Charles C.W. Cooke on Brexit, #NeverTrump, and the Future of National Review

National Review Online's new editor Charles C.W. Cooke sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Freedom Fest 2016 in Las Vegas.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Charles C.W. Cooke on Brexit, #NeverTrump, and the Future of National Review

HD Video Download

"One of the things I always liked about National Review is that we weren't just there to go after the Left," says Charles C.W. Cooke, the new editor of National Review online. "But we were also there to police our own side."

Cooke sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Freedom Fest 2016 in Las Vegas to discuss his thoughts on the British vote to leave the European Union known as "Brexit." They also talked about National Review's editorial stance against Donald Trump and talked about why the magazine might tilt in a more libertarian direction under Cooke's editorship.

Watch the full video above. Approximately 5 minutes. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this. Scroll down for downloadable versions.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, and Justin Monticello.

Comments

[VG Zaytsev]

What precious, morally superior little snowflake.

[Hugh Akston]

You forgot the question mark

[SugarFree]

He had to social signal, Hugh. It was vitally important.

[Cynical Asshole]

Too important to take 2 seconds to proof read his comment before posting. That and only FAGZ proof read their shit.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

That and only FAGZ proof read their shit.

I'm no fag, sir.

[B.P.]

You didn't ask him "What's up with the two middle initials?"

I assume it's a branding thing, since Charles Cooke is a pretty commonplace name. If you have a vanilla last name like Cooke, it behooves you in the Internet age to give him a first name like Nebuchadnezzar.

[Raven Nation]

It's also a general trend among the English. See this list of English cricket records for example.

[Playa Manhattan.]

It can also help keep you from getting confused for a serial killer.

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

I kept expecting Nick to hold out his hands and make Charles choose between a red pill and a blue pill.

[Free Society]

It's a good thing he didn't say anything nice about Trump. Gillespie might have hulked out and killed another camera guy.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

What a cuck!

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

Its pronounced "Cook". the "e" is silent.

[Swiss Servator]

*opera applause*

[R C Dean]

I thought it was pronounced "Kook" - the e is silent but serves its traditional role of making the preceding vowels long rather than short.

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

I think its impressive that Chuck could summarize the Brexit issues in about 2 sentences, and explain that both

1) supporters of "leave" did not all fall into a single camp of nativist, populist, anti-trade reactionaries

and

2) exiting the EU does not by default change policies, but rather changes the process on how those policies get decided....

and more!

Yet somehow the entire international mass-media, in the course of 1000 articles collectively bemoaning the decision, managed to avoid even acknowledging the existence of either point

in fact, they spent most of their effort actively promoting misconceptions - that Brexit was predominantly motivated by "Racism"(sound familiar?), and that somehow UK democracy was being 'undermined' by the Brexit process, rather than returning democratic power to UK citizens over what were previously EU bureaucratic mandates.

[Free Society]

If I knew nothing about federalism, devolution of power, and decentralization, the fact that political class and the media was so overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit that they used every lie and falsehood imaginable to defeat Brexit, tells me that Brexit is a great idea.

[MetalBard]

Do you know who else the entire political class and the media was against?

[Mr Lizard]

Detective Harry Callahan?

[dschwar]

Ben Richards

"I'll be back, Killian."

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

So posh, that accent.

[Cynical Asshole]

So, is he a CUCK FAG, or a FAGGIT CUCK?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Well, I kind of agree with 100%, so I guess that makes him a faggity cuckity fag.

While he doesn't elaborate, Brexit doesn't have to be about anti-immigration, it can be about people wanting some political control over their lives, and a desire to dissociate themselves with the profligate spending and uber corruption of the EU.

[Free Society]

Or that they'd rather live under their own unaccountable bureaucratic whims rather than having an extra layer of arbitrary bureaucrats to fuck them over from the comfort of their offices in Brussels and Strasbourg.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Exactly. I want my corruption local, not in Brussels.

[Mencken Sense]

Cooke should do something about the comment policy over there. A couple of years ago, the online editors put a goon squad in charge to shut down any dissent from Team Red orthodoxy.

[John]

It is not even team red dissent. It is any dissent on any issue. It is the most appalling and troll infested comment board on the net regardless of political bent. Jezebel has a more intellectually open environment.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

You guys comment elsewhere? Some loyalty you got.

[Lord Humungus]

Splitter!

[R C Dean]

Who's the cuck now, hmm?

[John]

She doesn't mean anything to me. I still love you baby. You know that.

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

Cooke should do something about the comment policy over there.

Ye who live in glass houses, you shall be best advised to avoid investing into pitching-machines

[Drake]

A couple of weeks ago they went to a Facebook only comment policy. Nothing says "conservative" like having Zuckerberg police your comments.

[John]

Sadly enough, that is likely an improvement. When they were on discuss they had a group of trolls who were apparently juiced in with the moderators and would get anyone who disagreed with them banned. I got banned from there multiple times. And it wasn't for trolling them or fucking with them over Trump. The last time was for pointing out that a meaningful ban on abortion would likely involve making women who had miscarriages answer to the police. The time they before that it was for saying that the US should not continue to be in NATO unless the Europeans rearm.

