{"id":167013,"date":"2026-01-26T09:39:39","date_gmt":"2026-01-26T17:39:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=167013"},"modified":"2026-01-26T09:39:39","modified_gmt":"2026-01-26T17:39:39","slug":"national-review-struggles-to-stay-relevant-in-the-age-of-trump","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=167013","title":{"rendered":"National Review Struggles To Stay Relevant In The Age Of Trump"},"content":{"rendered":"

Alliance Theory<\/a> would see National Review as the elite-coordination organ of an old conservative super-alliance that lost its mass base and then struggled to remain relevant once the coalition it helped build realigned around populism.<\/p>\n

Its original role.<\/p>\n

NR was created to perform three alliance functions:<\/p>\n

Define the in-group.
\nPolice the out-group.
\nProvide elite moral and intellectual legitimacy for a governing coalition.<\/p>\n

The coalition Buckley built and NR coordinated was:<\/p>\n

Business and donor elites
\nAnti-communist security institutions
\nReligious traditionalists
\nFree-market intellectuals
\nRespectable middle-class Republicans<\/p>\n

NR supplied transitivity. It told all these factions who their shared enemies were and why they belonged together. Communism, the New Left, secular moral decay, and later liberal statism were the rival set. This made the coalition coherent and governable.<\/p>\n

Why populism broke the relationship.<\/p>\n

Populism reclassified key institutions that NR had always treated as allies or neutral arbiters:<\/p>\n

The FBI and intelligence agencies
\nFederal courts
\nElite universities
\nPrestige media
\nGlobal trade institutions
\nCorporate America<\/p>\n

For the populist base, these became hostile out-groups. For NR, they remained part of the legitimate order that conservatism was meant to steward, not overthrow.<\/p>\n

That created a transitivity collapse.
\nNR and the populist base no longer shared the same ally\u2013enemy map.<\/p>\n

Alliance Theory predicts that when this happens, the elite coordination organ is experienced as disloyal, out of touch, or even traitorous. Its moral language starts to sound like rationalization for an alliance the base no longer inhabits.<\/p>\n

Why NR reacted the way it did.<\/p>\n

NR\u2019s Never-Trump posture was not just ideological. It was alliance loyalty. Its writers were socially, professionally, and historically embedded in:<\/p>\n

Think tanks
\nCourts
\nForeign policy establishments
\nDonor networks
\nPrestige journalism
\nAtlanticist institutions<\/p>\n

Those were their allies. When Trump and MAGA attacked those institutions, NR experienced it as an attack on its own alliance network. Alliance Theory predicts that in such moments, people reframe the insurgent faction as the true enemy, even if it comes from their nominal \u201cside.\u201d<\/p>\n

So NR\u2019s rhetoric shifted to:<\/p>\n

Norms
\nInstitutions
\nCharacter
\nConstitutionalism
\nLiberal democracy
\nRule of law<\/p>\n

This is classic late-stage elite-alliance language. When mass loyalty is lost, elites sacralize procedure and legitimacy.<\/p>\n

Why NR has not disappeared.<\/p>\n

NR still serves a function:<\/p>\n

It coordinates a sub-alliance inside the right that includes
\ndonors,
\nlawyers,
\njudges,
\npolicy professionals,
\nforeign policy hawks,
\nand upper-middle-class conservatives who fear populist volatility more than progressive dominance.<\/p>\n

Alliance Theory says coalitions rarely die. They fragment. NR is now the house journal of a narrower, higher-status, institution-anchored conservative bloc rather than the whole movement.<\/p>\n

Why it cannot lead populism.<\/p>\n

Populist coalitions reward:<\/p>\n

Boundary hardeners
\nEnemy namers
\nStatus warriors
\nCharismatic loyalty focal points<\/p>\n

NR\u2019s comparative advantage is:<\/p>\n

Doctrinal coherence
\nInstitutional memory
\nElite respectability
\nRule-system maintenance<\/p>\n

Those traits are liabilities in a mass identity revolt. So NR cannot become the voice of MAGA without ceasing to be what it is.<\/p>\n

Its future.<\/p>\n

Alliance Theory would predict that National Review\u2019s long-term role is:<\/p>\n

