The Curious Courage of National Review

NRquietby John Kirke   2/9/14
Mark Steyn has long been a regular contributor for National Review, and they should make a great fit:  it’s the happy warrior, deploying his deadly wit to counter the seemingly irresistible threats to liberty and Western civilization, writing for the magazine that William F. Buckley founded with the stated mission of standing athwart history, yelling Stop.

To see the potential of their partnership, look no further than “Gagging Us Softly,” the three-thousand-word cover story that Steyn wrote for NR about the assault on free speech.

He argues quite forcefully that restrictions on speech undermine the bedrock principle of equality before the law, and in such a legal regime, “words have no agreed meaning,” since the legality of a comment depends entirely on who hears it and takes offense.

Granting that racism and all the other -isms and -phobias are bad, he concludes that “the government’s criminalizing all of them and setting up an enforcement regime in the interests of micro-regulating us into compliance is a thousand times worse.”

It’s a great piece, but it wasn’t exactly timely.

Mark Steyn’s cover story on free speech was published in the August 11, 2011, issue of National Review, a full three years after the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint against Maclean’s magazine and Mark Steyn.  Fourteen months later, climate scientist Michael Mann filed suit against Steyn, National Review, and others for defamation.

Since then, we haven’t seen any more cover stories about the issue of free speech, and we certainly haven’t seen cover stories about this lawsuit in particular.  Steyn has noticed the deafening silence, and after more than a year of following the lawyers’ advice of keeping a low profile while they pursued a quick dismissal, he is breaking ranks to raise a ruckus.  He’s no longer writing at National Review Online, and he’s using his Happy Warrior column in the print edition to dissent from NR’s head-down approach.

As he told a reporter in an interview with Mother Jones(!), he’s “gently calling for a little bit more of a spirited free speech campaign on this.”

He’s doing more than that:  in his Happy Warrior column for the January 27th issue, Mark Steyn argues that it’s essential to argue, that NR must use speech to defend free speech.

“…by far the biggest consequence of this ridiculous case is in these pages. If you are only a print subscriber (as opposed to an Internet reader), you will have no idea that NATIONAL REVIEW is in the midst of a big free-speech battle on one of the critical public-policy issues of our time. There have been no cover stories, no investigative journalism, no eviscerating editorials. NR runs specialized blogs on both legal matters and climate change, yet they too have been all but entirely silent. I assume, from this lonely outpost on NR’s wilder shores, that back at head office they take the view that it’s best not to say anything while this matter works its way through the courts. In other words, a law explicitly intended to prevent litigious bullies from forcing their victims to withdraw from ‘public participation’ has resulted in the defendants themselves voluntarily withdrawing from ‘public participation.’ That’s nuts…

“Up north, following a similar SLAPP suit from the Canadian Islamic Congress, my publisher Maclean’s, who are far less ideologically simpatico to me than NR, nevertheless understood the stakes — and helped get a disgusting law with a 100 percent conviction rate first stayed by a hitherto jelly-spined jurist and ultimately repealed by the Parliament of Canada. This too is a free-speech case. Free speech is about the right to thrash out ideas — on climate change, gay marriage, or anything else — in the public square, in bright sunlight. And you win a free-speech case by shining that sunlight on it, relentlessly. As we embark on our second year in the hell of the D.C. court system, that’s what I intend to do.”

From their disagreements on tactics, it’s almost as if National Review has lost its courage.

I suspect that NR is still bravely fighting its battles, but it’s exhibiting a very peculiar kind of courage.

For its April 7, 2003, issue, NR published an infamous cover story by David Frum that went far beyond observing the dovish streaks among libertarians and traditionalists to argue that paleoconservatives are actually wishing for our defeat and will take pleasure in its occurring.

 “They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.

“War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them.

The editors didn’t pull any punches.  On the cover and at the top of the page, the article was simply titled, “Unpatriotic Conservatives.

It is difficult enough to imagine an NR cover story using such language about the Democratic Party, even though its current leader began his political career in the home of unrepentant domestic terrorists and chose to be pastored, as an adult, by a race-essentialist conspiracy monger who accused the United States government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide.  It’s quite impossible to picture National Review invoking hatred and treachery to describe those “compassionate conservatives” who support an activist federal government unbounded by our Constitution.

