Friday, January 22, 2016

What the National Review's Pooh-pooh of Donald Trump is really all about

Some observers might say,  “This is the latest attempt by ‘The Establishment’ to go after Donald Trump  ---  this time, the part of it that is on the so-called “Right” ---  because Trump doesn’t fit their long- established views of what it is to be a “CONSERVATIVE” 

In my own most-short-hand version:  First, I say,  “Yeah, maybe a little….”  ---   Next,  I say,  “These are really small people protecting their little bits of turf on the vast American political range….”   ---   Then, I say this:  “This National Review assemblage of nay-sayers are playing a losers game of rhetorical political purity --- one where the liberals and/or progressives have kept adding to their political base, such that they are already in control of almost half the American voting public….”  ---   And lastly, on this topic, I say this:   “They are afraid that Donald Trump  is going to break up ALL the old establishment bailiwicks, even theirs among America’s more conservative voters….”

According to a Rich Lowry [“by the Editors”] editorial in the National Review magazine that accompanied the gathering of so-called “conservative” spokespersons lined-up to go “on the record” against the candidacy of Donald Trump in that venerable conservative organ [characterized as  “… NR Symposium January 21, 2016…”]  ---   Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones….   Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy. (He and Bernie Sanders have shared more than funky outer-borough accents.) Since declaring his candidacy he has taken a more conservative line, yet there are great gaping holes in it…  (See “Against Trump” by the Editor’s, 1/22/16, National Review/   []).  <<<  It is quite enlightening to note that some of the very same material appeared in a Fox News piece by Lowry entitled “National Review: Why we're against Trump”  (See  “National Review: Why we're against Trump” by Rich Lowry,  1/22/16, Fox News/ Opinion/ Elections  []). >>>

This “Charge of the Light Brigade” by some “conservative” writers in National Review made the news, right, left and center, within the same news cycle in which it was issued (See eg. :  National Review Urges 'Say No' to Trump” by Todd Beamon, 1/21/16, Newsmax/ Home/ Headline  [];   National Review Is Against Trump, But it Probably Doesn't Matter” by Kevin Drum, 1/21/16, Mother Jones []; and National Review aims to take down Trump” by Shane Goldmacher, 1/21/16, Politico []).


Reported as the “conservatives” that contributed essays to the National Review “symposium” are:  Thomas Sowell, economist;  Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center;  Glenn Beck, founder of The Blaze;  Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey, former U.S. attorney generals;  Dana Loesch and Michael Medved, syndicated radio hosts; Cal Thomas and Mona Charen, syndicated columnists;  William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard;  R. R. Reno, editor of First Things;  John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary;  Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs;  Mark Helprin, novelist;  Andrew C. McCarthy, contributing editor, National Review;  Erick Erickson, founder of The Resurgent;  David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth;  Steven F. Hayward, author and presidential scholar;  Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist;   David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute;  Katie Pavlich, editor of editor;  and Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

Many of the non-Trumpeteers  above are conservatives that I do respect,  however, some of the others appear to me to be parvenu characters on par with the man that they and National Review are attacking.  Nonetheless, several of their articles, a variety of smash pieces on “The Donald,”  look like they are both thoughtful and principled.  However, don’t be attracted to that “bright and shiny thing.” As far as I’m concerned, there is an ulterior agenda here for both National Review, and people like William Kristol [note that Stephen Hayes and the Weekly Standard chimed in with National Review a day later].  Make no mistake, this is a “Hail Mary pass” kind of maneuver.


What are they doing  ???   Why  ???    And, why are they doing it  NOW  ??? 

I think that, more than anything else, it’s a last-gasp attempt by the Neo-Con establishment and a few other conservatives to block Trump before he reaches a tipping point; and he starts garnering a cascade of insider support, including from many key conservatives.  

There are myriad reasons for these writers and spokespersons not to support Trump.  However, I believe that the current National Review gambit is all about a dynamic that has diminished the status and the impact of many conservative intermediators, including the like of national Review.  Donald Trump has been talking over all of these conservative and neo-conservative people and their media outlets; and he has been getting his message directly to the conservative-leaning masses without sucking up to any of the National Review complainers or their so-called “conservative” media outlets. 

It really remains to be seen whether this National Review -Weekly Standard tactic has any lasting impact.  

Personally, although I am intrigued by the Trump phenomenon, I am not FOR Trump; by the same token, and in equal measure, I am not against him, either.


Anonymous said...

10 or 15 years ago NR coming out strong against someone a week before Iowa caucus would have spelled the end. Today its meaningless.
NR lost credibility by backing Iraq occupation.

Anonymous said...

Comrade DiBlasio has issued a ban on all travel.

That includes internet travel.

Anonymous said...

National Review is to national politics as National Velvet is to National Socialism

Anonymous said...

Comment above sounds like it came from a Polish National

Anonymous said...

Trump is vile. Not fit to shine Reagan's shoes.

Anonymous said...

National Review died with William Buckley

Anonymous said...

Is Trump the GOP dream or nightmare