Conservative magazines and the presumption of liberty: a content analysis on sex, gambling, and drugs.

When the first issue of the National Review was published in 1955, William F. Buckley Jr. declared, "It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' life, liberty, and property. All other activities of the government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress" (5). Yet the leading magazines and newspapers of the conservative movement--the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, and the now-defunct American Enterprise--more often than not fail to oppose government intrusion into America's bedrooms, gambling places, and drug activities. Real champions of liberty uphold a presumption of liberty: current restrictions on such activities would not be accepted docilely, but rather would be challenged with the burden of proof. Yet most of the conservative magazines either support the restrictions or omit any active criticism of them. Of the magazines examined, the National Review has had the strongest liberty record on the issues treated, whereas the others have, on the whole, preponderantly failed to be pro-liberty or have even been antiliberty.

Our investigation was conducted with the firm understanding that the liberty principle does not speak to issues concerning government rules for the use of government property. Liberty does not hold that drugs, prostitution, and gambling be tolerated in public schools, public parks, and so on. Liberty holds, rather, that such rules are for owners to decide. We scored the magazine content with such understanding. Moreover, we do not mean to suggest that classical liberalism or libertarianism insists on axiomatic adherence to the liberty principle. But classical liberalism or libertarianism does uphold a presumption of liberty. It holds that the burden of proof should be on coercion or intervention, even when such is the status quo.

Method

The research covers material published in the print editions of the four magazines through 2007. We conducted systematic searches using several electronic databases in order to maximize coverage. Tables in this document give the article counts generated by our searches, breaking the numbers into relevant articles (that is, articles that discuss the issue in at least some detail) and articles that should be ignored (for example, passing references, duplicates, and so forth). The relevant articles are further broken down into those that take no position on the issue versus those that stake out a clear position. Those taking a position are further classified as advocating a move either toward a more libertarian position or toward a more interventionist position, or as supporting the status quo. (1)

Conservative Magazines on Sex

Many articles and editorials in the National Review have supported at least a limited right to pornography (table 1). In a 1961 article about pornography, Francis Russell wrote: "I think there might even be a high and inaccessible place in the library for the works of Henry Miller" (157). "Even if it were trash," columnist D. Keith Mano added in 1975, "pornography has a crucial role in the growth of film as art" (1481).

National Review writers have also often supported political efforts to restrict pornography, particularly at the local level of government. "We have had enough experience of court-revised ideals to see the other side of the coin of legalized permissiveness," author Malachi B. Martin wrote in 1977 as he lamented the "purging of our ideals from the laws that mark out the public ground-rules of our lives" (998).

In a 1986 editorial about the Meese Commission on Pornography, Buckley asked why, given a market for porn, "should not the willing buyer and the willing seller enter into conventional arrangements?" His answer was that "lust is an appetite that needs to be regulated," and that "a sophisticated society acknowledges that sex is often an unruly passion" (55).

In 2001, National Review editor Jay Nordlinger called for states to establish "porn czars" and for the prosecution of Internet companies and cable companies that hosted porn sites and porn channels. He also urged citizens to write to companies that produce salacious ads and denounce them.

Although there is little evidence of a change over time in the attitudes of National Review writers on sex issues, at least one prominent writer moved in a libertarian direction. Ernest van den Haag was a Fordham University public-policy professor and a prominent law-and-order conservative. Late in his career, he changed his mind about pornography. "Providing it truly is private," he wrote in 1993, "I now do not think any consensual sexual activity, including discreet prostitution and pornography, should be regulated by the government.... History demonstrates that, when tolerated, pornography and prostitution tend to be contained" (59).

Other conservative journals have also tended to favor government intervention to restrict access to pornography (tables 2, 3, 4). Boston College professor David Lowenthal wrote in the Weekly Standard in 1999: "The mass media--the movies, television, and recordings--need to be regulated, and not only because of appeals to irresponsible lust. They have immersed us in violence as well, habituated us to the most extreme brutality, held it up as a model and surrounded us by images of hateful human types so memorable as to cause a psychological insecurity that is dangerous. The only answer is governmental regulation, if necessary prior to publication--that is, censorship" (21). In 2003, Jonah Goldberg, then a National Review editor as well as an American Enterprise columnist, wrote in the latter periodical that "the entire culture, particularly the media, has been brainwashed to believe that censorship is always and everywhere a threat to our freedom" (52). Although Goldberg's core point contains good sense, he did not draw lines based on the domains of government properties.