On June 28, 2010, National Review’s editors took a rare foray into a Republican primary battle for a U.S. Senate seat, endorsing “McCain, Once More,” over the conservative challenger J.D. Hayworth.  It was a brave move, insofar as they must have remembered that many conservatives strongly opposed McCain in the 2008 presidential primaries and only supported him when the alternative was the radical Barack Obama; at the time I joked that Obama really was a “miracle worker” to get me to support McCain.  The moderate “maverick” rewarded our reluctant support with a reluctant general-election campaign, giving the impression that he just wanted to lose with honor.

The editorial staff also showed some courage in publishing Andrew McCarthy’s blistering dissent.  In arguing that NR should generally stay out of congressional primary races and should certainly have not endorsed the progressive McCain over Hayworth, he exposed the editors’ case for McCain as “depressingly weak and bereft of balance.”

What NR’s editors didn’t show was the courage of endorsing a qualified conservative challenger against a progressive Republican incumbent. It is that sort of courage that changes the political climate for the better:  NR’s own hagiographers frequently remind us that you can draw a line from Buckley’s magazine to Goldwater’s failed presidential bid in 1964 to the Reagan landslide election in 1980.

NR’s endorsing McCain over Hayworth was a warm-up to what would come the following year, when the editors tried to clear the path for Mitt Romney over all likely Republican challengers.

On December 14, 2011, NRO published an editorial that would be reproduced in the December 31st print edition.  The editors argued for “Winnowing the Field” by discarding Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann as unworthy of serious consideration, leaving only Romney, the dark horse Rick Santorum, and Obama’s former ambassador Jon Huntsman.

They disposed of Perry and Bachmann in only a few short sentences, and the editorial focused almost entirely on the former House Speaker:  while the Republican nomination was still very much contested, NRO publicized their editorial with the largest font ever seen on their front page, announcing quite directly that National Review was simply “Against Gingrich.”

In the subsequent print edition, they paired their editorial with Mark Steyn’s cover story on “The Gingrich Gestalt” and a Roman Genn caricature of Gingrich as Warner Bros.’ Marvin the Martian.

National Review didn’t emphasize Steyn’s view that the choice between Gingrich and Romney is one that is “not worth making,” since both favor “unbounded micro-managerial faux-technocracy.”   In a December 18, 2011, Corner post titled “Tweedlemitt and Tweedlenewt,” Steyn echoed Paul Rahe’s suspicion that a President Romney would likely drift into “extending the power and scope of the administrative entitlements state.”

And, once again, Andrew McCarthy took to NRO to dissent from the editors.  In his December 17, 2011, piece, he outlined “Gingrich’s Virtues,” which he believes were shortchanged, and he argued that the editors could have just as easily warned against Romney and Hunstman’s numerous heresies against conservative orthodoxy.  He wrote that all the candidates still deserved serious consideration at the end of 2011, and he urged National Review not to lose the conviction that has allowed it to endure for more than fifty years, that “the power of conservative ideas can trump personality and dramatically alter voters’ notions about who is electable.”

NR’s editors displayed a certain kind of courage to break so radically and unpersuasively from Steyn, McCarthy, and so much of its conservative readership.  NRO even went so far as to attempt an end-of-the-year fundraising drive after the notorious editorial:   on December 19th – less than a week after the “Against Gingrich” offensive – Kathryn Lopez praised the reader as the “Man of the Year” and passed him the hat.  The comments have long since been scrubbed, but the reaction was so negative that the fundraiser was quietly ended without another word.

National Review continued to show a brave willingness to embarrass itself for the sake of Mitt Romney when, just before Easter of 2012, it published a cover story by Kevin Williamson purporting to reveal the truth about Mormonism, that “American Gospel.”  The story actually provided no details about the religion’s history or the doctrines that separate it from the Christian orthodoxy that it denounces as apostasy.  Instead, the piece was pure propaganda, not only for Mormonism but against its Christian opponents.

Before concluding with an explicit eye toward Mitt Romney’s electoral prospects, the article repeatedly smeared Christian opponents of Mormonism as uninformed, unhinged hypocrites who might not be genuine Christians in the first place.

