Just the other day, a friend told me that the time had come to renew his NRPlus subscription. Always curious to get feedback from a real-world subscriber, I asked what, specifically, he valued about the National Review experience.
My friend mentioned Charlie’s new podcast, the new and improved NR app, and the burgeoning new additions to NR’s YouTube channel. But when push comes to shove, what drew him to NR — what caused him to re-up his subscription — was the fact NR writers are free to disagree with each other.
You see, that freedom is interesting. And it’s increasingly rare. If you doubt me, take a quick ten minutes to cruise the Web and visit the websites of outfits on both the left and the right. You’ll see a company line — with departures few and far between.
I sometimes chuckle when Twitter trolls compare side-by-side screen shots of NR writers arguing the opposite sides of a position. “Life comes at you fast,” they squeal, as if they’ve caught NR in a major own goal when Michael Brendan Dougherty presents the nuances of one side of the war in Ukraine, while Jim Geraghty or I present the other.
Yes, actually — that’s the point. The whole point.
National Review is both an institution with an expressed viewpoint and a forum for discussion. We have a company line — but we don’t require you to fall in line. Just witness Andy McCarthy and Charlie Cooke’s dissents from the editorial written in general support of Lindsey Graham’s proposed 15-week upper limit on abortion in America. At NR, you’re free to, for example, criticize Trump, argue he’s the best path forward for conservatives, or present a third way.
Some find this type of thing scandalous. We find it entirely normal to argue with each other, strenuously but in good faith. We’ll fight it out in print, and online, and on NR podcasts. And then we’ll go have a beer and discuss it all some more. In contrast to our critics, we don’t believe that disagreement and debate are oppression or “violence” — it’s just Americans being American.
The NR model is unique. We’re not owned by or controlled by any individual or any group of donors. We don’t live in fear of companies pulling their ads from our magazine or the website. The editors and writers of National Review report to our board of directors and to our subscribers — no one else. That gives us great leeway to speak the truth as we see it, when we see it, every time. And when we disagree with each other, well, we disagree with each other.
The way this works — the way it’s always worked — is by cultivating a broad group of Americans, from every state and region, as subscribers. We’ve been doing this for 67 years — starting back when there were just the three TV networks, a couple of center-left national papers and magazines, and National Review.
At NR, we’re committed to that subscriber-based model, and we’re in this for the long haul. If you see value in the project, please join us.
Right now you can get an NRPlus subscription for 60 percent off.
That’s an incredible bargain, and you’ll get full access to all National Review content online, with no paywall or annoying pop-up ads.
And during this subscription drive, you can also level up with the NRPlus bundle, which will get you 24 issues of the print magazine as well, all at that same 60 percent discount.