Four Months to Go


Recent Articles

Rusher at 100: Realism for the 21st Century

(June 23, 2023—revised December 21, 2023) William Rusher, a dynamic force on the American right who passed away in 2011 after decades as comrade and mentor to many conservatives, was born a full century ago on July 19, 1923. His centenary comes at a hard time for...

Book Presentation: “If Not Us, Who?” by David B. Frisk

Click to watch the presentation of "If Not Us, Who?" by David Frisk to the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC on C-SPAN. David Frisk's book, If Not Us, Who?: William Rusher, 'National Review,' and the Conservative Movement, offers a comprehensive exploration of the...

Bill’s Biography

William Rusher was an influential political strategist, commentator, and debater at the heart of the conservative movement in the second half of the twentieth century, a movement whose ascent he documented in his 1984 book The Rise of the Right -- one of many examples...

More Resources

“If Not Us, Who?”

If Not Us, Who? takes you on a journey into the life of William Rusher, a key player in shaping the modern conservative movement. Known for his long stint as the publisher of National Review, Rusher wasn't just a publisher—he was a crucial strategist and thinker in...

At a time when, in previous presidential years, neither party yet knew who its nominees would be, both have already known that vital information for months, and the problem is how to get through the nearly four months remaining before Election Day without boring the country to death.

The next president will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. They may be able to generate a little excitement over their choices for vice president, but pretty much everything else we need to know about the two tickets, and their accompanying platforms, is already known. Neither candidate is likely to have any big surprise (like, say, a novel policy plank) up his sleeve, and the two campaigns will roll forward on tracks already clearly visible.

That means that any unexpected developments will come from outside and impact on the campaigns, rather than emerge from within them. McCain adviser Charles Black was spanked publicly for telling a reporter that a terrorist attack on the United States would benefit his tiger immensely, but it is the simple truth, recognized by every politician in the land. More broadly, the two campaigns will benefit (or suffer), in opposite proportions, depending on how the military situation develops in Iraq between now and November. Recently, it has been improving, and that has marginally benefited the Republicans. McCain has shared in the benefit because he has steadfastly supported our intervention in Iraq.

Conversely, any military setback we experience in Iraq between now and Election Day would be of huge help to the Democrats. Not long ago Senate majority leader Harry Reid declared that the war was “lost,” and that our only choice was to pull out. Every Democratic leader seemed to have his own specific timetable by which he or she wanted to see us withdraw.

Such talk has died down lately as the military situation has improved, but it would revive in a hurry if the military prospects began to sour.

Domestically, neither camp seems eager to draw any sharp lines in the sand. The public seems to feel that the economy is in pretty poor shape, but in fact (aside from a few glaring instances, such as gasoline prices), the situation isn’t all that bad — as demonstrated by the Democrats’ failure to call for any really dramatic measures to remedy it.

Just how likely is it that one or another of the terrorist groups will launch an attack on the United States between now and Election Day, and thereby exert a powerful impact on the political outcome? We may suppose they are sophisticated enough to realize that such an attack would simply benefit the Republicans, and therefore would avoid one. But this assumes that our terrorist foes see important differences, from their standpoint, between the Republicans and the Democrats. No doubt they would root for the Democrats if they believed a Democratic victory would result in a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. But this is far from certain, as we must assume the terrorists realize, so there is probably little temptation for them to try to play intramural American politics. Continued terrorist attacks on the Great Satan, without regard to its internal differences, may well seem the best course.

We would do well, therefore, to prepare for the possibility of further terrorist attacks on the United States this year, without regard to the political calendar. Certainly the American government will maintain its vigilance — and we should not forget the absence of any major attack on this country since September 2001, for which our current defensive measures probably deserve considerable credit.

But living in the 21st century isn’t going to be a bed of roses. As Trotsky said of the 20th, you have picked the wrong century to be living in.


This article originally appeared on on Jul 15, 2008


  • William Rusher

    William A. Rusher, a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute, was the publisher of National Review magazine from 1957 to 1988. A prominent conservative spokesman, Rusher gained national recognition over forty years as a television and radio personality. Since 1973, his syndicated column "The Conservative Advocate" has appeared in newspapers across the U.S. He is also a prolific author and lecturer, with five books and numerous articles. His notable works include "The Making of the New Majority Party" and "The Rise of the Right." An influential political activist, Rusher was instrumental in the 1961 draft of Barry Goldwater for the 1964 Republican nomination, which reshaped the Republican Party and continued under Ronald Reagan. He graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, served in the Air Force during World War II, and worked at a major Wall Street law firm. He also served as associate counsel to the U.S. Senate's Internal Security Subcommittee before joining National Review. In 1989, Rusher became a Distinguished Fellow at the Claremont Institute, continuing to write and advise from his home in San Francisco. He remains active on various boards, including the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, National Review Inc., and the Media Research Center.

    View all posts