Programming note: This evening (Air Canada permitting, which is looking a bit dicey at the moment), I'll be back with Tucker Carlson, live coast to coast at 8pm Eastern/5pm Pacific - with a rerun for West Coasters at 9pm Pacific. If you're in the presence of the receiving apparatus, I hope you'll dial us up.
~For three years the question absorbing Swamp-dwellers has been: How did Trump get elected? According to Adam Schiff, the answer is the Russians. According to Hillary, the answer is sexism and/or Macedonian content farmers. According to the media, Trump "tapped into" a large segment of the American electorate's ingrained sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other assorted bigotries. If these fine fellows were genuinely interested to know how Trump got elected, the quickest way to the answer would be for them to look in the mirror: Trump is the consequence of you. No Russians or Macedonians are required: it's because of you - the permanent governing class. If the only alternative to Hillary is Jeb, it's hardly a surprise that there's a stampede to the "Neither of the Above" box. And, if the only fellow waiting over there is Donald J Trump, so be it: that's on you.
That's true for establishment Republicans, too. Don Surber has a fine column reminding us that it was at this precise point in the electoral cycle four years ago that National Review published their "Against Trump" issue. Why they did this, heaven knows. By contrast, a fortnight before NR's Never Trump extravaganza, yours truly wrote this. That's to say, by January 2016 it was clear to me (as it had been since I predicted his victory on Alan Colmes' radio show the previous September) not only that Trump was going to be the nominee but that he had the least worst chance of prevailing in the general - and that the base's repudiation of Jeb et al was entirely understandable and deserved.
Why couldn't National Review see that? Ten years ago, during a previous base uprising, I wrote:
The Tea Party and other members of America's beleaguered productive class decided that this time round it suited them to work within the diseased husk of the GOP. This is really the last chance for the unloved Republicans.
And they blew it. So by the summer of 2015 Lindsay Graham demanding boots on the ground in this week's Hoogivsastan and Jeb talking up the superiority of illegal immigrants' boots on the ground all over the US was nowhere the base wanted to be. Like The Weekly Standard, National Review had heard none of the disillusion and despair of Republican voters over the previous decade. Aside from anything else, GOP electors wanted someone serious about winning - as opposed to Dole, McCain, Romney or whoever was the next designated Giver of the Decent Dignified Universally Admired Concession Speech. In its very tone deafness, the "Against Trump" issue was itself Exhibit A as to why the base was For Trump.
Here's some of what I had to say about it at the time:
National Review's initial reaction to Donald Trump's entry into the presidential race appeared a few hours after he launched his campaign under the headline 'Witless Ape Rides Escalator'. Their condescension has got a little subtler since then, and it's now gone long-form with an entire issue dedicated to the singular proposition: 'Against Trump'.
Or, as I called it, "Witless Ape: The Director's Cut".
As I explained yesterday, I don't think Trump supporters care that he's not a fully paid-up member in good standing of 'the conservative movement' - in part because, as they see it, the conservative movement barely moves anything. If you want the gist of NR's argument, here it is:
'I think we can say that this is a Republican campaign that would have appalled Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan...'
'A real conservative walks with us. Ronald Reagan read National Review and Human Events for intellectual sustenance...'
'My old boss, Ronald Reagan, once said...'
'Ronald Reagan was famous for...'
'When Reagan first ran for governor of California...'
'Reagan showed respect for...'
'Reagan kept the Eleventh Commandment...'
'Far cry from Ronald Reagan's "I am paying for this microphone" line...'
As I summarized the above:
Trump is Dan Quayle, and everyone and his auntie are Lloyd Bentsen: 'I knew Ronald Reagan, I worked for Ronald Reagan, I filled in Ronald Reagan's subscription-renewal form for National Review. And you, sir, are no Ronald Reagan.'
You have to be over fifty to have voted for Reagan, and a supposed 'movement' can't dine out on one guy forever, can it? What else you got?
Well, there are two references to Bush, both of them following the words 'Reagan and'. But no mention of Dole, one psephological citation of Romney, and one passing sneer at McCain as a 'cynical charlatan' - and that's it for the last three decades of presidential candidates approved by National Review, at least to the extent that they never ran entire issues trashing them.
What's the difference between the fetishists salivating over "Reagan's Eleventh Commandment" and those poor rubes for whom it's no longer January 1981?
The movement conservatives at National Review make a pretty nice living out of 'ideas, ideology, philosophy, policy, and so forth'. The voters can't afford that luxury: They live in a world where, in large part due to the incompetence of the national Republican Party post-Reagan, Democrat ideas are in the ascendant. And they feel that this is maybe the last chance to change that.
Go back to that line 'When Reagan first ran for governor of California...' Gosh, those were the days, weren't they? But Reagan couldn't get elected Governor of California now, could he? Because the Golden State has been demographically transformed...
The past is another country, and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans gave it away. Reagan's California no longer exists. And, if America as a whole takes on the demographics of California, then 'the conservative movement' will no longer exist. That's why, for many voters, re-asserting America's borders is the first, necessary condition for anything else - and it took Trump to put that on the table.
As I put it just shy of two decades ago:
If the political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising certain topics, then the electorate will turn to unrespectable politicians.
And, when they do, it's a conscious choice: they know what they're doing. So, when the respectable class whines that "a real conservative walks with us" and therefore Trump can't be a conservative because he doesn't, they fail to grasp that that's all the more reason to back him.
I understand that National Review has suffered somewhat since its "Against Trump" issue. That's because, to reprise another old line of mine from four years ago, it's always easier for the base to get itself a new elite than for the elite to get itself a new base. Given that the horrors they predicted failed to come to pass, and that the crisis of the republic these last three years has been the refusal of the permanent state to accept the result of the election, you might think, having hoist themselves on their own petard, National Review might wish to de-hoist and admit they were wrong. But, apparently, changing your mind is the ultimate no-no. Don Furber reminds us of the magazine's main editorial:
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.)
En passant, is "funky" really the correct adjective for "outer-borough accents"? Or does exquisite condescension require a little more precision?
Be that as it may, we get the gist: Real conservatives don't let their political opinions "wobble".
Okay, so what about the very first contributor to the "Against Trump" issue - Blaze TV host Glenn Beck? In 2016, Beck was briefly suspended for entertaining the suggestion that, in order to save the republic, it might be necessary for a "patriot" to "assassinate" Trump.
Three years later, a reformed Beck was declaring that, if Trump doesn't win in 2020, "we are officially at the end of the country".
Got it. So in 2016 the survival of the republic depends on stopping Trump; in 2020 the survival of the republic depends on not stopping Trump.
And National Review calls Trump "wobbly"?
From that first headline "Witless Ape Rides Escalator", much of the conservative establishment revealed its fundamental unseriousness. Most dismal of all, they failed to realize that it was they who were on the downward escalator - and still are.
~We had a busy weekend at SteynOnline, including what seems likely to become a daily feature: Impeachment Non-Watch. Kathy Shaidle's Saturday movie date pondered whether Hitchcock gave himself enough Rope to hang himself, and for Australia Day I saluted Dame Olivia Newton-John with her biggest Aussie hit. Our marquee presentation was our latest Tale for Our Time: Jack London's classic The White Silence, introduced by yours truly before an audience of Mark Steyn Cruisers from four continents. You can hear (and see) Part One here, and you can listen to Part Two here. If you were too busy tossing shrimp on the barbie all weekend long, I hope you'll want to check out one or three of the foregoing as a new week commences.
Tales for Our Time is made with the support of members of The Mark Steyn Club, for which we are very grateful. See you tonight on the telly with Tucker.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
121 Member Comments
You're too generous with National Review. It isn't condescension they have for President Trump and the rest of us. It's contempt. They're just as snide, superior, and contemptuous as the leftists. They may as well drop the ask and change their name to New York Times Jr.
Well I notice my previous was taken down. So I will refrain from profanity this time. I do not believe POTUS is a witless ape. A very unbecoming slur. Only someone like him could stand in the breach of AOC & rampant radicalism to save this nation from socialism. And the abyss it so dastardly Defines
The NR's determination to go down with the ship is impressive if you are into that sort of thing. As a person who probably has a "funky outer-borough accent" having been born on Staten Island and spent my youth there, I should be insulted, but having done a PhD at NYU, I'm used to this sad type of parochialism found in universities. Before I went to NYU, I thought that universities were places where people questioned established thought, but no, they are the guardians of what the right type of people with the best accents should think so do not really have to.