My guess is that the adults finally took over and they fired their moderators.

[commodious warned u bucko]

For a site so dedicated to #NeverTrump there is inevitably a couple dozen Trumpkins all but issuing fatwas on the authors.

[John]

You do realize how stupid the term Trumpkin sounds? It is just lame. The Never Trump people have done a very poor job in the insult department. Cuckservative is current, funny, vulgar, insulting and contains an element of truth. Trumpkin contains an element of truth and makes a point but is clunky and old fashioned. Who actually calls someone a "bumpkin"? What is this 1885? Its just so pathetic.

The Never Trump people seem to be completely humorless.

[Mickey Rat]

Yes, they should not have banned despite how stupid and argument that is

[John]

What is stupid about saying the cops will have took into miscarriages or an abortion ban will be meaningless? If you don't want to investigate miscarriages, fine. Abortionists will just categorize their abortions as miscarriages and the ban will be meaningless.

And is it your opinion that the US should defend Europe even though Europe won't defend itself? Really?

[Cloudbuster]

Ugh. I won't comment on any site that uses Facebook comments, because I won't use Facebook. I know too much about it. Plus, Zuckerberg and the fact that it's wholly in the tank for leftists and SJWs.

Just shows that NRO isn't a conservative site. And it won't be a libertarian site, either.

[KDN]

The site as a whole is just a fucking mess. I can't even get it to load unless I whitelist like 40 different embedded sites in NoScript. Whoever put that monstrosity together should be shot.

[R C Dean]

Side note: Reason webmaster, you should take that as a complaint, not a goal.

[VG Zaytsev]

They've gone to facebook comments.

[Mickey Rat]

Well, now they have gone off Disqus and onto Facebook, of all things.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Ha, "Vote for me and I will look after your interests... oh, actually, I've loaned those powers elsewhere."

You know who else has loaned their elected powers elsewhere?

[Cynical Asshole]

The Roman Senate?

[chemjeff]

Congress?

[Raven Nation]

I don't think Congress has loaned their powers - it seems a lot more permanent than that.

[John]

It is a hundred year lease with an option to buy.

[commodious warned u bucko]

Any time you see statutory language to the effect of: authority will be given to the x administrator of y bureaucracy to implement z policy, that's Congress ceding authority to the executive.

[John]

Putin?

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

Sauron, via the Ring?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Editorial so dumb, so tone-deaf...

Four days after the mass shooting here of teenagers with one of its guns, apparently by a perpetrator so green he delayed his rampage for two hours while he read the AR-15's instruction manual, Sturm, Ruger & Co. announced it would be donating $5?million.

Not to gun training or to help victims of gun violence or anything of that sort. But to the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA's arm for lobbying against any and all new gun restrictions.

[Free Society]

So woke.

[Playa Manhattan.]

Weird. None of my guns came with instruction manuals.

[Mr Lizard]

Ya my plasma rifle is literally written in an alien language I'm not familiar with

[John]

I don't think National Review has much of a future. To some extent it is a victim of the new media. In the 1980s it was pretty much the only right wing publication. Now of course it has competition.

The problem NR has going forward is who is its audience? It has a few libertarian leaning writers like Cooke but likely not enough to attract a significant libertarian readership due to the presence of abominations like David French and Kathryn Jean Lopez. Further, their complete meltdown over Trump has alienated a pretty significant section of their traditional readership. It is difficult to see what they are going to do to get that back. So who is left? Under the stewardship of Rich Lowry NR has become a magazine aimed at upper middle class social conservatives who believe in the US duty to maintain international order but hate taxes, abortion and pot. That is a pretty small readership base.

In the short term it won't matter since they are supported by various corporate donors more so than ad and subscription revenue. Long term, it will eat away at the magazine because as its readership decreases it will become less of an opinion leader and its corporate donors will have less reason to support it.

I suspect in five to ten years it will go the way of The New Republic and end up being bought as a vanity project for some conservative rich guy.

[commodious warned u bucko]

I think you're probably right. The age of intellectual conservatism is waning in favor of populist protectionism and isolationism. Sites like The Federalist and Townhall (and Reason!) are simply better at getting out timely, appealing, and smart (if not always highbrow) content. NRO will probably always exist as a boutique publication but it's going to bleed talent to other outlets.

[John]

No. The problem is that they have committed themselves to an extremely dogmatic and restrictive philosophy. There is plenty of intellectual room on the right. And that will continue. NR has over the last 15 years kicked out bigger and bigger pieces of it. It started after 911. Then NR kicked out anyone who objected to the war in Iraq or US intervention. David Frum wrote a column leading up to the Iraq war that called anyone who objected to it in league with the terrorists. Later, they kicked out anyone who was anything but a strong social conservative. They also got rid of Mark Stein and anyone who was willing to speak in anything like blunt terms about radical Islam. With the rise of Trump, they have kicked out anyone who is not completely in support of foreign trade under all circumstances. Who does that leave?

