As David Mills of Mere Comments noted the other day, National Review does seem to be slipping a bit from being a strictly conservative magazine. Yesterday, NRO ran this absurd article in which the author, Catherine Seipp, (who incidentally writes for Penthouse magazine) rambles on about how Playboy magazine is not pornography and is not really all that bad.
The author argues:
Except Playboy really does have something to do with freedom, and these days maybe that’s worth remembering. A society that allows Playboy is not a society that allows women to be stoned to death for adultery. Human nature being what it is, we’re probably stuck with either burkas or naked balloon breasts forever. I know which I prefer.
My first question is why is this article even in National Review Online? Are they hurting for articles so badly that they need to include such drivel? There are many bloggers out there who could give a much better conservative opinion on the issue. It seems that the line between conservatism and libertarianism has been obscured a bit as of late (see Joe Carter’s post at Evangelical Outpost for more on the differences between conservatives and libertarians).
As for Seipp’s argument that Playboy is not that bad, the fact that she has to classify it as “bad” at all belies the problem. It is bad, harmful, exploitative, etc. Even if it is not as bad as other publications, it is still far from good.