National Review has always been a joint enterprise with our readers, which has considerable advantages. We become close friends with many of our subscribers, and we constantly meet people around the country who care about our little enterprise as much as we do.
The disadvantage is that if we are going to survive and thrive, we need your support, which means periodically interrupting our regularly scheduled programming to ask for your help.
Let me report that the State of the Union is sound, except for the, ahem, persistent shortfall of funds. I hazard to say that we have the most talented collection of writers NR has had in a very long time — they are eloquent, well-informed, sharp-elbowed, funny, and fearless. I learn from them every day.
They also cover all points of view and perspectives about The Elephant in the Room. You don’t need me to tell you that it’s a divisive time on the right, with practically every presidential tweet the cause for a clash of visions. No one is going to agree with everything that appears on NRO — heck, even I don’t agree with everything I read here.
With seemingly all the Internet devoted to serving one tribal faction or another, often with propaganda loosely disguised as journalism, we still believe in debate and in writing that seeks to meet the best arguments of the other side head on, and defeat them with facts and reason.
The market for this, I hate to say, has never been robust. This is why serious opinion journals need a Sugar Daddy (we’ve never had one), or they need a devoted and very generous readership, which we’ve been blessed with pretty much ever since NR became something more than a gleam in William F. Buckley Jr.’s eye.
Every time we ask you to step up, you do. This spring we raised $250,000 in our fundraising drive, and we hope to raise $200,000 this month. You can donate $1,000, $250, $100, $25, or even just $10 (any amount is a help and is appreciated) here.
We are seeking to fund some growth projects. Over the last year, we have gone from one podcast — “The…