It's good to be back in the Mark Steyn Club! I had to take a brief hiatus, and oh how I suffered for it.
I remember the Witless Ape headline well. Wasn't it penned by Kevin Williamson? Super smart fella who went off the rails. I grew up on NR, and I subscribed for years, but I quit that rag when they dismissed our man Mark.
Loved the remark: "Or does exquisite condescension require more precision?" WFB certainly thought so!
I'm so glad you're back! I quit NR for the same reason you did, that and their dismissal of John Derbyshire. I'm not sure why they got rid of him, either.
Mark, after reading one particular anti-Trumper (and anti-Steyn/MSC apparently) rant below, I am re-submitting a question of mine to you regarding people's state of mind, that now includes the subject above:
Why does the Western Left side with Islam (or Communism, Socialism, Antifa, etc.) over their own civilization, when their erstwhile allies are busy enslaving and subjugating women and children, killing gays and other atrocities, and can't seem to understand that they would be treated the same were it not for our military? Now I have to include the so-called Conservative Intellectual Establishment that thinks Trump and his supporters are dunces. I don't care what President Trumps says (except great fun to watch media react), I look at the results of what he does. Is the Conservative Establishment mental? Are they, like their supposed ideological rivals (the Left) willing to join their previously supposed enemies just to feed their egos or are they all just nuts? Sorry for the length, this has always perplexed me, a "cutting off my nose to spite my face" thing.
Best regards, see you on Tucker next time.
My take on the socialist/Muslim alliance goes something like this:
My dentist is a Muslim and he is just wonderful. And you should hear what he says about Trump!
That's it. Leftists don't think much about the contradictions in values, they just feel and want. The Muslims obviously like it for now.
That's a good question. I've always thought it was because all of those groups hate real Christianity. The enemy of my enemy is my friend type of thing. If Christianity were completely obliterated there would be a major blood bath to see who among those plug uglies got to rule. For my money it would be a toss up between islam and communism. The leftist progressives wouldn't have a chance.
In 2015-16, I believed Trump (A) was just telling voters what he thought they wanted to hear, not meaning a word of it, and (B) was going to blow the election.
I have never been more grateful for having been wrong. The presence of Mike Pence, Larry Kudlow, et. al. should have been proof enough at the time.
While I am still deeply annoyed by his Carnival Barker act and frustrated by the Administration's inability to coherently explain its (very successful!) agenda, I recognize that Trump is resolute in a way that makes him indispensable. As Lincoln said of Grant, "I cannot spare this man; he fights."
I was a long-time subscriber to NR and used to enjoy Mark's column, but I dropped my subscription after that anti-Trump edition and won't go back until they apologize.
These Trumpist gloat-fests would be more annoying if it weren't obvious that the reason the GOP looked so "ineffectual" in the past is that it was trying, against the will of its "base", to implement the program championed by Mark Steyn. When, led by Donald Trump, they abandoned that in favor of the views of Nancy Pelosi, they won a "victory". However, if the electorate never comes to its senses, and it's Trumpism "vs." Bernie-ism forever, Bernie-ism will win. Trump will ultimately be a Schwarzenegger figure. Just as Arnold was the last gasp of the CA GOP before its decline into total, abject, meaningless irrelevance, well, you fill in the blank.
If Paul Ryan had just stopped worrying and learned to love being "the brokest nation in history" (Mark Steyn) he could have been a "winner" too.
Remember "thanks to those cheap textile imports that John Edwards wants to ban.."? I do. Now it's Edwards-Trump-Steyn.
Remember Steyn saying "if you're not talking about cutting spending in half, you're not serious?" I do. Turns out Americans REALLY, REALLY want their welfare, and Trump indicating he would never do anything to trim Socialist Security was a major source of separation for him. Is he "serious"? Sorry, trick question.
Remember Steyn saying, on Iraq, "How I long for the bombs to start falling"? I do. Turns out, GOP "base" was looking for somebody to reject that and embrace the views of Nancy Pelosi on Iraq all along.
A less played-up but nonetheless clear source of strength is his embrace of the views of Bill Clinton on marriage and rejection of those previously held by Mark Steyn. That defangs libertine opposition, which is at least 10% of the electorate.
So yeah, those of us who decline to join the Trump cult get to strut less (for now...) . But we also don't have to gloss over at least half of what we've been saying for the last 20 years.
Roy warns us against our own group-think here. Often the complete story is more complex than our immediate perspective.
Gosh.
Really?
He is smarter than me. I'm just a stump-toothed rube. Biden called me the dregs of society. Hillary despises me as irredeemable. Etc.
This here retard will carry on being dumb as a box of rocks and Trump will win again in 2020.
It's just inside baseball, Perry. It's designed to make you feel that way. We don't exist except as plebes, not capable of making our own independent observations. I'm all in for Trump one week and still wondering about when the rest of the wall is going to be completed when Anyone will take leadership to stop the debt from skyrocketing into (hey, what comes after trillions?) But we can't attach to any thing, any one, but be ever watchful to preserve our countries against the barbarians outside and within the gates and exercise our awareness of even when the delicate grass tops are shifting in the fields beyond the parapets.
Well, Fran - we don't have the wall because we have judges unlawfully legislating and the Obama administration is still in power three years after "leaving". We still have mass-immigration because ditto. But we do have a magic wand waving President who loves America, we have 7 million new jobs, the Chinese and Mexicans are being brought to heel and Merry Christmas is celebrated in The White House. If Clinton had won, we would be at war with Russia and Iran by now in Syria, Libya and Venezuela, Israel would be abandoned, we would have terrible trade and climate treaties to transfer wealth to rich elites and foreigners, we would have UN-mandated control of firearms, the UK would be trapped in the EU, and we would still have the awful debt.
Yes, sir, it's a start anyway.
This guy is a cherry-picker, really, and evidently suffers from a narcissistic wound inflicted by Mark Steyn. Trump says a lot of things if taken literally can be interpreted as silly or stupid, if you like. But the GREAT quip by Selena Zito nailed it, "Trump's critics (haters) take him literally but not seriously, Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally" (something like that). Sure Trump's rhetoric around trade was often simple minded and actually backwards, but it was a tactic, not a strategy. If you think we get the short end of the deal on trade with China, reverse the roles. Imagine we sold them goods and got a piece of paper in return (Chinese govt. bonds), the value of which they control. That is, a trade "surplus" with China. Good luck with that. So his rhetoric around "losing money" trading with China was silly, but it was useful to get us down the road to getting things of actual value in negotiations. I'll take Trump any day.
One person's "witless ape" is another person's "feces throwing orangutan"--which has long been my affectionate (really!) Homeric epithet for Trump. With enemies like Adam Schiff, Don Lemon, Rashida Tlaib, and Stephen Colbert, among so many others, what do they deserve but a pitch of poo high and tight? The NR crowd tut-tuts about such behavior not being cricket, and they're right. Politics ain't beanbag, as Mr. Dooley used to say. I re-read the NR's Never Trump tantrum before posting (typically, they couldn't even get the brand right, calling it "Against Trump"). Much of the criticism is of the he-uses-the-wrong-fork variety--and of the hair.
I lived in New York in the 70s and 80s when Donald Trump was making his name--not only as developer and deal-maker, but as playboy, publicity hound, the most maniacal of ego maniacs. If you had told my New York Times-reading, NPR-listening, reliably liberal self then that one day Trump would run for president, I would have laughed in your face. "What's his campaign slogan going to be," I would have sneered. "Make America Great? Again?" If you had told me he would win, I would have gotten off at the next stop on the bus. Yet here we are: the Great Tawny Tyrant Tossing Turds at Tut-Tutting, Tongue-Tied, Rep-Tied, Bow-Tied Twerps. And I am loving every minute. He may use the wrong fork, but he knows how to clear his place at the table, Stanley Kowalski-style.
I am willing to bet that Donald Trump, who was born a multi-millionaire, has worn more bowties and used more forks per meal than literally anybody who wrote for that issue of NR.
Nothing cracks me up more than this line of "argument".
Rich Lowry was quite impressive, years ago.
No longer. His mind has metastasized into a mausoleum of intellectual decline; his turgid columns are unreadable.
