Political and news magazines are best when they showcase diverse thoughts, and creative perspectives on the the issues of the day. Otherwise any publication can become dull and complacent.
When conservative Christopher Buckley, son of famed William Buckley, endorsed Barack Obama it made news. (It was a remarkable column, and worth your time to read.) But when Buckley resigned from National Review, and it was accepted by the management of the magazine, I was shocked. To be objective here, Bill Buckley was a favorite of mine, and so perhaps my thoughts might be considered a bit clouded. But I know on the pure facts of the matter I am crystal clear.
When a robust magazine like National Review can no longer be a part of what Ronald Reagan called the ‘big tent’ of the Republican Party, then perhaps it is not Christopher Buckley that should resign. Perhaps the top heads who accepted the resignation should exit stage left….or is it stage right?
It is when thoughtful and spirited debate crosses over that is considered ‘the line’ that ‘forward thinking’ takes place, and new options for creating solutions to old problems come about. Magazines like National Review are often read by liberals such as myself as a way to have stimulating ideas from a source that is not our day-to-day reads. It is with pithy writing and challenging thoughts, even though we may disagree, that we return.
But I think many will find it harder to do so when a diverse view, such as Buckley exhibited, is treated so unfairly.
Christopher Buckley should not have felt like he had to resign. And the resignation should not have been accepted.