The piece was shameful, and it prompted this evangelical Christian to cancel his subscription of more than a decade.  NR’s promotion of this piece stood in stark contrast to their near-simultaneous firing of John Derbyshire for an article on race that he wrote elsewhere.

Even though Buckley himself once wrote that hatred of religion is incompatible with conservatism, NR had long tolerated Derb’s outright antagonism toward the belief in, in his words, an “invisible Sky Father.”

(A sometimes witty writer, Derbyshire really is a crank when it comes to religion.  Having read Mere Christianity, he once pondered the appeal that the Anglican C.S. Lewis has across denominations, in a feature story The American Spectator published after his firing from NR:  “It is in fact an interesting question, though one I shall leave for readers to ponder in their own time, why Lewis’s powers are great enough to excite such admiration while yet not great enough to persuade the admirers into his own sect of choice.”  It isn’t an interesting question at all, since Lewis explicitly wrote for ecumenical Christianity; John Derbyshire quite literally doesn’t understand the first word in Mere Christianity, or at least the first word in its title.)

NR’s other writers had occasionally argued with Derb over the philosophical materialism that prompted him to emphasize genetic determinism over culture and parental nurture, but it was only when that determinism led to an overt race-essentialism that NR sent him packing.

Between Williamson’s cover story and Derbyshire’s quick dismissal, National Review sent an interesting message:  mock faith, and the magazine will just disagree gently; smear believers en route to helping the GOP’s establishment candidate, and they’ll put you on the cover; but if you thoroughly outrage the sentries of political correctness, even writing somewhere else, National Review won’t be able to fire you quickly enough.

Here is the curious courage of National Review:  it is a willingness to denounce dovish paleoconservatives as unpatriotic; to endorse the progressive McCain as he faces a primary challenge from a credible conservative; to savage the author of the Contract with America to clear the path for the author of the state-level precursor to ObamaCare; and to smear the defenders of Christian orthodoxy in order to improve the same managerial progressive’s chances in a general election.

Mark Steyn has expressed a great deal of gratitude for NR, both in a recent post at SteynOnline and in a recent Ricochet podcast with Power Line’s John Hinderaker and Fraters Libertas’ Brian Ward, starting around the 40-minute mark. But he also doesn’t hide frustration with its current posture.

National Review is a landmark of conservatism, I owe Bill Buckley a lot, he was an early champion of mine when I appeared in Canadian and British and Irish and Australian papers but wasn’t really known in America.  He was an early champion of mine, and I owe him a lot for that, but I don’t think there’s any denying that I’ve had a few differences with that magazine recently, and I hope they understand that I take their slogan seriously, ‘standing athwart history, yelling Stop.’ 

“I don’t want to run behind history, saying, ‘I don’t mind heading in that direction just as long as you go a bit slower, in second or third gear.’  That’s not enough for me, and on red-meat issues like Michael Mann’s hockey stick, I do want to stand athwart, yelling Stop, and I’m not denying that it hasn’t caused a few problems between us, but I’m still writing and I’m still going to write, and I’m glad it relieves me of having to provide live coverage, on the Corner, of the State of the Union or whatever.  There are some strategic fallings out that are quite useful.

I am likewise personally grateful for National Review, for the very early G-Files that helped me past event-driven discussions to the broader philosophical arguments underlying conservatism, and for introducing me to the writings of Steyn, McCarthy, and Victor Davis Hanson.

But I too am frustrated that, on the “red-meat issues,” National Review cannot be trusted to stand on principle.

I suspect it’s worse than Steyn describes.  It’s not just that they won’t stand athwart progressivism:  when it matters most, they’ll stand athwart conservatism and the principled individuals trying to rally to its defense.

The problem isn’t an unwillingness to pull the trigger:  the problem is where they’re aiming their most potent rhetorical weapons.
__________________________________________________
John R.W. Kirke is a pseudonym of a Christian husband, father, and engineer who has written elsewhere under other names, including “Lawrence” in the comments at National Review Online.  He remains deeply moved by the unpublished memoirs of Professor D. Kirke (1888-1949). • (6393 views)

Share
John Kirke

About John Kirke

John R.W. Kirke is a pseudonym of a Christian husband, father, and engineer who has written elsewhere under other names, including “Lawrence” in the comments at National Review Online. He remains deeply moved by the unpublished memoirs of Professor D. Kirke (1888-1949).