Identically, and sadly, his physical appearence has deteriorated. My theory is that the man is simply not well. Something has happened.
If it weren't for Kyle Smith having joined the NR staff, who in their right minds would take the trouble to read anything else featured in the National Review?
I noticed that, too—Lowry's appearance. He is looking...pipsqueakish.
NR comprises country club Republican elitists that have lost every major cultural battle since the sixties. They would rather pontificate about the hypotheticals of conservative thought than actually being one. When Milo called feminism cancer he did more for conservative thought than NR had done in 20 years. The actual conservative thought leaders are tech savvy, young, and unapologetically brash. They have totally left the Kevin Williamsons and the Jonah Goldbergs of the world behind. You can muse in a detached way about the origin of our rights in an articulate well-structured essay but I want my conservative rhetoric to meet me at the level of our existential threats.
Donald Trump is a 1960's Democrat whose political doctrine is essentially "America good". It's an astoundingly low bar for a president but hey I didn't set it and it's apparently the only really necessary qualification to be a successful president. Donald Trump talked about winning and if you're one of these idiot middle class middle America types that had endured half a century of conservative capitulations his message was on point. I'm looking forward to 4 more years of Trump because I don't know about you but I'm not sick of winning.
As a Canadian I await the day I receive a mailing from the Conservative Party demanding a donation from rock ribbed conservatives such as myself to prevent the communists in the liberal party from taking away the sex change tax credit, the op-Ed from the post praising the bold courage taken to call out the establishments assault on the basic human freedom to tax subsidized genital mutilation, and the quick memory holing of the whole critique after CAIR calls out the islamaphobic dog whistling implicit in the whole white supremacist enterprise. I really do wonder what makes these fellows think they are so smart?
The one characteristic that the folks over at the National Review share with their liberal counterparts is a deep disdain for average citizens. People like Kevin Williamson are typical of this mindset. Williamson is completely blase' about pronouncing his opinion that places like Lubbock, Texas deserve to die because in his mind they are unproductive not valuable. It's ironic that Williamson writes for a publication that holds regular beg-a-thons, imploring high-minded readers to shell out donations to keep National Review in print. Were we to hold NR to the same standards Williamson and NR seek to apply to the inhabitants of places like Lubbock, Texas my guess is that Lubbock would far outlive NR.
Maybe it was just my imagination, but I think it was a relentless, insidious vilification of the Tea Party that hastened the developing split in the divided population's views of what direction the country was going to take even before DJT arrived on the escalator. Seems wearing a Tea Party shirt allowed one to be targeted by obscene lashings and was one early sign that you could no longer walk freely or safely around expressing one's political sentiments. That's another thing that pushed average folks to realize that enough was enough.
Great point, F.: the Tea Party and the reaction to it seem also to me to me to have been the crucial watershed, however fashionably forgotten they may be now. I hope there will be another Tea Party and that a consolidated political manifesto will result from it. The right of politics is in dire need of consolidation. I hope and pray that responsible fiscal management will figure explicitly, along with small government. I had cherished hopes that "draining the swamp" meant reducing the scale and scope of government, but evidently I was wrong. (Again. It seems to mean little beyond occasional ranting.)
By the way, the conservative/moderate wing of the Democrats needs something similar. The Marxists have all the lefty manifestos, straplines, plans and what-have-you at the moment, and the more reasonable Democrats are somewhat unco-ordinated by comparison. "Yes we can," is no more a policy statement than, "Make America great again."
Might well be just my festering imagination.
Very astute observation Fran. I think you are quite right.
It was that diseased husk of the GOP that killed it all. No consequence for Lois Lerner and the IRS, just a mealy mouthed apology years afterwards, like the mealy mouthed apology from police head having ignored the groomed victims of the Muslim grooming gangs for too long. Mealy-mush mouthed people telling us to mind pronouns learn all of our gender transitions correctly. Psychopaths telling us to ignore that the Holocaust ever occurred, and telling us so many layers of lies they believe them. Everyone smarter telling us we need open borders, and free college and unlimited sacrifices made on the abortion altar. All for what? An orderly society making every group rich? Rich off of who? You, me, other idiots who believe scary stories about the world ending because the affordable fuel provided from Mother Nature herself is somehow very evil. It's a great time to be alive though, but everyone's missing it because they're so zeroed in on winning back their power.
That list includes sins not obviously of the Republicans' making, if I may say so, F. Quite a list, though, and I'm certainly on-sides with the strength of your feelings..
You mention the people who benefit at my expense, so I'll take the opportunity to get specific about a category which belongs in your list: politicians who tolerate, or even promote, irresponsible fiscal management. For convenience, I'll call them FVCPs - fiscal vandals with careers in politics. I've retired on my savings, dolt that I am. A curse upon the FVCPs who keep national interest rates down to minimise (har-de-har) interest accrued on reserve bank debt instruments, and succeed primarily in minimising the returns which keep retired people like me in petty cash. A curse upon the FVCPs who debase the currency to diminish (har-de-har) the scale of the reserve bank's debt, and succeed primarily in reducing the value of the savings accrued by people like me. A curse upon the FVCP's who, in debasing the national currency, increase the cost of living relative to fixed income earned by retired people like me by driving up the price of imports (which where I live represents vastly the greatest proportion of what we consume, thanks to the trades unions destroying most of the nation's heavy industry).
A curse also upon imbecile journalists who ignore the important problems of fiscal management and pretend instead that the country is brim-full of racist lynch-mobs, homophobic murderers, destroyers of the ecology and burners of the planet, and businesses hell-bent on putting people out of work as they raise a hue and cry for further fiscal irresponsibility by government. And a final curse on the greenies, who where I live have contrived to exacerbate the problems caused by FVCPs for retired people like me by getting the cost of water and electricity pushed through the ceiling.
There's an interesting debate to be had as to who the leading FVPCs are, just now. Setting that aside, does any of that resonate with you? I'm just an excitable boy, I realise...
Seems there were a lot of excitable people after the lights went out last night, S.S. I was reading your comment and trying to match it to a Warren Zevon tune. So we're not all that content with the way things stand with our political leaders? We've dug such a big debt hole we've almost reached China. I thought Trump would help. Well, he certainly did turn out to be the least worst of the candidates. It looks like that's the best we can hope for anymore until we figure out how to make the media arm of the parties total irrelevant and educate the voters. The People seem to have been made the great irrelevant entity with most up on Capitol Hill. The first ones to go are the ones who take their oath on the Qu'ran.
The broken clock gets it right at least twice a day, Santa! I can hardly remember what I had for dinner last night, so it's quite impressive how much Mark can bring back to the present moment to redigest and process.
The Tea Party was a disorganized, polite rebellion against quite a few accepted progressive themes. Neither the Republicans nor the Conservative Inc. knew how to respond to a slightly incoherent group that was not talented at slogans or PR -- so some disparaged them at the margins, and others carefully tested friendship, from a distance. None learned the lesson: America has a significant group that doesn't accept the Liberal-Progressive-Elite party line, and will react if something becomes obviously absurd. (Nixon called this the Silent Majority.) So it indeed was the start of a pivot, but it would be a few more years until Trump recognized a big opportunity to talk directly to these people, going right around the mainstream entries. The leading Democrats, Establishment Republicans, and some NR writers are still grappling with the validity of middle-America's unsanctioned views and way of living where it departs from their theories. Like Mark says, they can't afford ideology & philosophy, and they see ascendant ideas that they know are wrong (sex change for minors, anyone?), and placed their votes on the best chance for change. I liked the Tea Party name,and their instincts; their lack of organization and leadership doomed them.
Exactly, Fran. I still see red over Lois Lerner. And that impudent Koskinen, who knew damn well he'd get away with it because Republicans are so ineffectual. Trey Gowdy et al talk a good game but in the end do nothing.
