One of the more known events of the ancient world — or at least it used to be, before the study of ancient history began to be considered worthless, and even racist, by many modern liberal academicians — is the defeat of the city of Troy by the Greeks. The story goes that the Greeks could not get inside the well-guarded walls of the Trojans, so they left behind a giant wooden horse as a “gift.” But inside the wooden horse were Greek soldiers who opened the gates to the city during the night after the Trojans unwisely brought the horse inside.
Christians are not as likely to be persuaded that their faith is deficient by some outspoken and rude village atheist. Rather, more has been done to destroy confidence in the Bible and historic doctrines of Christianity by liberal preachers in the pulpit, who are the modern incarnation of the Trojan horse.
Since the days it was established by the late William F. Buckley, Jr., the National Review magazine has produced some really fine articles. But, mixed in with the good have been articles that are poison to conservative and constitutional principles.
Buckley and his companions at National Review early on proclaimed themselves as the guardians of true conservatism, and with that, the supposed authority to excommunicate those whom they considered heretics in the ranks of “true conservatives.” Among the more famous groups and ideologies that Buckley and National Review have expelled are The John Birch Society (parent of The New American), Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, the “Old Right” noninterventionists, and so on.
Conversely, the neoconservatives — those who believe it is the role of the United States to intervene on a regular basis in other countries and be the world’s policeman — were able to be find a home and receive the blessing of the folks at National Review.
But the corruption of conservatism by the magazine goes beyond foreign policy. They have taken many Big Government policy positions and re-baptized them as acceptable “conservative” positions. As the person in the pew is more likely to accept an attack on the veracity of the Bible from a preacher than from an atheist, many Americans with conservative instincts are thus led astray by the pied pipers of National Review.
Such is the case with an article published this week, “Paid Family Leave Is a Balm for Our Anxiety,” in which the magazine called for yet another expansion of the Welfare State.
“From our own experiences and the lives of so many we know and love, most of us know how arduous it is to try to balance family and work life,” the article states. “Work should never be the enemy of family life. Government policies should allow for freedom for families wherever possible — which is why paid family leave really ought to be one of our primary rallying cries to lawmakers.”
Really? It is now a primary conservative position for the federal government to order private businesses to give paid family leave to their employees? This advocacy of yet more government intervention into the economy reminds one of the words of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who once said that socialism works well until its advocates run out of other people’s money.
Besides all that, National Review conjures up the spirit of “bipartisanship.” Why, not only is a liberal such as Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) all in on the idea, but so is the supposedly conservative Republican senator from Florida — Marco Rubio. And then there is the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump.
The First Daughter even used the occasion of the Republican National Convention in 2016 to pitch this new Big Government program. As I sat among the delegates and spectators in Cleveland two and a half years ago, I was disheartened. I did not see anyone else who seemed disturbed by her remarks.
During a recent White House event, Ivanka said that paid family leave is “essential and long overdue.”
According to Bloomberg News, Ivanka recently met with Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who chairs the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Of course, Senator Alexander was supportive, saying they needed to “help working families.” Actually, the money will come from other “working families,” as is the case with all such programs. Where else would it come from? The tooth fairy?
Yet, this is what passes for conservatism now, from the folks at National Review. The danger is clear. If such a proposal was coming from some left-wing Democrat, then Republicans would rightly condemn it. But here, the proposal comes from “the pulpit” of the supposedly conservative National Review.
The article concludes, “Washington needs to help lighten their overburdensome loads so they can do some of their most important work as the incubator of all the virtues we need for a reawakening of hope.”
Karl Marx could not have said it better, yet this remark is right off the pages of National Review. And, they have the gall to kick out of the conservative camp others they have considered heretics?
