You can read what they all say at the link I've provided. It's all good and I agree with nearly every sentiment expressed. And you know what? It won't matter at all. From what I can see, people who support Trump aren't doing so because they see him as the redeemer of Russell Kirk or William F. Buckley. That's not the point. Trump supporters are instead, in the main, looking for a Man of Action rather than a Man of Words. So the pleadings of the Men (and Women) of Words aren't going to change anything.
In his 1963 work "The Ordeal of Change," Eric Hoffer explains the distinction:
In the modern Occident power was, and still is, the prerogative of men of action – landowners, soldiers, businessmen, industrialists, and their hangers-on. The intellectual is treated as a poor relation and has to pick up the crumbs. He usually ekes out a living by teaching, journalism, or some white-collar job. Even when his excellence as a writer, artist, scientist, or educator is generally recognized and rewarded, he does not feel himself one of the elite.Trump is a Man of Action -- he builds skyscrapers and casinos with his name on them. He doesn't walk on the stage. He struts. And he doesn't really give a damn about intellectual consistency. Why would he?
So when pundit L. Brent Bozell III, who is the nephew of William F. Buckley, Jr. and has been on the ramparts for over 30 years, offers the following:
A real conservative walks with us. Ronald Reagan read National Review and Human Events for intellectual sustenance; spoke annually to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Young Americans for Freedom, and other organizations to rally the troops; supported Barry Goldwater when the GOP mainstream turned its back on him; raised money for countless conservative groups; wrote hundreds of op-eds; and delivered even more speeches, everywhere championing our cause. Until he decided to run for the GOP nomination a few months ago, Trump had done none of these things, perhaps because he was too distracted publicly raising money for liberals such as the Clintons; championing Planned Parenthood, tax increases, and single-payer health coverage; and demonstrating his allegiance to the Democratic party. We conservatives should support the one candidate who walks with us.If you were to ask a Trump supporter about all that, the response would be, so what? This isn't about hoary principles and whether you have built your credibility in the conservative salt mines over the decades. This is about results. Does L. Brent Bozell III have a 98-story building in Chicago with his name on it? Yes, Ronald Reagan walked with us. Donald Trump struts.
Don't get me wrong -- I admire Brent Bozell and the work he has done for movement conservatism. No one has been more diligent in exposing the systemic rot of liberalism and the role its cheerleaders in the mainstream media play in propagating nonsense. It doesn't matter, though. If you put every word that Brent Bozell has offered on paper, Donald Trump would treat it as Charmin.
The torrent of words pouring forth from NR isn't about convincing anyone, really. It's about establishing parameters. That's worth doing, but we should not assume it will convince a single soul to abandon Trump.
21 comments:
The conservative movement is dead. Too bad the folks at NR don't know it yet. I've already read some of this issue. They blame trump for trampling conservatism under foot. No. The GOP, that NR supported did that already. Trump is merely walking where the crops were left to die.
Trump is a statist. Pure and simple. But's he's apparently making the right people angry or uncomfortable, so that's all that matters.
The intellectual inconsistency is also rampant among many Trump supporters. Most chortle over sticking it to the GOP "establishment" or "elites" yet Trump is starting to gain support among *that* crowd, too. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Brad, its not Trump making the people angry. the conservative-claiming GOP made them angry, and now they will reap what they sowed.
So what you're saying is...rank and file conservatives have utterly rejected the intellectual underpinnings of movement conservatism.
That's good to know. No point in trying to build a consensus with anyone who refuses to be reasoned with.
So what you're saying is...rank and file conservatives have utterly rejected the intellectual underpinnings of movement conservatism.
Utterly rejected? Not necessarily. I suspect many people who consider themselves conservative have never read Kirk or Buckley, so they aren't conversant with the intellectual underpinnings of movement conservatism. You aren't going to learn such things unless you go out and look for them. A lot of young people read Ayn Rand, but that's a different thing entirely.
Reagan was unique because he was a movement conservative with the skill set to operate in a political environment. Most movement conservatives don't have that — that's Cruz's problem in a nutshell.
That's good to know. No point in trying to build a consensus with anyone who refuses to be reasoned with.
I don't know if people refuse to be reasoned with. My read is people are tired of being sold a bill of goods by people who purport to share their concerns, but then belly up to the trough when ADM boys release the sweet, sweet ethanol money down the sluice pipe. That's the point Gino has been making all along. I am too much of a Menshevik to grab a pitchfork, but I understand why people are wielding them.
Yep, a whole lot of conservatives will vote for Trump because the Republican party doesn't offer conservative candidates. "But aren't Cruz or Rubio conservatives?" Maybe for the time being. But if they won? They wouldn't be. They never are. And so people will give vent to anger and frustration. "Our country is going to hell and our own party isn't even on our side."
