The "frame of reality"
Jonah Goldberg's comments on the recent stir over National Review's editorial not endorsing Newt Gingrich offers a nice history of NR's presidential endorsement (or non-endorsement) history and insight on their editorial process:
"As I suggested above, some critics of our editorial fault us for not outright endorsing Romney, others complain that we endorse him too much. If you’re a committed opponent of Romney — or a committed fan – those are all fair gripes. But some of our friends should at least consider the possibility that such nuances reflect both internal differences as well as the messiness of political reality. A conservative, James Burnham argued in the debates over endorsing Nixon in 1960, 'has to set his course within the frame of reality.' Burnham supported endorsing Nixon on the grounds that the real enemies were supporters of Kennedy. Frank Meyer, meanwhile, argued that endorsing Nixon would be a surrender to the Eisenhower liberalism the magazine had been criticizing for years. Bill found arguments on both sides compelling. So what did he do? He punted, endorsing no one. 'National Review,' he wrote, 'was not founded to make practical politics. Our job is to think, and write.' In other years he was very much interested in practical politics. Did that make him inconsistent? Maybe. But my guess is he would respond that he was consistent, but damnable events, alas, are not. Ever the sailor, he tacked with the winds and the seas he faced, but never lost sight of his ultimate destination on distant shores."
"As I suggested above, some critics of our editorial fault us for not outright endorsing Romney, others complain that we endorse him too much. If you’re a committed opponent of Romney — or a committed fan – those are all fair gripes. But some of our friends should at least consider the possibility that such nuances reflect both internal differences as well as the messiness of political reality. A conservative, James Burnham argued in the debates over endorsing Nixon in 1960, 'has to set his course within the frame of reality.' Burnham supported endorsing Nixon on the grounds that the real enemies were supporters of Kennedy. Frank Meyer, meanwhile, argued that endorsing Nixon would be a surrender to the Eisenhower liberalism the magazine had been criticizing for years. Bill found arguments on both sides compelling. So what did he do? He punted, endorsing no one. 'National Review,' he wrote, 'was not founded to make practical politics. Our job is to think, and write.' In other years he was very much interested in practical politics. Did that make him inconsistent? Maybe. But my guess is he would respond that he was consistent, but damnable events, alas, are not. Ever the sailor, he tacked with the winds and the seas he faced, but never lost sight of his ultimate destination on distant shores."
Comments