Conservative Magazines on Gambling

When National Review has made relevant comments, it has been largely tolerant of gambling (table 5). In 1965, Buckley suggested that conservative candidates for mayoral positions would do well to advocate the legalization of gambling. Goldberg (2002) more recently advocated eliminating legal restrictions on poker games. But support for liberalization has been tepid.

All of the pro-liberalization articles on gambling in the other three magazines involve calls for an end to state-sponsored gambling; none calls for the liberalization of laws that restrict private gambling (tables 6, 7, 8). American Spectator editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. wrote in 1996: "Gambling is a breeding swamp for crime. Sure, some can enjoy it in moderation just as many enjoy booze in moderation. That is why we allow Las Vegas and the neighborhood pub. But the state ought not to champion gambling any more than it champions alcohol" (15). That same year Blake Hurst wrote in the American Enterprise: "Governments may not be able to control vice, but surely they ought not encourage it" (62). These calls to "not encourage" seem to imply "not liberalize."

In the past decade, three articles in the American Enterprise, including one rifled "The Festering Problem of Indian 'Sovereignty,'" criticized legal and business arrangements involving Indian casinos (Golab 2004b; see also Carolan 2002, Golab 2004a). David Tell of the Weekly Standard took a more broadly antigambling position in three late-1990s editorials, complaining in 1999 that "America's real sweepstakes problem, the giant industry of private and state-sponsored gambling, continues to metastasize. And no more than a handful of our politicians seem to care" (1999b, 9; see also Tell 1997, 1999a).

Conservative Magazines on Drugs

The National Review has moved from a centrist position on drugs in its early decades to an overfly pro-liberalization position in the past two decades, mirroring Buckley's personal shift (table 9). He openly grappled ,with the issue during the late 1960s, supporting the status quo with regard to marijuana prohibition, while occasionally mentioning a desire for more information (such as suggesting that experiments with marijuana be carried out with volunteer prisoners [Buckley 1970]). In 1972, however, the National Review ran a piece by Richard Cowan with the strident title "American Conservatives Should Revise Their Position on Marijuana," on which several National Review writers, including Buckley (1972), commented favorably. Since then, the review has been generally hostile to drug prohibition, publishing titles such as "A Lost Cause Is a Lost Cause" (Buckley 1989), "The War on Drugs Is Lost" (Nadelmann et al. 1996), and "War No More: The Folly and Futility of Drug Prohibition" (Lynch 2001). Even during the George W. Bush administration, Buckley (2002, 2005), Ethan Nadelmann (2004a, 2004b), and Jacob Sullum (2005, 2006) wrote multiple National Review pieces criticizing prohibition, including a Buckley mockery of "drug warriors" who remained focused on pot even as meth had gained popularity.

Although the American Spectator (table 10) had a rather evenly mixed record on drugs during the 1990s, it has published only one judgment piece on the subject since 9/11, a 2004 article by Bob Barr, who wrote: "If the Colombian president had the same type of support and understanding from Washington as we give unquestioningly to civilian leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq who simply mouth pro-American sound-bites and are then invited to the State of the Union address, perhaps we'd finally start seeing the success of our efforts in Colombia that our children and our brave anti-drug warriors deserve" (29).

The American Enterprise (table 11) has supported drug prohibition; for an example, consider a 1996 offering of "two views" as to why drug use was rising. John J. Dilulio Jr. complained that "[t]he drug legalization movement and its anti-incarceration allies have ... promoted the utterly false view that the 'war on drugs' is rabidly racist and horribly expensive" (23). Ostensibly opposing him, Ed Koch wrote: "Some drug laws need to be reformed. We should reduce prison sentences for low-level offenders and increase sentences for more serious drug crimes. For minor offenders convicted under state law, why not add flogging to the available punishments?" (23).

The Weekly Standard (table 12) has also been a platform for drug prohibitionists, though perhaps with some signs of moderation in recent years. Its stridency during the 1990s is clear in article rifles such as "General Clinton, Losing the Drug War" (Tell 1996) and "He Didn't Inhale, but Americans Are" (1996). David Tell in 2001 went after libertarians in furtherance of the cause of the future director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy: "It might profit certain 'free market conservatives' we know, before next they sneer at John Walters's resistance to drug legalization, to have another peek at their Wealth of Nations--where they will discover that the unregulated production and consumption of deadly poison isn't quite what Adam Smith had in mind" (9). (2) But Charlotte Allen did write in 2007 that "[s]ome mandatory-sentencing schemes for drug violations are undoubtedly too harsh on first-time offenders" (41).

