Want to have a little fun? Here’s a way. Step One: Go onto Twitter and write what seems obvious to pretty much every sentient American: That Joe Biden is old and past it, and that his demand that the American people keep him as president until he is 86 years old is ridiculous on its face. Step Two: Watch as the angry responses pile up. Step Three: Tally up how many of those angry responses come from people who call themselves “journalists.”
Step Four: Donate to National Review.
All in all, there seem to be three types of Joe Biden apologist in the press, each with a different style and motivation. The first type is Blinkered. Blinkered likes Biden’s policies, he believes that intentions matter more than results, and he cannot conceive that anyone might disagree in good faith. Blinkered’s coverage is unhinged, but it is earnestly unhinged — which does not make it useful, but which does at least make it sincere. Blinkered is useless, but he is useless in the way that all zealots are useless: He does not know any better, and he cannot be taught.
The second type is Strategic. Strategic is a partisan Democrat, and he will say what he needs to say to help Democrats win. Strategic knows exactly what he’s doing, but he doesn’t see anything wrong with it, because he doesn’t think that there ought to be a difference between mainstream reporting and political activism. Ideally, Strategic would like to work for an opinion journal, but he hasn’t yet got the chance, and, until he does, he intends to use his position in the newsroom to achieve the same ends.
The third type is Circumstantial. Circumstantial understands that the press is supposed to tell the truth, but, where Joe Biden is implicated, he cannot bring himself to do it, lest he indirectly help Donald Trump win reelection and thus bring about the end of the world. Circumstantial feels a touch guilty about this, but not as guilty as he feels when he sees his work being shared approvingly by people whose politics he dislikes. Circumstantial’s rubric is that Joe Biden must be good because Donald Trump is bad. This position is negotiable, but only in service of the broader cause: If there were a chance of replacing Joe Biden with someone better, he would happily help that along by acknowledging Biden’s flaws. For now, though, Biden must be protected.
Together, these three types make up a supermajority of the American press, and, together, they play a never-ending game of Panicked Ping-Pong, in which Americans tell them over and over that they do not like what the president is doing, and they insist that Americans are wrong to think that.
PING: Eighty-six percent of voters think that Joe Biden is too old to be president. PONG: Actually, there exists a magical, private Joe Biden that nobody other than his wife, his aides, and certain members of the media can see. And that magical Biden is “beyond cogent” — indeed, he’s “better than he’s ever been intellectually, analytically,” and if you don’t agree, then “eff you!”
PING: Americans don’t like the inflated economy. PONG: Actually, things have never been better, and, if only the public were grateful, Biden should be cruising to reelection.
PING: Voters are angry about the border and blame Joe Biden for the crisis. PONG: Actually, there is no crisis, and if there is, it’s the Republicans’ fault.
In its rank predictability, this process is positively Newtonian — as is the guarantee that any harsh critique of Biden’s performance will be met with the claim that the critic must be a “crypto-Trumper” or an “anti-anti-Trumper” or a “whatabouter,” or any one of the usual -ists that are thrown around like candy in contemporary American politics.
Which brings me to National Review. If you’re reading this, you’re probably already aware that the behavior I have described above is not our thing. We are a magazine (and website) of conservative opinion, yes, but there can be no useful conservatism without truth and there can be no persuasive opinion without a decent respect for the facts. Sometimes, no doubt, we infuriate you. I’m sure I have done so myself. But that is preferable to the alternative, which is to deserve — and earn — your contempt.
Over the course of the last few years I have been asked why I have often criticized Ron DeSantis despite having voted for him twice; I have been asked why I have dissented strongly from the GOP’s path when I still consider it to be the better option in most cases; I have been asked why I have prioritized the political process over my preferred policies, when circumventing it would have helped me get my own way; and, of course, I have been asked why I persist in my characterization of Donald Trump as an unfit, unhinged narcissist who lied about the results of the 2020 election and then tried to twist our laws to stay in office, when, as a conservative, I like some of the things that he did while he was in office.
The answer to all of these questions is the same: Because doing so is my job. It is my job to tell our readers what I think, irrespective of whether it helps or hurts either party. I am not a strategist, or a PR flack, or a door-knocker; I am a writer, and my value as such — our value as such — lies in the expectation that this publication is telling the truth. The moment we give that up, we lose our purpose.
The good news is that we have not given that up. The bad news is that, by not giving that up, we have made our lives far, far more difficult than they might otherwise have been. There is an audience for sober and honest political writing, but it is limited in scope. If you want and appreciate it, then we ask that you contribute as part of our webathon.
There are two ways to do so. One is to give directly to National Review, a for-profit enterprise. Contributions to the publication are not tax deductible, but they matter greatly. Another is to make a tax-deductible gift to National Review Institute (NRI), the 501(c)(3) not-for-profit journalistic think tank that supports the NR mission.
Or, if you just can’t decide, feel free to give to both. Thank you.
Donate to National Review
Donate to National Review Institute