National Review can't get along with anyone on the right. They are too free trade and pro intervention for the Paleos and now Trump supporters. They are too socially conservative and pro intervention for Libertarians and too dogmatically conservative for moderate Republicans.

They have just exiled themselves from relevance.

[Entelechy]

"Later, they kicked out anyone who was anything but a strong social conservative"

And anyone who thought neocons funnier than Steyn or who couldn't stop laughing at Lopez.

[R C Dean]

Charles C.W. Cooke (who?) on Brexit, #NeverTrump, and the Future of National Review (who?)

My vague impression of NR is that its basically Time Magazine for country club Republicans. A dinosaur business model for a dying demographic.

[Alcibiades]

Wow, that's gotta hurt!

Apart from Cooke the only other good writer there is Williamson.

[John]

VDH is alright. But David French is awful. Kathryn Jean Lopez is almost as bad. Jonah Goldberg can be funny but ultimately is only good at attacking the left. Goldberg has spent his entire career attacking the left and never learned how to develop and defend his own ideas.

There is no point in rehashing the debate about Williamson. Whatever you think of him, he has offended so many people that he has become a net drag on the publication. He has his fans but he also has a whole lot of people like me who washed their hands of NR because of him. I don't think Williamson will still be at the magazine a year from now. Whatever happens in November, NR is going to try and reach out to the readers it has lost over the whole Trump thing. Someone is going to have to take the fall as a peace offering. It is either got to be him or French. And French is for whatever reason more liked over there and carries more gravitas for some unknown reason. So, it will be Williamson.

Honestly, as much as I object to Williamson, he would be a real improvement over some of the reason writers. Reason could do a lot worse than to grab him if he comes available.

[Alcibiades]

I may regret asking this, but what's your complaint against Williamson?

[John]

My complaint is about his rant on how all the white trash objecting to free trade got what was coming to them. His article, that he he continues to double down on, was appalling. First, it was completely fact free. He didn't give a single verifiable statistic or fact. It consisted entirely of his personal perceptions that were the gospel truth because "he came from one of these places". Second, it never mentioned the regulatory state or the million other horrible economic policies that have damn near destroyed this country. Nope, these people all got what was coming to them and the verdict of the "market" is like the verdict of God. Lastly, it engaged in the worst sort of drug warrior stereotyping bullshit. To lay the problems of the middle class on drug use is absurd. A five minute google search will give you study after study that shows that drug abuse is spread pretty evenly across economic classes. But now, according to Williamson drug abuse is the reason why so many people are structurally unemployed in this country. You know because anyone who uses drugs is just an unemployable degenerate i guess.

It was just appalling.

[Alcibiades]

Ok, I read that essay and didn't take away that mesage from it.

[John]

I disagree. I have listened to his apologists say he didn't mean that for months. I can only believe my lying eyes. It was a profoundly stupid article. Who was he trying to convince? He didn't help the case against Trump. All he did was virtue signal and create all kinds of nasty divisions. No one with an ounce of common sense or judgement would have written that piece of crap.

Whatever you think, I am not alone in my opinion. And his and French's articles cost NR a lot of subscribers. After the election they are going to want those subscribers back. I would be very surprised if Williamson is still with the magazine next year. They won't fire him, at least not publicly. He will "move on to new opportunities" and they will celebrate how great he is for a day or two and then hope everyone forgets he ever worked there. You watch.

[Alcibiades]

"He didn't help the case against Trump"

Trump doesn't need any help on that score.

NR were prescient way back on this ongoing trainwreck...

[John]

So Williamson made an ass of himself instead. I guess that is one way to do. And NRO was gutless and pathetic on the issue from the start.

[Drake]

Yes - they are the Buckleyite version of Cosmos. They are deathly afraid of offending the Left and are horribly ashamed that the GOP nominated somebody who wouldn't lose with class to Hillary.

[commodious warned u bucko]

That's a shame, because Cooke is an extremely strong and compelling voice for gun rights, free trade, free expression, free association...

[gvkid]

Like you on Red Eye, but dissing Trump won't encourage me to renew my Reason subscription.

[John C. Randolph]

For the record, Buckley was a goddamned CIA spook.

-jcr

[DJF]

I doubt if he was a full spook. More likely a hanger on who got money and information from the CIA in return for pushing the agencies interest on the public

[DJF]

""""""But we were also there to police our own side.""""

So when will NRO have some counter argument to the 2003 article defending Trotsky?

Its been more then ten years that this piece of ****** has been on their web site yet there appears to be no counter articles linked to it. Did the police go on holiday?

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....n-schwartz

[fish]

Did the police go on holiday?

They're all on paid administrative leave following the brutal killings of quality analysis and circumspect foreign policy.

[jackrose]

nice post thanks admin