Well, you may have a point about organization, but I thought they pulled out of the woodwork (namely me,
who never joined anything except Girl Scouts for a year and a random needy choir) an awful lot of people who hated seeing their taxes go up and up and no real response or help from the Republican Party leadership, just lip service. I liked that they tried and took the arrows. They even had Hollywood types spew their black venom upon them. I was happy about certain Congresmen who would get elected like the economics professor, Brat, from Virginia, but it was disappointing when he came out in some one-time aired video I just happened to catch saying you really can't get any thing you want done in Congress, because it's all about doing what the veteran congresspeeps tell you to do. I can't see how an imbecile like AOC has made such a following except she had the fifth estate, the media, spotlighting her idiocy. Idiocy seems to be the "in" thing today. The more of a total lying buffoon you are today in politics, it seems the more you're elevated to a special status as a promising leader. Well, the entire Left wing of the Dem party is a bunch of specious puppets of some billionaires who exist pulling strings behind the curtain. "Follow the money" never seems to be a worn out cliche.
Well, you know, there's the rub!
Segnes,
I noted that even you think your name is unpronounceable so I will call you Dutchman. Unfortunately, that comes with a mental image of Sidney Greenstreet but that can't be helped. Har-de-har must be the translation of a guttural laugh.
I did a back of the envelope calculation a while back and in the United States the near zero interest rates result in taking away $300 to $500 Billion per year from people who have money in bank savings accounts. That money then goes to not us. You've got a pretty good list in your comment. FVCP must have some meaning like FUBAR that I can't quite get a hold on.
"[L]east worst of the candidates", F. Yup. How I long for a choice between good options.
You add, "The People seem to have been made the great irrelevant entity." I quite agree, but my reason for agreeing seems to differ from that of many people, so I'll lay it at your feet for comment. There were some candidates who impressed me (from my giddy remove, of course) as both decent and competent competing for the Republican presidential nomination last time 'round. Speculation is speculation, and any or none of those might have defeated Mrs Clinton. Personally, I think that she defeated herself in large measure, and so I hesitate to discount the chances of the unsuccessful candidates out of hand. Anyway, I don't fully understand the machinery by which the Republican caucus in each state decides which candidate's nomination to support, and how the overall decision is arrived at, but I have wit enough (albeit barely) to realise that the decision is not taken in any instance by "the People" but somehow from within a particular configuration of the party apparatus. That embarrassing little fact (if it is a fact - I'm open to correction) somewhat undermines the case of those who would present Mr Trump as a personified rebellion against the party apparatus. The People were able to choose between the options which the parties gave them: truly a "least worst" choice for many, I'd speculate.
Well, maybe Mr Trump would have been the People's choice. That's open to speculation, and indeed invites it. It is equally speculative to suggest that he is as liable to defeat himself as Mrs Clinton was. And I speculate about Mrs Clinton's part in her own downfall. (And she speculates about the role of sexist men and Macedonian content farms, as the boss-man points out: lot of speculation going around!)
What is not speculation (I speculate) is that the Democrats are working hard to ensure that the forthcoming election will afford to the People a true "least worst" choice. I think that I should take comfort in that, but, again, I'd vastly have preferred that the choice be between good options. That way, one could at least stomach defeat. I can't help speculating that stomaching defeat with rather better grace than Mrs Clinton has exhibited is important to the functioning of a democracy.
I quoted Warren Zevon by way of reflecting my frame of mind about a particular caste of politician, not anything which I had done or was bent on doing. Seemed in keeping with the passion which I thought I could detect in your post, too. Sorry: my attempts to be funny can be a little clumsy.
Okay, a lot clumsy.
Thanks, W. I've been obscure again, I can tell. FVCP = fiscal vandals with careers in politics. FUBAR applies. I used har-de-har to express my contempt for an implicit proposition. Please don't call me Dutchman. "Hey, you!" will do, and releases me from the obligation to like sweet cheese and salted mackerel.
"I think that she defeated herself in large measure," That is partly true, I agree, but DJT & team ran a very energetic, positive campaign. A lot of people saw him as their fighter in the ring, and they still do.
" the machinery by which the Republican caucus in each state decides which candidate's nomination to support, and how the overall decision is arrived at," You would have to ask this. I was just talking about this a few weeks ago how the electors were chosen and it seems to me there may be different ways in different states and in my state I think the state senators vote. How they choose the electors is another topic.
"That embarrassing little fact.... somewhat undermines the case of those who would present Mr Trump as a personified rebellion against the party apparatus." Yes, I agree with that observation, but perhaps the party apparatus can be divided between people that constitute the party in the very liberal metropolitan centers of power and the processes in place that occur at the state level which follow voting procedures closer to the people than in the big halls of power back East. Maybe it's a good enough caliber question to ask Mark at some Q & A. It's more than I ever would've come up with. But in A weak guess to that question I think they just hate the guy and when one knows one's hated, who wouldn't rebel?
I should've said, I was just talking how the elector system worked to cast the votes in the electoral college. It probably varies state to state but in our state of NM, I believe the state senators vote for the President and VP. I think there's a large percentage of the states that choose their electors by conventions, some by state committees and others by appointed officials.
Thanks, F.: can't argue with any of that.
Wrong again, S.S. Not sure where I got that but about the state senators. That would make the electors irrelevant. In most states the electors vote based on the popular vote in that state. Well, now you know to what degree I'm an informed voter. Better get onto the search engine in the morning.
Okay, S.S., you've given me my little research project for the day. I found out for my state (and I'll assume that it's across the board for all the states), that the number of electors from each state depends on the number of congressional districts as well as the two US Senators. The site I found which explained it, however, still didn't explain how their ballots get cast nor did it explain entirely the mechanism by which some electors can break ranks with their party and vote another way. I decided to call my US Senator's office to put the question to them and the pleasant woman there said she thought she knew how it worked but when asked to explain it, she could not, so I'm not feeling like such an unique ill-informed voter after all. I guess a lot of people assume they know how these things work but until you can explain it to another person, you realize you don't entirely get the process. More on this as I get the final details. Thanks for bearing with me.
Oh, thank *Y*O*U*, F., as ever. Well, you see why I was tentative about exactly how the apparatus works to finalise the nomination, but relatively sure that it's the working of the apparatus which does it. I'm much reminded of the Professor Brainstawm illustrations which so amused me in my primary school years.
If memory doesn't fail me. That was long ago.
S.S., while all of the details are online and explained in Article II,
section 1 of the US Constitution (the answers are usually right at the end of our noses, in my case, in my pocket US Constitution tucked in a kitchen drawer) the explanation is a little different for Maine and Nebraska.
First, the reason why the Electoral college is important is so that a few large urban centers do not control who becomes president. Someone has probably already figured out state by state the ratio of voters to Electors so you can probably find that somewhere online, too. Dana Perino is solidly behind the Electoral College and I just remembered she had a good argument for why it must stay when she was on Tucker earlier this month or last month.
In all states but two, Nebraska and Maine, winner of the popular votes takes all the electoral votes. But NE & ME the popular vote automatically gets two and the districts treated individually. Take NE (with 5) two of the electoral votes (corresponding to number of Senators) go to the candidate who won the popular vote in the entire state but three electoral votes (corresponding to the number of congressional districts in that state) go to whichever candidate had the most popular votes in each one. If say, Biden won most of the total in that state then he would get two automatically. But if in the rural area Trump may have picked up most votes in two of the three congressional districts he would get those. So there would be 3 to Biden and 2 to Trump.
Say Biden won the popular vote in NM he would take all. If one elector is having doubts but is supposed to vote with the electors in his party and decides at the last minute that Biden is a crook, then he is a rogue elector, if he votes for Trump.
Mark here explains why I went from stopping supporting National Review, to dropping my subscription, to boycotting anything by Jonah Goldberg, to blocking anything with their masthead that I run across on the web.
They should have listened to Mark; they would be rich and famous instead of beggars today.
I also pared down my hero list. I am so glad President Trump surpassed my wildest dreams as a conservative rock star. This, the Never-Trumpsters won't admit. So Sad!
Every once and awhile I'll meander over to their website and read the comment section of an article. It's a bunch of boorish arrogant never-Trumper keyboard warriors defending their line in the sand while the front has moved far beyond them. It's a level of narcissism and total lack of reality that one can only provide if they've been infected with the Never Trumpona virus.
It takes a rare degree of pig-headedness for a publication to become so wedded to a particular editorial line that it is incapable of modifying it, when circumstances prove it wrong. I had the same feeling just before the UK election last month, when I read that the "Economist," which at the best of times is about as accurate and readable as a book of British train timetables, had endorsed the Liberal Democrats. The reason: the LDs, it believed, were the only party which could stop Brexit.