Not mass mobilization
\nNot coalition leadership
\nBut elite stabilization and eventual post-populist re-coordination<\/p>\n

If the populist right institutionalizes and seeks a new respectable governing philosophy, NR or something like it becomes relevant again as the translator between mass power and elite norms.<\/p>\n

If the populist right remains permanently insurgent, NR remains a respected but marginal node, loyal to a conservative alliance order that no longer commands the masses but still controls important institutions.<\/p>\n

In short:<\/p>\n

Fox tries to ride the populist tiger without being eaten.
\nNational Review refuses to ride it and instead guards the old citadel.<\/p>\n

LF: “National Review was once primarily written by professors. In the 1990s, it became a publication for glib pundits. How would Alliance Theory explain this?”<\/p>\n

Alliance Theory would explain that shift as a change in what the conservative coalition needed from its elite coordination organ.<\/p>\n

In Buckley\u2019s era, the main problem was elite legitimacy. The conservative alliance was trying to enter and displace a ruling class that was academic, bureaucratic, and intellectual. Its rivals were:<\/p>\n

University-based liberalism
\nTechnocratic Keynesianism
\nCold War policy elites on the left
\nHigh-culture arbiters<\/p>\n

So the coalition needed professors. It needed people who could fight on the terrain of:<\/p>\n

Political philosophy
\nHistory
\nEconomics
\nTheology
\nHigh-status intellectual debate<\/p>\n

National Review functioned as an elite credentialing factory. It proved that conservatism could meet liberalism on its own prestige ground. That is why the pages were full of Voegelin, Strauss, Kirk, Meyer, and serious scholars. Alliance Theory says when a coalition is trying to gain entry into high-status institutions, it recruits high-status signalers.<\/p>\n

By the 1990s, the alliance structure had changed.<\/p>\n

Conservatism was no longer an outsider elite faction. It had:<\/p>\n

Captured the presidency multiple times
\nTaken over think tanks
\nPopulated the judiciary
\nBuilt donor networks
\nCreated its own media ecosystem<\/p>\n

The problem was no longer intellectual legitimacy. It was mass coordination and emotional loyalty in a post-Cold War, culture-war environment.<\/p>\n

The rival set also shifted:<\/p>\n

Not Marxist professors
\nBut Hollywood
\nTelevision
\nAdvertising
\nPop culture
\nLate-night comedy
\nCable news
\nLifestyle journalism<\/p>\n

In that environment, professors are bad alliance tools. They speak slowly, cautiously, abstractly. They signal elite distance, not tribal intimacy.<\/p>\n

So the coalition\u2019s coordination needs changed from:<\/p>\n

Theory building
\nTo
\nIdentity signaling<\/p>\n

From:<\/p>\n

Legitimation
\nTo
\nMobilization<\/p>\n

From:<\/p>\n

Bridging to establishment
\nTo
\nBoundary-policing against cultural elites<\/p>\n

Alliance Theory predicts that when a coalition moves from elite contestation to mass identity conflict, its communicators shift from scholars to performers.<\/p>\n

Pundits are better at:<\/p>\n

Friend\u2013enemy dramatization
\nMoral outrage
\nNarrative compression
\nStatus signaling
\nDaily repetition
\nEmotional synchronization<\/p>\n

They create common knowledge of \u201cwho\u2019s with us\u201d and \u201cwho\u2019s against us\u201d far more efficiently than academics do.<\/p>\n

So National Review\u2019s transformation from a professor\u2019s journal to a pundit magazine reflects a role change:<\/p>\n

From alliance legitimator
\nTo alliance cheerleader and boundary enforcer<\/p>\n

The coalition no longer needed to prove it was intellectually respectable. It needed to keep its mass base emotionally aligned in an accelerating media war. The talent profile changed accordingly.<\/p>\n

In alliance terms:<\/p>\n

1950s\u201370s NR = elite bridge-builder.
\n1990s\u20132000s NR = in-group signal amplifier.<\/p>\n

Not decline in seriousness, but a change in coalition function.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Alliance Theory would see National Review as the elite-coordination organ of an old conservative super-alliance that lost its mass base and then struggled to remain relevant once the coalition it helped build realigned around populism. Its original role. NR was … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,29593],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-journalism","category-national-review"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t