The National Review was founded by William F. Buckley in 1955, as a counterpoint to liberal intellectual journals, which had, until that point, dominated the landscape of political debate.  In his founding statement, Buckley described his vision of the National Review’s role in the discourse:

[The National Review] stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

Now, the folks at the National Review seem to have taken a literal interpretation of Mr. Buckley’s vision.  Buckley was a confident intellectual that could articulate conservative values in debates with his liberal counterparts, helping lay the groundwork for the modern conservative movement, first with Barry Goldwater in 1964 and then with Ronald Reagan in 1980.  Today, the National Review is a magazine for partisans that defines itself less on a core set of values and more on its opposition to the other side.  It is the journalistic embodiment of the “party of no.” On its blog, the Corner, many of its authors spend most of their time caricaturizing the views of “the Left” (capital “L”), focusing on why it is wrong, rather than why they are right.  What once was considered the intellectually-honest voice of conservatism now just marches in lockstep, attacking whoever a few dominant voices (Charles Krauthammer, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh) deem the villians to be.  Eventually this leads to a wholesale rejection of the premises of the other side, because acknowledging even the valid concerns of opposing views undermines your own central tenet: opposing the opposition.  Now, the National Review yells “Stop,” before the other side starts.

In October of 2008, David Frum, former National Review contributor (whose conservative credentials are ironclad) and friend of this newsmagazine, criticized McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as VP.  He was chastised by his fellow contributors to NRO blog, who summed up the basis for their criticism in a sentence:

PLEASE KEEP YOUR REMARKS TO YOURSELF! Nobody but Democrats wants to hear them.

As a free-thinking intellectual that refuses to drink the Kool-Aid, Frum responded in a post titled "I Get So Weary of This...", which sums up the contemporary role of the National Review:

Perhaps it is our job at NRO is tell our readers only what they want to hear, without much regard to whether it is true. Perhaps it is our duty just to keep smiling and to insist that everything is dandy - that John McCain's economic policies make sense, that his selection of Sarah Palin was an act of statesmanship, that she herself is the second coming of Anna Schwartz, and that nobody but an over-educated snob would ever suggest otherwise.

Frum later acted on his convictions, left the National Review, and founded his own website, The New Majority.  In its About Us page, he articulates his mission in a sentence:

NewMajority.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.

The National Review was institutionalized by the movement it started; many of the fundamental tenets of conservatism are either misconstrued or entirely absent from its arguments.  It was formed as a counterpoint to the status quo; now it is the status quo's apologist.  David Frum recognized this and escaped.  It seems to me that William F. Buckley, the intellectual juggernaut, probably would've done the same.