Like the "National Review," therefore, the "Economist" is still fighting a battle which was lost in 2016. Presumably, NR has a maximum of five years left to bleat about Donald Trump, but I doubt it will have any readers left by then. The "Economist" will be reduced to repeating, "Brexit: We Told You So," for about forty pages in every issue, until the final asteroid strike ("Brexit Causes World to End"). They have both written themselves into irrelevance and I can't see how either can change course now.
I got heavily involved in local politics about 40 years ago. The mantra of almost all Republican candidates then was "electability". I hated the term. It just meant that you were a spineless weenie who never actually engaged in leadership and was careful at all times to not cause the theoretical moderates and independents to wet themselves by taking any principled stands on anything. You could make sweetheart deals for yourself if you liked, but never should you engage in principled leadership. This was pure consultancy Republicanism. Barry Goldwater was a complete wacko to them, not the father of Reaganite conservatism. They were utterly useless political hacks. I hope we never see the likes of them again. No more Mitt Romneys or Lisa Murkowskis. The Never Trumper brand was always worthless. Now everyone knows it.
Mitt Romney (aka Pierre Delecto) and Lisa Murkowski are both children of (adjective redacted) politicians. I wonder if there are any lessons to be learned?
Lineage notwithstanding, W., they've been a feeble bunch on the whole. One wouldn't want to be facile about the reasons for that, but I'd certainly agree with T. that the absence of an explicit set of core principles and policies, or even objectives, probably play a part.
Keep the redacted adjectives coming!
Since at least 2012, I have unfortunately been afflicted with thinking clearly about the nation's trajectory, which in turn means Mark makes perfect sense to me. But what I cannot understand is how these "establishment" Republicans cannot see the end result of their approach to politics and governing, or why they won't even make an effort to truly understand Trump's voters, much less concede they may even have a point.
Which brings me to my question. Is there anyone - anyone at all - who is still within the Establishment Green Zone who has offered a cogent rebuttal to Mark's points here? Has anyone taken the time to climb down from that National Review ivory tower and respond respectfully to these points?
This is how the nation becomes ungovernable. The Republican party's base cannot communicate with, much less trust, the Republican party leadership. And if we are being honest, this same dynamic is afflicting the Democrat party with it's increasingly socialist base. Under these circumstances, how in hell could it ever be possible for the two sides of the governing machinery ever communicate with each other well enough to even attempt actually governance of the country?
... Nail on the head ...
I wonder if it doesn't make the best sense to consider Trump in his pre-politician era and candidate-presidency era as virtually two different persons.
Business people do all sorts of things differently from those in politics/public service. For example, why would a mega-corporation donate big bucks to a lib dem's campaign? Goodness knows it's not because the lib dem is by default friendly to big business. More likely it could be best understood as a bribe or protection money.
When Trump was a real estate mogul he was interested in building buildings, and in New York especially that meant currying favor with all sorts of unsavory politicians and bureaucrats. Heck, it might even make you socialize with and smile at some Democrats. Now that he's got bucks and THE Bully Pulpit, he doesn't have to be too concerned about getting a zoning permit past the Deputy Assistant Under Secretary of Sidewalks.
Changes in status and position and goals change your priorities and policies. And anyone who prospered as a real estate mogul in New York must certainly be one of the most talented and skillful operators there is. I'm just thankful he's on our team now.
What is conservative about Conservative, Inc? My bedrock is fiscal conservatism. If you balance the budget then all sorts of nonsense falls away from government. My desire for spending cuts puts me on the extreme fringe of modern conservatism. Even Saint Ronnie failed on the budget and immigration. Reagan didn't strangle the Dept. of Education in its cradle. In 1975 we had a balance of trade surplus. Dutch didn't do anything and let the Dragon begin to ascend. My biggest problem is the snake oil of tax cuts. The cuts bring in some latent taxes coming out of shelters but if you look under the hood, the special interests have made out very well. Without spending discipline the tax cuts just raise the debt. Does the "broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP" address any of these things?
Trump's greatest accomplishments have been raising important issues that were not even allowed to be discussed. So far discussing forbidden topics hasn't meant solving any problems, just exposing the Deep State.
" If you balance the budget then all sorts of nonsense falls away from government."
Walt,
From my experience with their Canadian conservative counterparts in the Harper years, a fiscally conservative government does little more than set the stage for the next phase of leftist big government spending. That's why my bedrock is social and cultural conservatism. Fiscal conservatives are like the cleaning staff in a brothel: elect a fiscally conservative government, and the best you can expect is a short interlude while the last leftist mess is cleaned up in preparation for the next.
Part of me thinks that the only effective route to small government is for government to go bankrupt and stay that way..
If you cut $1.5 Billion of spending per year or raise taxes by $1.5 Billion per year, or any combination, something's got to give.
I admit that Canada, without a world reserve currency, may be different. Let's try both and have a horse race!
I meant Trillion. As Senator Everett Dirksen once said, "A Billion here, a Billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money." A Trillion is the new Billion.
I'm so with you, W. I anticipate that this conversation opened up by the boss-man is going to lead to a separation of views between those who think that Mr Trump really is a "real" conservative, as the Democrats do, and those who do not. (Whatever "conservatism" means, to be sure.) Perhaps it is time for that closet to get a really intelligent airing, and I intend to follow this discussion with interest.
In support of your point, I re-iterate my own view that there are really only two headings under which the success of a government need be evaluated: responsible fiscal management and responsible management of national security. Those are the main headings under which the governments of failed states' failures are usefully gauged and obviously I agree that they are the main headings under which the contribution of successful states' governments should be gauged. Absolute consensus on either wing of politics may be difficult to obtain, but each side of the spectrum tends to me marked by broad consensus as to the desirable shape of responsible fiscal management and the desirable shape of national security, and by opposition to the broad consensus on the other wing in the same matters.
And then one comes across governments characterised by their willingness to neglect responsible fiscal management and national security in the pursuit of electoral votes. I have heard of such governments being described as "whores of democracy" (that's a clumsy but literally accurate translation), but I prefer to use the epithet "populist". Such governments invariably compromise the wing of politics which supported their election, without betraying it to the extent of actually enacting the views of the opposite wing of politics as to responsible fiscal management and effective national security. Perhaps there are electoral benefits in being neither fish nor fowl, since so much more is open to criticism, and there are votes to be gathered in the "soggy middle", since the purists on either wing are generally supposed to have nowhere else to go, but typically the national interest is not served in relation to either responsible fiscal management or effective national security by such populist governments.
The more thoughtful supporters of the populist position generally argue, firstly, that the unpopularity of responsible fiscal management and effective security management will drive voters to the other end of the political spectrum. It's not an argument to be simply discounted. An easier argument to discount is that leaving the state in a healthy condition will give the opposite wing of politics more to ruin when next it comes to power. There is truth in that, of course, but, again, we'll all have to decide for ourselves whether we'd prefer to get the ruining done now by the people we'd entrusted with our votes or, if we're defeated at the ballot-box, in the future by people we'd opposed. (One might call it the "Why do AOC's mischief for her?" defence.)
To your point, I'm never certain entirely whether one shouldn't be pleased (and relieved) when populists generate more hot wind than meaningful action, but I can say with absolute certainty that I cannot bring myself to trust them - even when they are not possessed of a squalid little compulsion to embellish points of detail.
That is not to say that I put my faith unaccountable civil service mandarins instead, of course, but I didn't need a populist to warn me against those, or strange men distributing sweets to children at the entrances to dark alleys.
Hilarious, A.: best we laugh, otherwise we'd weep.
The situation of your tongue in your cheek notwithstanding, and to get all earnest and literal for a moment, I'm sure we're all agree that responsible fiscal management would be a good thing, if only we could get it. Many good folk don't accept that impoverishment is not merely a by-product of socialism: it is an essential strategy, because it is the means of assuring dependence on the state. I diffidently disagree with those folk, and your example fortifies my disagreement, not that I think that cleaning (up) brothels is any fun.
On the other hand, your post was a tonic!
Excellent comment.
I believe you are right. The election cycle in most Western nations now is basically The Normals i.e conservatives govern and do adult things. Then voters get tired, like bratty teenagers on a curfew of having to behave, or think it's glamourous to do crazy stuff. So they elect whack job lefties who make a mess of the place, poop on the carpet, go wild, blow all the money and this lasts a few years until same electorate realizes they need the adults back in charge again. Rinse and repeat.