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Curious Courage of National Review

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Holy cow, that’s a terrific piece, John. I love this summing up:

    Here is the curious courage of National Review: it is a willingness to denounce dovish paleoconservatives as unpatriotic; to endorse the progressive McCain as he faces a primary challenge from a credible conservative; to savage the author of the Contract with America to clear the path for the author of the state-level precursor to ObamaCare; and to smear the defenders of Christian orthodoxy in order to improve the same managerial progressive’s chances in a general election.

    And this:

    I suspect it’s worse than Steyn describes. It’s not just that they won’t stand athwart progressivism: when it matters most, they’ll stand athwart conservatism and the principled individuals trying to rally to its defense.

    I’ve dabbled in writing political opinions online for years. But for me, it was always a sideline. But I am simpatico with Steyn when he says, “There are some strategic fallings out that are quite useful.”

    Indeed, watching the many fools at National Review massacre conservative thought, especially over the last five yeras, I knew that I and some others could do better. And we have. NRO‘s general lameness was the impetus for starting this site. And you will consistently find conservative opinions here unlike over there. National Review is no longer a bastion of conservatism. Rarely does it “stand athwart.” It’s an embarrassment to the magazine that Buckley started.

    But statism, RINOism, Establishment Republicanism – or whatever you want to call it – is a raging disease. National Review has caught that bug. If it wasn’t for VDH, Andy McCarthy, and an occasional conservative article by Williamson/Tanner/Cooke, there would be no conservatism at all there.

    Welcome to the team, John. Great stuff. A very thoughtful article. It was worth waiting for.

    • John Kirke John Kirke says:

      Thanks, Brad!

      I’d bet Steyn would much rather be writing obits and pieces about classic songs and Broadway musicals, but there’s the old line from Tolkien, “All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

      I saw that Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed David Mamet, and Mamet mentioned that we all have the capacity to be heroes:

      Everybody has it. To be a hero? Everybody has the capacity to make the choice, because the hero journey is someone says thank you, I’d rather not. Moses says that, Jesus says that, Jonah says that. Everybody says that. They say yeah, now is not good for me, God. I see your point, but now is really not a good time for me. Please pick someone else, please let this cup pass from me. So the story of the hero journey is of course we’re all terrified, but that’s who the hero is. He’s somebody who says yes, I’m scared to death, I’m not, I mean, Moses couldn’t even talk. He says I’m not qualified, it’s not a good time for me, I’ve got to go pick up my cleaning. Pick someone else. But the hero goes anyway, and through putting up with his own feelings of inadequacy and his own feelings of cowardice, and not conquering them, but being able to live with them, he creates a heroic act.

      It’s Christ’s parable of the talents: it’s not how much ya got, but what you do with what ya got.

      That’s one reason why I’m here.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    All too often, the GOP Establishment seems to take the view that we should get the Obama agenda in full — but slowly, over a period of several years, rather than quickly. It certainly is better to phase such changes in rather than push them in too fast, but quite often (I think nearly all the time) it would be better to block them entirely. Republicans are reluctant to see that, and judging from your description, National Review simply reflects their views now.

    As for the free speech issue and political correctness, we should never forget (or fail to emphasize) that such restrictions are basically thoughtcrimes (very explicitly in many cases, such as “hate” crimes) enforced by the thought police. Identify the SLAPP-happy liberals as the thought police of Big Brother Barry — and do it openly.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Part of the problem is that many of these people at National Review are inside-the-beltway “intellectuals” who have, to some extent, been programmed with the same “Progressive” education as so many others have….and they either haven’t escaped it or have no interest to do so because their interests lie no deeper than personal profit or aggrandizement.

      Conservatism is not a club. It’s not a clique. There is no secret handshake. It’s a philosophy that consists of tried-and-true, common sense principles that are optimistic in regards to man’s ability to prosper and govern himself, but pessimistic (at least realistic) about his nature, the nature of government, and the reality of hard facts such as economics and incentives.