So we're going to nominate a liberal in the hopes he wins and becomes a conservative because we've nominated conservatives who've won and become more liberal?
Makes absolutely no sense.
If you think that they system makes sense you are more perceptive than me. To my eyes, we elect people to reign in spending and spending increases instead. We elect people to hold the president accountable and little is done. We elect people to repeal Obamacare and they talk about fixing/improving it. We've elected people to enforce immigration for years and nobody's bothered.
I'm not fooled by Trump. I have no illusions that he's a conservative. Of course he's not. And I won't vote for him (or anyone for that matter.) Our democratic republic is a sham. We are doomed.
:-)
So we're going to nominate a liberal in the hopes he wins and becomes a conservative because we've nominated conservatives who've won and become more liberal?
Well, when you put it THAT way...
There's clearly a lot of dissatisfaction with the status quo in both parties this year. Odd that it comes about when the economy is doing (comparatively) well, at least by recent standards. I guess we'll know soon enough whether that actually translates into votes. I'm not a gambler, but I'd put the odds of Bernie getting the nomination at about 3:1 and Trump at about 5:2. Both being a hell of a lot more likely than I ever imagined either would be.
To my eyes, we elect people to reign in spending and spending increases instead. We elect people to hold the president accountable and little is done. We elect people to repeal Obamacare and they talk about fixing/improving it. We've elected people to enforce immigration for years and nobody's bothered.
Right. We have a mutual friend who sneers at people on social media and says "vote harder." I get the sentiment. But it's a surrender. We need to be clear about that. I am not prepared to love Big Brother just yet.
I don't personally have much hope for most of the candidates, but there is reason to believe Cruz is serious. That's why institutional Washington is more comfortable with Trump than they are with Cruz and why the Orrin Hatches and Bob Doles of the world are so ostentatiously opposed to Cruz and his candidacy. Cruz seems, at least outwardly, to be a Nixonian character with a touch of Coriolanus as well, but in practice he's closer to Reagan than anyone else in the cycle. We aren't going to get another Reagan. Still, I would prefer to try (and fail) to effect change rather than let the suck wash over me.
There's clearly a lot of dissatisfaction with the status quo in both parties this year. Odd that it comes about when the economy is doing (comparatively) well, at least by recent standards.
Hold that thought -- check back in a few months and see if that statement remains operative.
Brad, its not Trump making the people angry.
You misunderstood what I said. What I tried to say is some folks love the fact that Trump is making the GOP "establishment" or "elites" angry/uncomfortable, thus the disaffected GOP voters rally to his camp to join in on the malaise.
check back in a few months and see if that statement remains operative.
If economic fortunes change in the future, that doesn't explain what's happening now. Unless you regard the masses as far more prescient that I am willing to.
Mr D, it's not that I've given up on life, or even America. (We're doomed was a little tongue in cheek.) It's that I don't believe the normal assumptions of the political process will get us to a better place. In other words, it's not a matter of tweaking things. I think we probably need something that is beyond anybody's control to provide, whether that be a crash, a war, a revolution, a game-changing technology, a revival, an alien invasion....
The system, at this point (and maybe always?), only seems to move in one direction. We need an anomaly.
I think we probably need something that is beyond anybody's control to provide, whether that be a crash, a war, a revolution, a game-changing technology, a revival, an alien invasion....
Kevin Williamson's book "The End Is Near.....And It's Going to be AWESOME!!" addresses this very thing.
If economic fortunes change in the future, that doesn't explain what's happening now. Unless you regard the masses as far more prescient that I am willing to.
The economic recovery has been highly uneven. Things are pretty good for me personally — I have a good job and some money in the bank. A lot of people that I know still haven't recovered from 2008 and they aren't nearly as sanguine about current economic conditions. Meanwhile, the klaxons are sounding in the distance.
I have not recovered from 08, and niether have my peers. Seems we fight for overtime just in the hopes we can make the rent next week. Its hell on the factory labor forces... but hey, viva wall street, tight?
My family's healthcare costs jumped about another $300 a month. We're doing okay, but free health care is costing thousands annually. That's money for retirement or my kid's education that I'm never going to see.
Its hell on the factory labor forces... but hey, viva wall street, tight?
Yep. And that's the disconnect. The problem for the Dems is that they promised to do something about income inequality and, in many ways, it's gotten worse. And Obamacare is a disaster.
The open border is a direct slap to already shrinking labor wages. Steyn is the only writer who seems to get what the worker is going through.
Health care... i have a good plan comparable to factoru labor plans, but my deductible is 9000, the first 4000 before the 80/20 kicks in. Why am i angry?
Post a Comment