"and to get all earnest and literal for a moment, I'm sure we're all agree that responsible fiscal management would be a good thing, if only we could get it."
Segnes,
To be earnest and literal, I totally agree that responsible fiscal management is a good thing. My issue is the lopsided advocacy for it. What hidden defects cause us to need so much of this good thing? I am reminded of a story from one of my property manager acquaintances. He could not figure out why one of his tenants had such high utility bills month after month after month without exception. After interviewing neighbours, he finally discovered that his tenant was running her laundry machines 24X7. Investigating further, he discovered the reason for that was that his property was being used as a brothel. He could have been "fiscally responsible but socially liberal' and enforced a rigorous fiscal management regime on her, but he didn't. Acting on his social-conservative instincts, he evicted her and then rented the property out to a young family instead (Note: this is a simplification: his story is much longer). Not only did changing tenants according to social-conservative principles improve his owner-tenant relationship, the neighbours were happier, and his cost-revenue picture put him back in the black.
My point is that there is something schizophrenic about a political position that overstates fiscal conservatism and understates social/cultural conservatism. It is like forcing a brothel to reduce its laundry expenses down to that of a convent. The problem with big government isn't just that it is big, but the reasons it needs to be so big.
Point well made and well taken, A.
Hilarious, L. Thanks!
I've often wondered what would happen if we enacted massive tax increases to cover the current level of spending. Because the ensuing riots would finally force the population to prioritize. I suspect we'd still end up with way more government than what is preferred on these pages, but a lot of the nonsense would definitely come to an abrupt end.
War gaming this out would be a lot of fun. First, the likelihood of balancing the budget is zero, right up the point when the dollar breaks. Then, of course, the budget cuts would be designed for maximum pain. Imagine Gray Panthers out in the streets in their wheelchairs, shaking their canes at everyone. They would have to bring their grandkids along to carry the flat screen TV's they loot.
I subscribe to the Willy Sutton School of Economics. You can't tax the middle class enough to get any real money, you have to go to where the money is: banks, the financial sector and the very rich. Imagine how many born-again fiscally conservative billionaires there would be supporting candidates that promise spending cuts over tax increases.
As to your idea about more government, I think you are at least temporarily right. We already have a security apparatus, big data and surveillance that are beyond the dreams of George Orwell. Would the cataclysm be slow or fast, violent of numbing? You've got to admit it would be interesting and the 24 hour news cycle would love it!
On the National Review betrayal and debacle, Mark Steyn at his best.
Bravo, Mark, another excellent piece - especially with the prescient earlier pieces excerpted!
"From that first headline "Witless Ape Rides Escalator", much of the conservative establishment revealed its fundamental unseriousness."
Exactly. How can any of these self-anointed leaders of the conservative (non) movement expect anyone to take them seriously? They claim to stand on principle, yet work against the implementation of their own principles, seemingly because: 1) they aren't being given "proper" credit and deference, and 2) (and more importantly), they fear being associated with Trump and his supporters, in the minds and eyes of their leftist counterparts in politics, the media and academe.
The Never Trumpers are indeed fundamentally unserious. They hate Trump and his supporters more than they love their own vaunted principles.
If NR's position is that wavering from conservative principles is the greatest sin a republican can commit, I wonder what NR thinks about Winston Churchill's making an alliance with the Soviet Union. I'm with Churchill, I opt for victory over defeat.
They Don't Come Any Better. Thanks Mark for this article.
I'm a Boomer who grew up in a neighborhood that I've told my children and grandchildren was like "Westside Story" without the music and dancing.
I boxed and learned karate out of necessity, ran track, played football and baseball for the fun it.
You threw a "perfect game" with this article, 27 up 27 down, I was becoming a little disappointed in being a "plank owner in the MC CLUB". Blue Sky's again.
Oh, how I enjoy those memories of just 4 years ago. I, too, was a bit taken back by the NR "Against Trump" issue, as it violates two of my preferred discussion postures: 1) to declare to be a "against" something or someone leaps out of the discussion of pros and cons, and right to a conclusion (on the cover!), and 2) who else do you have (alternatives)?? A good campaign, either for an idea or a person, declares what we are FOR, which is required; so easy to be against.
There was, and still is, something subjective and aesthetic about Trump that gets under the skin of quite a few Pundits, and I can't figure it out. The "Witless Ape" was written by Williamson, who is withering when he doesn't like someone, but goes blind when in that mood, losing his normally excellent talents of observation. But also Kristol, Will, Noonan, Beck, O'Rourke, French, Goldberg, Charen, Nordlinger, even sometimes Krauthammer? So many articles on narcissism and (bad) character just raise my suspicion that they themselves can't put their finger on their objection. I suspect is has to with with Trump's bombastic, loudmouth style -- never allowed in PunditLand, but much more common in the Working World -- and much less of a concern. The Working World just might accept a loudmouth, if they can get things done, like the opinionated guy at the end of the bar -- we may not agree, we don't openly disagree, but we just may trust him to do the right thing if we know him, and we don't mind the entertainment.
Somehow Mark wasn't susceptible to the same Pundit-allergy; I don't know why. He is certainly more skeptical of Conservative Inc, which may have inoculated him. One of our challenges in today's Media world is that isolation, that group-think, and Conservative Inc., along with the National Republican Party demonstrated that it is certainly not just those Lefties that have the problem.
So as we search for Truth, I grow a bit insecure when previously good references demonstrate some nascent obsession or fixation -- it makes me wonder first about what I believed, and second about my own ability to resist the same. But the Trump phenomenon alerted me to a difference in PunditLand that I had never noticed, and it wasn't just the Lefties.
Amen! With articles like this, you're moving to the top of my triumvirate of media heroes: Andrew McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Steyn.
The utter uselessness of the Republican Party over the last 100 years is shown by the fact that its current past idol rose to the presidency by rejecting and defeating the then-establishment Republicans, who had been graciously losing with establishment candidates for the previous 50 years. After President Reagan left the scene, Republicans abandoned everything he stood for, accomplished nothing that he promised, and let the Left set the terms of every debate. Reagan was rebellion against the 50s, 60s & 70s political establishments. Trump is a rebellion against the 90s, 00s & 10s political establishments. Will anyone be able to follow up in 2024?
David,
I wonder who will follow Trump in 2024. I do not see any senators or governors following his lead. I am worried that Trump will be a one off.
I am sure in 2024 the GOP will nominate another gracious loser. I mean that would the right thing to do after 8 years of orange man bad. We need to get back to the Democrats driving us off the cliff and the Republicans getting out of the way and apologizing for Trump. NR and the rest will be so happy and relieved.
I think Mark commented before about Rich Lowry and gang were ok about taking down some statues during the Civil War controversy. Rich and the gang were going to fight for George Washington and the rest. Of course I haven't seen them do that yet either.
I was a longtime subscriber to NR and when Mark left them, I cancelled my subscription. I am much happier putting my money towards the Mark Steyn Club. Hopefully, Mark will visit Atlanta sometime and I can convince my wife to go on a Mark Steyn Cruise.
My current GOP favorite is Rep. Jim Jordan from Ohio. The guy is tough, smart and articulate. Can you image a tag team wrestling match of Adam Schiff and Jerold Nadler vs. Jim Jordan by himself? Oh, the humanity!
I like him, too, Walt. He's one of my favorite Bulldog Congressmen.
Donald Trump attended the March for Life. The closest the National Review-type Republicans come to showing similar support is that they continue to discharge their duties from the fetal position.
A column highlighting the sniveling nature of non-Trump GOP leaders is very timely. Today's Bolton "Bombshell" is just a repeat of the Christine Blasey-Ford nonsense whereby a Senate function which has already been hijacked by Democrat tantrums for too long is once more prolonged by an obviously-choreographed sham "bombshell" deployed at the last minute to put microphones and cameras on Rs and get a few to wobble. Count on Collins and whoever is the Jeff Flake of the moment to succumb.
Is there a more contemptible person in the world than Mitt Romney?
The only thing I don't understand is (ok, there are probably a lot of things I don't understand), what is Conservative, INCs final end goal? I don't see them selling out the country just to go to some fancy cocktail parties. I think INC just wants to keep it's unearned power.