Three Major Public Philosophies

If a movement claims to be pro-liberty, an evaluation of the integrity of that claim must consider both what the movement says and what it fails to say. With regard to what the conservative magazines say on the issues of sex, gambling, and drugs, their record is checkered. National Review has been the most pro-liberalization, with the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise probably the least pro-liberalization. On the second score, what they fail to say, the magazines can be faulted almost across the board for not staking out clear pro-liberty positions on the issues--again with the National Review's being something of an exception, particularly on the drug issue. On the whole, the conservative magazines reveal that conservatives fail to uphold the presumption of liberty.

This investigation underscores that nowadays the menu of major public philosophies offers three options: conservatism, social democracy, and classical liberalism or libertarianism. Only the third upholds the presumption of liberty.

Acknowledgments: This articles builds on research conducted under Daniel Klein's supervision in a graduate course at George Mason University. Initial investigations were conducted by Victoria Bryant on sex; by Andrew Roth on gambling; and by Robert Gehl on drugs. R. Warren Anderson conducted thorough research under Jason Briggeman's supervision. These individuals' cooperation and extensive efforts made the current article possible, and we extend our gratitude to them.

References

Allen, Charlotte. 2007. A Woman's Place. Weekly Standard, June 4.

Barr, Bob. 2004. The War Without End. American Spectator, April.

Buckley, William F., Jr. 1955. Publisher's Statement. National Review, November 19.

--. 1965. Mayor, Anyone? National Review, June 15.

--. 1970. Pot in Prison. National Review, February 24.

--. 1972. The Spirit of the Law. National Review, December 8.

--. 1986. Topsy-turvy. National Review, August 29.

--. 1989. A Lost Cause Is a Lost Cause. National Review, September 29.

--. 2002. The Pot War Boiling. National Review, November 25.

--. 2005. The Druggies' Drug of Choice These Days Seems to Be Meth, but the Drug Warriors' Drug of Choice Is Still Pot. National Review, September 12.

Carolan, Matthew. 2002. Killing Buffalo? American Enterprise, July-August.

Cowan, Richard C. 1972. American Conservatives Should Revise Their Position on Marijuana. National Review, December 8.

DiIulio, John J., Jr., and Ed Koch. 1996. Why Is Drug Use Rising Again? American Enterprise, May.

Golab, Jan. 2004a. Arnold Schwarzenegger Girds for Indian War. American Enterprise, January-February.

--. 2004b. The Festering Problem of Indian "Sovereignty." American Enterprise, September.

Goldberg, Jonah. 2002. And Another Thing.... National Review, October 28.

--. 2003. Free Speech Rots from the Inside Out. American Enterprise, January-February.

He Didn't Inhale, But Americans Are. 1996. Weekly Standard, August 19.

Hurst, Blake. 1996. The Government as Gambling Partner. American Enterprise, March. Lowenthal, David. 1999. The Case for Censorship. Weekly Standard, August 23.

Lynch, Timothy. 2001. War No More: The Folly and Futility of Drug Prohibition. National Review, February 5.

Mano, D. Keith. 1975. The Pornographer. National Review, December 19.

Martin, Malachi. 1977. On Human Love. National Review, September 2.

Nadelmann, Ethan A. 2004a. An End to Marijuana Prohibition: The Drive to Legalize Picks Up. National Review, July 12.

--. 2004b. The Future of an Illusion: On the Drug War, Believe Your Own Eyes. National Review, September 27.

Nadelmann, Ethan A., Kurt L. Schmoke, Robert W. Sweet, Thomas Szasz, Robert B. Duke, and William F. Buckley Jr. 1996. The War on Drugs Is Lost. National Review, February 12.

Nordlinger, Jay. 2001. Getting Aroused. National Review, November 19.

Russell, Francis. 1961. Problem of Pornography. National Review, September 11.

Sullum, Jacob. 2005. The Doctor Is Not a Criminal: A Painful Drug-War Case in Virginia. National Review, May 23.

--. 2006. Talking Smack. National Review, November 6.

Tell, David. 1996. General Clinton, Losing the Drug War. Weekly Standard, May 13.

--. 1997. Wanna Bet? Weekly Standard, December 15.

--. 1999a. A Gambling Backlash? Weekly Standard, November 15.

--. 1999b. An Outrage? You Bet. Weekly Standard, March 29.

--. 2001. John Walters and His Critics. Weekly Standard, May 21.

Tyrrell, R. Emmett, Jr. 1996. The Continuing Crisis: Quick Draw McGraws. American Spectator, February.

