So the editors of National Review magazine have come out and given a full endorsement to Mitt Romney.
I have always been an NR reader and supporter. I still am. But I must say I'm surprised, and a little troubled. It's not that the editors do not make their usual reasonable conservative case. They always do. Indeed, Mitt Romney has said, in this current campaign, many things that conservatives like to hear, whether it be on abortion, families, or taxes/spending/the size of government. It's also true that, going back to his 1994 senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney has been consistent in advocating at least some conservative ideas and principles.
However. Romney's adoption of socially liberal policy positions in his 2002 race to be governor of Massachusetts can't be denied. Nor can all the reports, from representatives of liberal advocacy groups in Massachusetts, laying out how Romney assured them in 2002 that he was actually one of them--only to change once the 2008 Republican presidential race approached, and he had made the decision to run in it. NR's editors believe that Mr. Romney is sincere enough when it comes to the conservative principles he is now advocating. Others of us aren't so sure. I don't know that such a divide can ever be resolved.
But I also have one other concern. In the past, when presidential campaigns loomed, and there was no single, clear, conservative choice in the primary season, NR had traditionally refrained from endorsing anyone in the Republican race. NR instead would stand back, and try to report evenhandedly on the statements and actions of all the candidates. This was the case for example in 1968, when the partisans of both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan tried to stake a claim to National Review's support. But NR endorsed no one, until the primaries were over and Nixon was the nominee. This was important. This way, no one could merely label NR as "belonging" to any particular candidate. It could be seen as no candidate's stooge, as no mere mouthpiece for a particular campaign. And NR's founders--William F. Buckley Jr., James Burnham, Frank S. Meyer, William Rusher, et. al.--were very aware of this, and pursued this policy for just that reason.
I realize that NR doesn't seek to be seen as in the hip pocket of any candidate. But unfortunately, this early endorsement of Romney, before any votes have been cast, will probably shadow nearly everything NR says about the Republican campaign from now on. Any criticism it makes of other Republican candidates, any positive statements it makes on Romney's behalf, will surely now be belittled with one simple statement: "Well, so what--everybody knows they've already endorsed Romney."
James Burnham especially always used to say that, while NR must be conservative, it must also maintain some independence. And that when it came to political campaigns, NR needed to report on the campaign, and not necessarily become an active participant in it. National Review is not merely a magazine. It is a part of the conservative movement, and has sought to speak to, speak for, and be accessible to, all conservatives. I fear NR has now forfeited some of its traditional independence and its historical role in the movement, and I think this is unfortunate.