The elites definitely think they are destined to rule us and that we all just need to get in line and follow their orders. I was never a Newt fan because he is a technocrat conservative. Newt, Paul Ryan, and other "conservatives" believe they can run a more efficient government. This efficient government would still have too much control over our lives.
I listen to Andrew Klavan's podcasts, the only one I like at the Daily Wire, and I agree with his view that we should be only working for liberty and not increasing government.
And now time for my conspiracy view - The Coronavirus disease is probably a Chinese bio weapon. It was launched to cause a world wide recession to influence the 2020 election. The only thing that can derail Trump is a war (the elites tried to start a war with Iran; which fortunately didn't work), a recession or other serve economic downturn, which the media was pushing for in 2019.
The Chicoms are more than willing to sacrifice millions of their own people so as long as they can keep growing their empire. Trump and his tariffs and China policy were a hindrance to that growth. If a Democrat wins in 2020, I wouldn't be surprised to see China invade Taiwan in 2021 and the Dem President will let it happen.
I will understand if this post is edited.
Like a cuckolded husband or a battered wife who keeps going back, the establishment GOP want to be loved and respected.
They must have had difficult childhoods. I suspect that the GOP attracts people with Mummy issues and the left attracts people with Daddy issues. Then you have the Romneys and Collins and McCains, who have/had Mummy and Daddy issues. Other than that, the GOP loves coming second, because they know how to lose with dignity and self-respect, whilst still being able to fundraise.
On the virus, my thought was more about Hong Kong. Tamp out the protests and have an excuse to impose martial law. There has been a lot of misinformation, disinformation and misdirection on this. I don't think the Chinese give a monkey's about the global economy other than as a way to keep the Chinese fed and clothed and docile. But I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy with the virus escaping unintentionally, and the Chinese will "never let a good crisis go to waste".
Of course, the locals in all those African outposts of China will start to be concerned at having many potentially-infected Chinese in their midst.
Ok maybe not a bio weapon, but this virus will be a media weapon as they try to drive the economy down. Once, a weapon to be used against Trump and just in time since impeachment is failing.
Bill Buckley's legacy is dead and gone, so he or any of his beliefs are not relevant here, NR is now nothing but a slightly elevated Huffpost.
As far as Trump and Reagan, I never understood why they were supposed to be exclusive of each other, I like them both. To me Reagan is what Trump would be if he were a statesman. Unfortunately today we will get nowhere with a statesman who plays by the elites rules. As Mark pointed out, as much as I admired Reagan, he couldn't prevail in today's swamp.
Ronald Reagan was a real leader, and Donald Trump is a real leader. I agree that Reagan would not have been as effective today. Trump gives as good and better than he gets in the swamp, and in the internet culture.
I wonder when he does something like use the word "lynch," just how much does he know what he's doing? The left shows outrage, then immediately they are called out for using the same term 20 years ago in the same context. Does Donald chuckle to himself when he's saying these things?
A couple of similarities between Trump and Reagan. Both were previously Democrat supporters, and they are the only two presidents to have been divorced.
And another thing. Reagan wrote "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation," during his term (1983), and now Trump has attended the March for Life. I don't remember any other president supporting this issue as up front as they have.
Good points all. I think Trump does from time to time shoot from the lip and regrets it, but in the majority of cases I think he knows exactly what he's doing. He's the first president who is, to a large degree, a product of the media, he knows the way they think and enjoys exploiting their weaknesses. He loves doing the things the elite tell us we can't do while governing as the most conservative president since Reagan.
"The movement conservatives at National Review make a pretty nice living out of 'ideas, ideology, philosophy, policy, and so forth'. The voters can't afford that luxury: They live in a world where, in large part due to the incompetence of the national Republican Party post-Reagan, Democrat ideas are in the ascendant. And they feel that this is maybe the last chance to change that."
Nailed it.
"Hoogivesastan": excellent. I've commented on the GOPe/ Conservatism Inc.'s witlessness before. After years of seemingly not grasping the obvious (the left hates you and always will) one must conclude these folks are simply on the other side. It's just a matter of degree. Pierre Delecto anyone? As far as what to do about it, my fear is that ship has sailed.
Indeed, "Hoogivesastan" was one more coffee-spiller. Right up there with "giver of the Decent, Dignified, Universally Admired Concession Speech", and "Allahu gay-bar". I am hoping Mark publishes a Devil's Editorial Dictionary sometime.
Trump is on office, but Obama is still in power.
John Kerry still runs around as Secretary of State.
Hillary is acting as President Emeritus. Does she still get security briefings?
We voted. We won. The Dems still run things.
So if we are denied again in November, we will only have one choice.
And remember that last time Tucker mentioned John Brennan, he said Brennan still had security clearance.
I was an NR subscriber for years. I was no Trump fan when he started, but it was pretty clear he was winning and would probably be the nominee. So what was the point in trashing him? I was tired of all the elite high-minded losers, and I'm glad we have a winner now. My subscription ended after that, it was clear they were out of touch with real people in the real world and what we needed and wanted. Thanks Mark, for some great laughs. I really enjoyed this article.
There is a wide streak of embittered condescension that runs through Kevin D. Williamson's writing. He borrows the techniques of Tom Wolfe, Hunter Thompson, P. J. O'Rourke, et al, but lacks their perception & understanding.
NRO went "down the escalator" and Mark Steyn keeps going up, and from strength to strength.
Put that in your Trump Derangement Snob Pipe and smoke it, NRO.
And they should inhale deeply, too! Maybe when they come to, they'll see the light.
Love you, dearly, Mark, but, at risk of being snarked, I must wonder what's the use of all this " told ya so" vs NR & Blaze/CRTV. OK, you were right, we were wrong. Got it. Many or most Conservatives have been pleased with Trump. Can his successors pull it off in like fashion?
Terry Quinn: I find Mark to be mostly restrained re: NR. I still follow NR, and can tell you that it sure as hell has NOT said "you were right we were wrong". I'd call that a good start back. I'm holding my breath, though. At some point, NR must realize that it has no constituency and it's gonna need one.
CRTV deserves all he gives, and Blaze seems to be helping hide assets, so, I won't tire hearing poxi on that house. Anyway, if "quoting an old column that proves prescient" is wrong, my guess is that Mr. Steyn doesn't want to be right.
In fairness to Glenn Beck, he and his cohosts were very much against Trump during the primary. Glenn spent a lot of his time and money trying to help the Ted Cruz campaign. Trump spooked me, and I was also a supporter of Ted Cruz. Both Glenn, his guys, and I have admitted we were wrong. I now know that Cruz would have lost to Hillary. Trump is the only candidate that could have beat Hillary, and he did.
Anyway, Glenn de-hoisted.
As for National Review - words fail me.
I supported Cruz. I think he could have beaten Hillary, but since he didn't get the nomination, I guess it doesn't matter. First things, first. What I did notice, and didn't understand, was the enthusiasm of people for Trump. I understand it now.
Mark replies:
Cruz would not have beaten Hillary, Brawndo.
I have to agree with Mark on this one. I too supported Cruz (we Canucks have to stick together), but although he would likely have made a race of it, he was just too conventional to do what was necessary to beat Hillary. I know that the GOPe would never have welcomed him into the club, but Ted wasn't going to go full Orange, and that is what was needed.
Fortunately, Ted seems to have learned a bit since 2016. I can't say the same for his VP choice. Carly made many of the right noises and struck a few good chords during the primaries, but since the election, she has turned into a dyed in the wool Never Trumper. Sad.
I agree completely. Hillary's election machine was perfectly designed to grind up and spit out any conventional Republican candidate who went against her. She would play the woman card, she would pose as the paragon of offended dignity while the press would lead a frenzied charge against the insensitive misogynist who would dare to oppose her. And the Republicans would insist upon a hands-off, "chivalrous" approach to the old crone, refusing to embarrass her over her husband's sexual crimes and her own greed for money, because "That's not who we are." The result would be her complete victory. Only Trump was original enough to toss over the table, kick away her chair and yank the carpet up, not once, but over and over. Hillary isn't an original or a quick thinker, and her ossified campaign couldn't react to this unpredictable, unthinkable coloring outside the lines.
For the overall uselessness of Cruz, check out Mark's appearance before the Senate Committee from a few years ago
https://www.steynonline.com/7351/markey-mark
There were supposed to be a majority of Republicans on that committee. As chairthingy, Cruz should have made sure they all turned out.