Van den Haag, Ernest. 1993. An Expert Witness Disagrees. National Review, November 1.

(1.) An Excel file containing the data and coding is available at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/klein/Assets/ conservative_magazines_data.xls.

(2.) Tell's allusion to Adam Smith is unsound; hardly anything in Smith's writings smacks of such paternalism.

Daniel B. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University, an associate fellow of the Ratio Institute, and the editor of Econ Journal Watch. Jason Briggeman is a doctoral student in economics at George Mason University.

Table 1
National Review on Sex (Number of Articles)

                           1955-1990   1991-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization           5           2           4          11
Status quo                  13           5           4          22
Interventionist             16          12          18          46
Relevant but no position    30          31          11          72
Total relevant              64          50          37         151
Irrelevant/should not
  count                    118         138         96          352
Total articles             182         188         133         503

Table 2 American Spectator on Sex (Number of Articles)

                              1988-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization              1          0            1
Status quo                      0          1            1
Interventionist                 2          4            6
Relevant but no position       27          8           35
Total relevant                 30         13           43
Irrelevant/should not count    98         42          140
Total articles                128         55          183

Table 3 American Enterprise on Sex (Number of Articles)

                              1990-2000   2001-2006   Totals

Pro-liberalization             0           0           0
Status quo                     1           0           1
Interventionist                0           1           1
Relevant but no position      10           7          17
Total relevant                11           8          19
Irrelevant/should not count   35          30          65
Total articles                46          38          84

Table 4
Weekly Standard on Sex (Number of Articles)

                              1994-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization              2           1           3
Status quo                      0           0           0
Interventionist                 5           0           5
Relevant but no position       37           8          45
Total relevant                 44           9          53
Irrelevant/should not count   116         114         230
Total articles                160         123         283

Table 5
National Review on Gambling (Number of Articles)

                              1955-1990   1991-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization                    3           1           1        5
Status quo                            0           1           2        3
Interventionist                       0           1           1        2
Relevant but no position             17          15          15       47
Total relevant                       20          18          19       57
Irrelevant/should not count          59         133          89      281
Total articles                       79         151         108      338

Table 6
American Spectator on Gambling (Number of Articles)

                                1988-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization                      2           1        3
Status quo                              0           0        0
Interventionist                         0           0        0
Relevant but no position               13           2       15
Total relevant                         15           3       18
Irrelevant/should not count           127          38      165
Total articles                        142          41      183

Table 7
American Enterbrise on Gambling (Number of Articles)

                              1990-2000   2001-2006   Totals

Pro-liberalization                    3           0        3
Status quo                            0           0        0
Interventionist                       0           3        3
Relevant but no position              3           8       11
Total relevant                        6          11       17
Irrelevant/should not count          45          48       93
Total articles                       51          59      110

Table 8
Weekly Standard on Gambling (Number of Articles)

                              1994-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization                    1           0        1
Status quo                            0           0        0
Interventionist                       3           1        4
Relevant but no position             23          31       54
Total relevant                       27          32       59
Irrelevant/should not count         118         122      240
Total articles                      145         154      299

Table 9
National Review on Drugs (Number of Articles)

                              1955-1990  1991-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization                   20         22          18       60
Status quo                           10          1           2       13
Interventionist                       8          1           3       12
Relevant but no position             55         35           8       98
Total relevant                       93         59          31      183
Irrelevant/should not count         100         99          45      244
Total articles                      193        158          76      427

Table 10
American Spectator on Drugs (Number of Articles)

                               1988-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization                     6           1        7
Status quo                             1           0        1
Interventionist                        5           1        6
Relevant but no position              28           6       34
Total relevant                        40           8       48
Irrelevant/should not count           83          18      101
Total articles                       123          26      149

Table 11
American Enterprise on Drugs (Number of Articles)

                               1990-2000   2001-2006   Totals

Pro-liberalization                     0           0        0
Status quo                             0           2        2
Interventionist                        5           1        6
Relevant but no position              12           6       18
Total relevant                        17           9       26
Irrelevant/should not count           46          20       66
Total articles                        63          29       92

Table 12
Weekly Standard on Drugs (Number of Articles)

                                1994-2000   2001-2007   Totals

Pro-liberalization                      1           2        3
Status quo                              1           5        6
Interventionist                         8           1        9
Relevant but no position               21          13       34
Total relevant                         31          21       52
Irrelevant/should not count            98          82      180
Total articles                        129         103      232