Asked by Bill Buckley in 1959, and answered by him too, WFB took three pages of the October 10 issue to explain the realities of conservative opinion journalism, and why it proved clear (well, Bill still expressed visions of financial steadying at some future — maybe quite future — point) that minus the support of readers, there being no One Big Benefactor, these things would go kaput! pretty darned quick.
If you thrill to NR History, read his piece, filled with quaint facts (“The subscriber who responds to one of our typical promotion mailings will send us a check for $8.00.”) you’d expect of a time when the President was Eisenhower and Alger Hiss was still conning liberals (well, that hasn’t changed much now, has it?).
You’ll find Bill’s piece here, in PDF form.
For those curious but lacking a full interest in Ye Olde NR Days, we share Bill’s final thoughts from the article:
Even so, our deficit is substantial and alarming. National Review may not have to wait, to break even, until it has 91,000 readers. The management has been trying to develop corollary commercial enterprises capable of taking on a share of the load. Examples are the radio station National Review now owns, but which is not yet spinning off a profit; the National Review Bulletin, which could increase our revenues substantially if it continues to grow; and other projects.
Meanwhile, National Review must continue to depend, for its survival. on those who view its purposes with sympathy, can afford to contribute to the political education of their nation, and are generous and dutiful enough to want to do so. Journals of opinion are both educational and political enterprises, and I know of no political enterprise that is self-supporting, and very few educational enterprises; so that it is not so very striking that National Review should have to tum for assistance to those it seeks to serve, educationally and politically. If the editors, feature writers, contributors and book reviewers of National Review don’t offer more education than all the teachers’ colleges combined, we volunteer to spend the rest of our lives studying Life Adjustment. If National Review does not contribute more to the political sanity of the nation than the League of Women Voters and the Ford Foundation combined, we offer our services, free of charge, to Americans for Democratic Action. If there is not, within the borders of this country, the support that is required to keep alive a weekly journal of conservative thought, we greatly misjudge the temper of America’s conservatives.
Very WFB, no?
The financial realities of 1959 were serious, and persistent. But then so is the spirit of Bill, embraced and bear-hugged 62 years later by those who have been entrusted with his journalistic legacy.
There is a partnership in this mission of fighting for our principles. If you see your role, in part, as helping this important institution survive and thrive, to battle the foes of liberty, please take note of our webathon, which ends in a few days. Its goal is to raise $350,000 — a small part of our 2021 needs.
We seem to be about 65,000 bucks shy.
A vision comes to mind: three people donate $2,500, five give $1,000, 15 give $500, 300 donate $100, 200 send in $50, and 200 more send in $25 . . . that’s how we arrive. Therein, a donation to fit every size, or thereabouts.
Maybe even your size?
No contribution, no matter its size, is turned down — how can an act of selflessness, of camaraderie, of love be rejected? Every act of generosity is appreciated, and not a cent spent foolishly or without impact.
Please help NR . . . break even. Donate here. And should you prefer to mail in a check, as many have, make it payable to “National Review” and send it to: National Review, ATTN: Webathon, 19 West 44th Street, Suite 1701, New York, N.Y., 10036. God’s blessings on you and yours.