Mark, you performed heroically that day, and the lovely Judith as well, but you were badly let down.
If Cruz can't even line up his own committee for an open penalty shot, well .....
Excellent point, Robert. Cruz, as much as I like him, proved the old adage 'you can't send a boy to do a man's job.' Beating back Hillary and the corrupt ruling establishment deep state class requires the rarest of all men, a super man. None existed in the GOP so God raised one, and as God always does, he raises the one who at first seems to be the least likely.
Alas, my favorite NR writer no longer writes there, so I don't visit as often as I once did. But I did get to like the style of Jonah Goldberg, Kevin D. Williamson, and, of course, Victor Davis Hanson (Andrew McCarthy has been too respectful of a corrupt justice system). I don't recall if Hanson was part of the Never Trump issue, but he's sure recanted if he was. He's had Trump covered from the intellectual Right for some time now. As for the others, Justice Kavanaugh, Federalist Society judges, AG Barr, VP Pence, and the most anti-abortion, pro-Israel president ever aren't enough? Come on, at least they're a start. What happened to WFB's "most right, viable candidate who could win"? Where's Margaret Thatcher and her handbag now that we really need her?
I still maintain that the old terms "conservative" and "liberal" are now virtually meaningless. I support Trump but I consider that far from a conservative position. Here in 2020 it is the bold, rebellious position.
Giving an Adam Schiffish parody treatment to presidential campaigns for as long as I can remember, each party's pitch has more or less been "Look, folks, we're not saying we're all that great or anything, but those other guys are totally unacceptable." And, both parties have made pretty convincing cases for the other party really stinking up the joint. Except for the reelection of Reagan in 1984, I can't think of another time when the choice for president didn't come down to a lesser of evils proposition. I'm not entirely convinced that Trump is the G.O.A.T., but in comparison to the truly pathetic leadership of the preceding 3 1/2 decades, he's looking flat-out awesome.
I've always been conservative—that is, aligned with the limited government ideal described in the Declaration of Independence and which the Constitution attempted to actually construct. I was a long time subscriber to NR. At first because of Joe Sobran, a masterful writer whose 1983 article Pensees is still largely accurate. Joe left the magazine after an interesting debate with W. F. Buckley (feature articles in NR) turned into charges of anti-Semitism—with NR caving to the forces that put such discussion beyond the pale. After Sobran left the magazine I had to wait for another masterful writer, Mark Steyn, to make it interesting again. Of course, Mark left NR after management backed some nobody editor over its best writer; all because the editor elected to air his pissant complaint in the public pages of NRO. [I subscribed to Sobran's web site until his death, and I am a proud Founding Member at SteynOnline. Thank God for the internet.] The "Never Trump" issue of NR was a colossal mistake on par with firing talented writers. NR could have elected to describe how conservatives might work with President Trump to tamp down whatever Liberal policies they feared. Instead, they became implacable Trump opponents and cost themselves many subscribers including me. Even worse, NR has never altered this stance even given the mountain of evidence of President Trump's largely conservative policies. Conservatism, Inc. (TM) represented by NR and the defunct Weekly Standard think leftists can be talked to death. Times have changed, as Mark describes. Our garbage elite doesn't care what is destroyed as long as it rules over the rubble. Liberty loving Americans recognize that NR's jaw jaw "opposition" to leftism is the road to serfdom. President Trump and others like him offer a more robust path back to America's first principles
I voted for Trump hoping we would get a formidable business negotiator for international realignment more favorable to US (and us) and more conservative judges. I voted against Hillary as a blow against a proven corrupt individual who would be easily manipulated by our foes and by internal woke advisors. Trump's performance has richly rewarded me on both expectations. I'll accept the cringe worthy tweets and tantrums, gladly, to get what we got. NR obstinacy be damned.
It has become increasingly difficult for me to return to NR periodically to see if they have learned from their folly. Now I turn to them about as frequently as I do to NPR and CNN and, usually, for the same purpose, which is "oppo research". I cannot express the depth of my sense of loss I have on todays' Saturday mornings. I used to take a few minutes to kick off my Saturday with deep thoughts by one Mark Steyn in NR, followed by others not quite so fun to read, but who provoked thoughtful analysis of the week's national happenings. Ah well, there are those newfangled things called podcasts and those lovely re-broadcasts. Thinking out loud, maybe I'm better off now than then?
"En passant, is "funky" really the correct adjective for "outer-borough accents"? Or does exquisite condescension require a little more precision?" is just too perfectly stated (and way too funny!); I am now strengthened and ready to go back to work to slay today's (scientific) dragons. Thank you, Mark!
Witless ape? Has NR ever watched any of Trump's rallies? Does he really come across as a witless ape? Could Barack Obama have pulled off a rally like Trump does? Can you imagine him trying? As far as wit goes, the last President who could have gone toe to toe with Trump would have been Reagan. There are really more similarities between Trump and Reagan. They both were/are despised by their own party apparatus. And both had the ability to get things through Congress in spite of the House of Representatives being controlled by the opposition party. And, no, I would agree that Trump isn't a true conservative but he seems to have his finger on the pulse of what matters to most people and he advocates for that. So far during the Presidential campaign among the Democrats none of the candidates have even brought up issues that matter to the average voter who works every day and pays taxes. When one feels like their country is slipping away they don't want to hear about transgender bathrooms and Greata the climate gadfly. What will be interesting this Fall is to see what issues Democratic House incumbents push forward in districts that are toss ups or that Trump won in 2016. In 2018 we saw a lot of Dem House candidates promising secure borders but not much talk of it after the election. My bet is a lot of them will sound more like Trump than Amy what's-her-name.
"So far during the Presidential campaign among the Democrats none of the candidates have even brought up issues that matter to the average voter who works every day and pays taxes. When one feels like their country is slipping away they don't want to hear about transgender bathrooms and Greta the climate gadfly."
Robert, that's a first-rate, two-sentence summary of this campaign so far. Thumbs up!
I used to love NR. Then, after they decided they had to out-woke the left on a couple writers with double plus ungood thoughts (where was that 11th commandment then?), including a fellow whose club I ended up joining, I wondered, what's the point? Most of Conservative Inc don't seem to really believe in much of anything other than what position will get them invited to the next Upper West Side Chablis sipping event where they can play the token house broken conservative. No thanks
I saw the writing on the wall when they hired Jason Steorts. Whoever hired him should have been fired, especially if it was a group decision.
THIS COMMENT ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
The previously reliable "Conservative Woman" website in the UK has re-published two editorials by John O'Sullivan the "editor at large" (whatever that means) of the National Review. Suffice to say my monetary support of that formerly excellent site is currently on hold.
Brilliant. That's all perfectly logical to me.......but the left will read it with a kind of dyslexia and not get it.
In fairness to National Review, Trump was something of an unknown quantity at the time. But NR's case "Against Trump" would have been stronger had NR been better at moving the needle within the GOP. Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz, et. al. were doing the Lord's work, but they were fighting an uphill battle against a party establishment more interested in making deals with Democrats, I mean "reaching across the aisle" to work with the People Who Count.
Mark replies:
If the "known quantity" is the GOP establishment, any unknown will do, Tom.
As for the snootiness of "real Conservatives" sneering that "Trump's political opinions have wobbled all over the lot", it didn't escape the base that we could hardly see them for the dust as they shifted position on homosexual marriage, abortion, Obamacare, guns, hate speech and pretty nearly every other "principle" they claimed to hold dear. I'm glad you wrote this, Mark, because I'm still not tired of re-examining how the veils were torn aside on Conservative Inc. and the truth revealed. I was a long-time supporter of that crew, even subscribed to NR (on paper!) starting as a high school student, and I was astounded to discover that I'd been totally taken in by their act. It really WAS just about providing them with a cozy life, full of busy-work writing articles, books and papers, addressing symposia, cutting a figure on TV, pretending that they were important people, going somewhere. And it was all phony.
A quote from Groucho Marx sums up the Dem/Rino or Rino/Dem coalition (whether the lead animal is donkey or elephant just alters the speed at which the tandem moves left): "Those are my principles...and if you don't like them...well, I've got others".
I don't know if they have shifted on the issues you've listed, but I do know that they don't care to do what it takes to get their issues advanced, so I guess it's a distinction without a difference.