Late conservative intellectual William F. Buckley, Jr. had a purpose for his magazine when he founded it in 1955. Buckley looked around and saw that American intellectual discourse was dominated by the Left, there was a need for a conservative alternative. That need gave birth to National Review.

Since that time National Review has become a bastion of conservative intellectual though and debate. But recently the magazine has been seen to be less thoughtful and more narrow-minded and more a mouthpiece for GOP talking-points.

National Review is trying to find a proper balance between remaining a high-minded publication along with staying relevant in the conservative movement. One problem: many conservatives have moved away from any thoughtful to embracing loud and uncompromising views. Many conservatives now follow the line of talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who no have no intellect but simply a lot of angry at liberal without a coherent message.

They also do not tolerate dissent within the movement. For instance, when a National Review on-line writer wrote that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be vice-president, she got over 11,000 angry e-mails. One of which lamented that her mother had not aborted her.

So National Review is has found itself in a predicament. It could either abandon a more nuanced debate Ivy League platform and lose many of its readers and influence, or it could ignore the latter and instead work to influence the small cadre of conservatives who still believe in being erudite. After all they are the ones who are most likely to define the future conservative agenda.