"Nationalism cannot be bad because Lowry has defined it as good, rendering “The Case for Nationalism” a book-length study in begging the question." washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/1…
I've come to think of "National Review conservatism" as a 60+ year exercise in defending the indefensible. First it was segregation, then it was anti-feminism, then it was South African apartheid, then it was Iran-Contra, then it was homophobia, etc etc etc ad infinitum.
What a brilliant and scathing review this is. Intellectual conservatism is like that kid in the millipede costume that gets left behind in the parade when the millipede turns right and he turns left. "Hey, wait up for me!" 
"Sure Rich Lowry has ideals. Does Donald Trump give a damn?" It's been a long time since I've read two short sentences that said so much.
To transpose them into a historical research question: "Sure the National Review had ideals. Did the conservative movement for which they claimed to speak ever really give a damn?"
This observation I made about Andrew Sullivan applies just as well to National Review types like Lowry. They want to claim racial equality, gender equality, & LGBTQ inclusivity as part of their political tradition, but only after the fact.
