 |issue=2 |pages=323–350 |doi=10.1017/S0021875818001469}}
• {{Cite book |last=Owen |first=Christopher H. |title=Heaven Can Indeed Fall: The Life of Willmoore Kendall |publisher=Lexington Books |year=2021 |isbn=978-1793624444 |location=Lanham, MD |oclc=1258659722}}
• {{Cite book |last=Schneider |first=Gregory |title=The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |year=2009 |isbn=978-0742542846 |location=Lanham, MD |oclc=232002119 |url=https://archive.org/details/conservativecent0000schn |url-access=registration}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Walsh |first=David Austin |year=2020 |title=The Right-Wing Popular Front: The Far Right and American Conservatism in the 1950s |journal=Journal of American History |volume=107 |issue=2 |pages=411–432 |doi=10.1093/jahist/jaaa182}}

• {{official website}}
• {{ProPublicaNonprofitExplorer|133649537|National Review Institute}}

{{authority control}}

Category:1955 establishments in New York (state)

Category:Biweekly magazines published in the United States

Category:Climate change denial

Category:Conservative magazines published in the United States

Category:Magazines established in 1955

Category:Magazines published in New York City

Category:New Right organizations (United States)

Category:News magazines published in the United States

Category:Political magazines published in the United States

Category:William F. Buckley Jr.