National ReviewEdit
National Review is a long-running American opinion magazine and publishing project that has played a central role in shaping conservative thought in the United States since the mid-1950s. Founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley Jr., it established itself as a principled defense of limited government, free markets, strong national defense, and a traditional social order. From its earliest days, the magazine framed liberal and progressive consensus as something to be contested with intellectual rigor, not merely opposed through political rhetoric.
In its later decades, National Review developed a distinctive intellectual program often described (by supporters) as fusionism—a synthesis proposed by Buckley and allies such as Frank Meyer—that tried to reconcile libertarian economic liberalism with traditionalist social values, all under a commitment to the constitutional order and anti-communism. The publication became the flagship journal of the modern conservative movement, cultivating a network of writers, editors, and policymakers who helped frame policy debates from defense and foreign affairs to taxes, regulation, and culture. It also helped bring attention to the importance of a well-argued, architecture-style approach to public questions, not just partisan talking points, and it played a central role in the careers of a generation of conservative public intellectuals. See, for example, its engagement with figures like Ronald Reagan and the broader movement surrounding the rise of conservative governance in the 1980s.
The National Review stable of writers and editors contributed to the education of a generation of policy wonks and opinion leaders. It offered a forum for discussions of foreign policy that emphasized anti-communism during the Cold War, a skepticism about expansive government at home, and a cautious approach to social change that valued measured reform within the framework of constitutional rule. As the decades passed, the magazine also debated the merits and risks of neoconservatism, a strand of thought that argued for a more activist foreign policy and a robust defense of democracy abroad, while at times keeping a close eye on domestic liberty and the limits of state power. See neoconservatism.
The end of the Cold War and the rise of new domestic and international challenges brought National Review into evolving conversations about demographics, immigration, trade, and national identity. These debates were conducted in a way that sought to combine principled skepticism toward moral equivalence with an insistence on lawful borders and the rule of law. In the 2010s, National Review navigated the shift toward a more populist political environment under a changing media landscape, with the online edition expanding the magazine’s reach and influence. It also became a prominent voice in the internal debate within conservatism over how to respond to populist currents and the presidency of Donald Trump—culminating in a high-profile editorial stance that at times opposed the candidate in 2016 while arguing for a distinct conservative program beyond personality.
The editorial philosophy of National Review centers on arguments for a lean but principled government, the protection of civil liberties under constitutional constraints, the promotion of economic liberty through competitive markets, and a skepticism toward cultural relativism that it treats as undermining social trust. The publication has emphasized the importance of tradition and social cohesion, while arguing that reforms must be consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and long-term national interests. At the same time, it has argued that conservatism should remain open to debate about how best to apply core principles in changing circumstances, rather than becoming defensive or doctrinaire in the face of new social realities. See Conservatism and fusionism for context on these ideas.
National Review has often positioned itself in opposition to what it sees as a drift toward political correctness in mainstream discourse. From this vantage point, the magazine defends a political culture that prioritizes civil exchange, the responsibilities of citizenship, and the preservation of shared institutions. Critics, particularly on the left and among some liberal networks, have accused National Review of contributing to exclusionary or nativist rhetoric in debates over immigration and cultural change. Supporters, by contrast, argue that the publication’s stance is grounded in concerns about national sovereignty, democratic legitimacy, and the capacity of a society to assimilate newcomers and maintain social trust. In this sense, NR has framed immigration as a question of law, order, and social cohesion, rather than a purely economic or moral argument.
National Review has been a participant in some of the era’s most notable debates about the direction of conservatism in the United States. It endorsed a reformist but principled path during the Reagan era, praising free-market reforms while insisting on a strong defense and a conservative social framework. It also engaged with policy debates around taxes, regulation, and welfare reform, helping to push a narrative that mixed market discipline with a belief in personal responsibility and civic virtue. See Ronald Reagan.
The magazine’s stance during the 21st century, particularly around foreign policy and immigration, has sometimes been controversial within the broader conservative ecosystem. In the lead-up to and after the 2016 presidential election, National Review publicly disputed the candidacy of Donald Trump, arguing that his approach and rhetoric did not align with certain conservative principles or the long-term interests of the republic. This stance—often described by supporters as a defense of core principles in the face of a populist upheaval—sparked ongoing debates about the role of party loyalty, policy coherence, and the best way to articulate conservatism in a transformed political landscape. Those debates have continued to influence how the magazine covers national security, trade policy, and immigration policy, including arguments about merit-based immigration and the appropriate balance between economic dynamism and cultural assimilation.
Editorially, National Review has sought to maintain standards of serious journalism and rigorous argumentation, even as its readers include a broad spectrum of conservatives, libertarians, and traditionalists. The publication has supported think tanks, conferences, and fellowships that advance conservative policy ideas and encourage careful analysis of constitutional design, economic policy, and foreign affairs. This intellectual ecosystem has helped to sustain a durable influence on American political life, even as the magazine has navigated the evolving boundaries of what constitutes a principled conservative position in a changing world.
See also the ongoing discussion of how conservative public intellectuals conceptualize the proper balance between liberty, order, and national interest in the modern era, as reflected in related discussions about the conservative movement and related strands such as neoconservatism and fusionism.