article by Catherine Seipp that treated Playboy with kid gloves and passed it off as not pornography.
I didn’t particularly care for the article and I know Ramesh Ponnuru didn’t really care for it either.
But the attack has been made and damage done. Quite frankly, I think National Review has been at the forefront of attacks on pornography. Let’s not forget the issue last year dedicated to an attack on the permissiveness of the “Abercrombie & Fitch” culture.
For every Seipp article, there is Nordlinger, Ponnuru, Buckley, and Lopez advocating traditional values and a stance firmly opposed to pornography.
Maybe Seipp’s article was a poor choice, but I think Jonah Goldberg is right. People confuse the editorial positions of National Review with the very lax policies of posting at NRO.
I personally enjoy the wide content of NRO. National Review makes its editorial views very clear, but does not censor conservatives and libertarians with competing view points. Conservativism should compete in the free market place. This is not to say that it should start publishing communist drivvel, but when opinions do vary among conservatives and conservatives leaning libertarian, National Review has been and should remain a forum to address those views.
Present the facts and let the readers decide who is right.
Anyone who questions National Review’s conservatism need only look at it’s recent covers to understand it is form the FMA, against Bush’s immigration policy, for tax cuts, etc.