      And all this is within the general paradigm of liberty and with a distaste for naïve, teenager-like zealousness (which is basically what “Progressivism” is).

      Conservatism isn’t about who you know, how much money you make, or the color of your skin. It’s not even a life philosophy, per se, as with libertarianism or Objectivism. It’s simply a lens (and a wise one) through which to parse the vagaries of life with the hope of making things better (not perfect) instead of worse through naiveté and various cults of personality.

      Life teaches conservatism if we will listen. But many people have their ears plugged for various reasons. And although life teaches conservatism, it’s not necessarily a philosophy you fall into without effort. There is learning involved. There is study. There is thinking. There must, to some extent, be a self-conscious affirmation of the principles. That is surely why so many at National Review have gotten off course. They (probably thanks to the publisher who I hear is a “Progressive” or statist) are too busy parsing politics through their clubby paradigm.

      America deserves better than this. National Review used to be a leader. Now they are but a follower of bad trends and vapid motives.

      • John Kirke John Kirke says:

        One of Jonah’s wiser early insights is that conservatism is only a partial philosophy: it doesn’t answer all questions, but I believe it leaves room to find the missing answers. Whatever name it goes by, radical statism is an all-encompassing (lit. totalitarian) substitute religion, so it hinders the search for greater meaning.

        – Conservatism is about principles, not personalities.

        – NR used to be better than it was, and one of the worse things about its being subverted is that it crowds out alternatives.

        Those are things I plan to tackle in a lot more detail down the road.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    There are so many conservative things to comment on if one has a voice at a major media outlet:

    + The danger of Islam
    + The undermining of the family (Social Security, gay marriage, no-fault divorce, lack of Christian values)
    + Illegal Aliens
    + The administrative state
    + The debt
    + The rot of socialism
    + The waste of money and lives trying to nation-build in Islamic countries
    + Democrat Party voter fraud
    + Government incentivizing bad habits via welfare and other “free stuff”
    + The rot of public employee unions
    + Marxism invading our culture under various names
    + The evil of abortion and the attitudes that foster it as a “right”
    + The rise of Leftism/secularism/humanism as a statist-friendly religion (indeed, a state religion)
    + The rot of feminism including the persecution and emasculation of men
    + Environmental wacko-ism
    + Black racism
    + The pansification of Americans
    + The undermining of universities and science by the Left
    + The infiltration of Christianity by Leftism
    + High taxes / anti-business attitudes
    + Utopianism (Jonah at least had an article on this recently)
    + And the general dumbing-down and vulgarization of the culture

    In none of the above is there anything that will make one fall in love with John McCain or Mitt Romney. At a time when a clear vision is needed in the midst of a maelstrom of Marxist-bred irrationality, we need bold leaders not apologists for statism and a me-too Republican Party of moral idiots and cowards. That goes for any publication that claims to be conservative.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The problem is that most people don’t want to believe that the situation is so dire, much less that this is the goal of one of the two major parties. And those Republicans who become attuned to the Beltway culture, want to get along with the Democrats, and want to “stand tall in Georgetown” (as Allen Drury put it in a short bit in Capable of Honor) have no wish to realize the truth. It’s so much easier to “go along to get along” and continue politics as usual. And after all, if the Deluge does finally come, no doubt it will be after they’re gone.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        It’s very likely that the so-called “social issues” is what separates many of these RINOs and Establishment Republicans from fully baptizing into American conservatism.

        But how one can ever hope for a fiscally conservative country with liberalism (Leftism) running rampant is a good question. The fact is, there is no such thing. One cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and have that equation add up to anything but “doesn’t work.”

        But in the short term, narcissism reigns. I don’t have an antidote for that. In fact, it’s so far out of my general constitution that I cannot even relate to it. But Prager was talking today about some guy or gal who took offense at being told by a recent breast cancer patient that this patient didn’t want any visitors. Narcissism is all about us.

        Leftism is breeding a silly, lightweight, indulgent, narcissistic, conceited, pansy, and ignoble people. This “social liberalism” has led to a people who no longer abide common sense limitations, let alone what we might think of as “social conservative” issues. So, good luck, I say, to those who are foolish enough to be “fiscally conservative” and “socially liberal.” That’s like a square circle.

