Conservatives nationwide have expressed shock over National Review’s critical portrayal of Phyllis Schlafly in its 70th Anniversary issue. Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum and a pivotal figure in grassroots conservatism from the early 1960s until her death in 2016, was once celebrated as “sweetheart of the silent majority” and “first lady of the conservative movement” for her role in shaping modern conservative ideology.
The magazine’s author Rachel Lu labeled Schlafly as “mean-spirited” and “conspiratorial,” accusing her of being a “shill” for “shameless propaganda.” A defense by Schlafly’s daughter, Anne, argued that had her mother been the caricature presented by Lu, she would not have built a movement enduring across generations. Despite this rebuttal, the controversy has amplified National Review’s reputation as a platform prioritizing ideological agendas over historical integrity.
Critics highlight the magazine’s long-standing alignment with neoconservative principles, tracing its roots to William F. Buckley, Jr., whose editorial direction marginalized anti-globalist voices. Former John Birch Society leader John F. McManus condemned Buckley as a “delusive gadfly” who steered conservatives toward Establishment interests, sidelining grassroots activists. The article also notes National Review’s historical hostility toward figures like Robert Welch and its continued criticism of conservative icons such as Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson.
The ongoing debate underscores deep divisions within the conservative movement over ideological purity and media influence.