        And I see this kind of cognitive dissonance all the time at National Review. Isn’t it odd, for example, for Jonah Goldberg to write an article exposing the foolishness and pervasiveness of the Utopian viewpoint while embracing gay marriage? Yikes. Give the man a mirror.

        And Jonah is among the upper tier. He’s not half as bad as many of the others. The lower tier is awash in a much higher proportion of foolishness as they go along with the fads and the last thing on their minds is any kind of principled “standing athwart.”

        I admit, I’ve lost nearly all respect for that publication, although Andy McCarthy’s presence gives hope that not all is lost. There are still some adults there.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, NRO does have some decent pieces available, including ones by Yuval Levin on the Fascist Messiah’s lawlessness and David French on the gross overrating of liberal elites by the culture (which of course is dominated by their fellow liberal elites).

          • John Kirke John Kirke says:

            Yeah, NR still has the occasional good piece, and we shouldn’t neglect the good arguments made there: I guess my conclusion isn’t that we shouldn’t read NR, but that I can no longer trust NR, and I suspect that the good pieces will be put to bad ends when they inevitably betray us again when it matters most.

            “Of course we’re conservative,” they could argue after knifing the movement for the sake of the DC establishment. “After all, we posted those great works by Yuval and Cooke and the rest.”

            For my money National Affairs has become a great journal, even with the occasional dud like the recent statist article by Gerson and Wehner, trying to revive “compassionate conservatism.” Funny enough, it’s an article Cooke ably dismantled at NR, but Nat’l Affairs has been living up to the inaugural mission statement penned by Yuval Levin.

            Briefly, NA’s essays are always thoughtful even though I don’t agree with all of them, and they question the statist status quo even when (like Gerson/Wehner) they don’t always go far enough.

            It’s only been 4+ years, but not only have we not seen something like the egregious “Against Gingrich” editorial or Williamson’s smear piece on opponents to Mormonism, but it’s hard to imagine them ever producing such garbage.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I’ve added National Affairs to the list of links for this site. Thanks for the recommendation.

              But truth be told, I tire of intellectualoid arguments that amount to little more than pontificating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This stuff is almost entirely irrelevant to the culture at large or in shaping the existing culture. If people can’t speak plainly and succinctly on a subject, then they are doing no good.

              And that is not in reference to what is presumed to be today’s limited attention spans. Sarah Palin, with her charm and plain spokenness, has done more to ignite the conservative movement than all the Yuval Levins in the blogosphere. His “mission statement” is indicative of this intellectualoid long-windedness. Get to the point, man. Reagan did.

              But that’s just me talking. This site is more than happy to publish articles that go into extraordinary pin-headed detail on any subject. But along those lines does not lay the holy grail of American restoration. Such lines are little more than an echo chamber of irrelevancy. It suits the “publish or perish” way of thinking, I suppose, where just adding to the heaps of conservative navel-gazing is considered progress. But as good of a refutation as Cooke was to Gerson and Wehner, no one cares. This is all too finely detailed. It’s as if Rome is burning and a group of gentlemen are sitting in the corner discussing the various melting points of the metals.

              Please don’t take that as a rebuke, John, to anything you’ve offered. I like your writing in particular because you do get to the point. I don’t particularly want StubbornThings to be either National Review or National Affairs. (which is an odd name…how many suppose this to be the tabloid version of the Huffington Post?).

              National Review is still worth visiting because there are some plain-spoken people who still have their articles published there, including especially Andy McCarthy. He ought to be running the place. He is one of the few who combines erudition, plain-spokenness, and a solid conservative philosophy. With Andy, you rarely get the impression that he is being pompous or engaging in mostly irrelevant fine details while leaving the plain and simple 90% of the subject matter untouched.

              • John Kirke John Kirke says:

                Nat’l Affairs really is focused on policy discussions rather than rallying the people, but I do think we need both: it’s journals like NA that produces “killer-app” ideas that a political party can run with, like school vouchers.

                The Federalist is a new site that has gotten my attention recently, but it’s hard to find all their archived articles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *