Posted on 01/23/2016 11:00:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
One can only hope that the Trump phenomenon will bring into the sunlight several fictions, most, but not all, of which GOP boosters have been promoting for years.
The first is that there are two fundamentally opposed forces within the Republican Party: "the Establishment" and "conservatives," "anti-Establishmentarians," or "outsiders."
In reality, the conflicts that beset the GOP are internecine battles within one political establishment. There is no "anti-Establishment."
Nor is Trump an "anti-Establishment" outsider. Trump has been peddling and receiving political influence for years courtesy of both Republican and Democrat politicians alike. Few "outsiders" have had so many "ins" with the establishment as has Trump.
Of course, if it is nonsense to identify Trump as an "anti-Establishmentarian"—and it is—then it is doubly nonsensical to suggest that Senators Cruz, Rubio, and Paul, or Governors Christie, Kasich, Bush, and Huckabee are "anti-Establishment."
A true outsider, like you or I, wouldn't be able to come within miles of a presidential race while campaigning as a Republican or Democrat.
Third, Trump's Republican critics continually charge that unlike, say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, Trump is not an authentic "conservative." Now, this allegation is true as far as it goes: Trump is not a conservative. But because the allegation doesn't go far at all, it may as well be a lie.
While Trump is not a conservative, neither are his GOP rivals and accusers.
In fact, unless being a proponent of an activist, omnipotent government that exists to spread "liberal democratic" values around the globe is necessary for being a "true conservative," Trump is arguably more conservative than Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and virtually all of the other Republican contenders.
And this gets us to our next, and probably most important, myth to be exposed.
For decades, the so-called "conservative movement" has been largely a neoconservative movement. Neoconservatives have been remarkably successful in convincing millions and millions of Americans both that they are conservative and that the Republican Party and conservatism are one.
The truth, though, is that neoconservatism is no form of conservatism at all. The conservative movement that took flight nearly 70 years ago consisted of multiple strains, it's true, but it was exemplified in many respects by Russell Kirk, the man without whose labor William F. Buckley says it is "inconceivable" that there ever would've been any such movement.
Kirk was a conservative in the vein of Edmund Burke, the 18th century Irish Parliamentarian who is widely regarded today as "the patron saint" of conservatism. Kirk was painfully aware of the differences between conservatism and neoconservatism, noting that the two were different in kind.
Conservatives in the mold of Kirk favored a wide dispersion or decentralization of power and authority—what is commonly referred to as "states' rights." They opposed all attempts at "leveling," all redistributive schemes designed to alleviate "inequalities." Yet it isn't just utopian domestic visions for which conservatives like Kirk had no use. They disdained idyllic foreign policy plans as well. Hence, before he died in 1994, Kirk denounced the first President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Clearly, between classical conservatives and neoconservatives there is a chasm. Yet it isn't just that neoconservatives and conservatives disagree. Upon appropriating the conservative label, a move that involved an exercise in repackaging the likes of which wouldn't be seen again until "gay rights'" advocates redefined marriage, neoconservatives did their best to see to it that conservative voices would no longer be heard—at least not within the Republican Party.
That's right: Sarah Palin and others misspeak when they simply say that "the Establishment" is not conservative. The referent here—neoconservatives—are anti-conservative.
That this giant in the history of the American conservative movement is never mentioned in any "conservative" media outlets today proves that Kirk has been flushed down the memory hole. However, it isn't just Kirk who has been "purged" from the (neo) conservative movement.
Trump's meteoric rise stemmed principally from his tough talk on immigration—an issue that now ranks in no small measure of importance for Americans. Ann Coulter, Trump's most vocal and visible of nationally recognized supporters, has also been superb in highlighting the disaster that is our immigration policy.
Yet for well over 20 years, Peter Brimelow, a one-time associate of Buckley and contributor to National Review, has been writing and speaking tirelessly on this very issue. A veteran when it comes to telling hard, politically incorrect truths, Brimelow's work is second to none in this arena. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to refer to him as a pioneer.
But Peter Brimelow has long been expunged from "the conservative movement."
Paul Gottfried is a scholar of European intellectual history and the American conservative movement. He too was friends with Buckley at one time, as well as a contributor to NR.
Yet that was then, this is now. Paul too has been purged.
The late Joseph Sobran, who at one time was a protégé of a sort to Buckley and a brilliant essayist, found himself unceremoniously ejected from the "conservative" movement, as did the now deceased Samuel Francis (who, remarkably, Rush Limbaugh, to his credit, recently defended on his radio show).
John Derbyshire, a witty, talented polymath, wrote regularly for National Review until just a few years ago when he too was abruptly sacked for a racially incorrect article (that he wrote for another publication).
This list of extraordinarily intelligent, perceptive, and courageous old right thinkers who have been exiled by the self-appointed gate-keepers of "the conservative movement" is hardly exhaustive.
And now neoconservatives continue to presume to tell the rest of us who is truly conservative and who isn't.
If any of the foregoing fictions will crumble to pieces during this most atypical of election seasons, hopefully it will be the fiction that the self-declared guardians of the "conservative movement" are conservative.
Trump is a liberal arts his core who will campaign as a converted conservative and would govern as a center left pragmatist.
RE: would govern as a center left pragmatist.
Why not center right?
So everything is anything after all - Who knew? /s
His roots are Manhattan. His life is deal making. His goal is adoration. Just my opinion though. Maybe he would surprise. He reminds me of Clinton but I do not think he would soil the office like Slick. So there is that.
Is Paul Ryan conservative? No thanks.
The massive failure of conservatives (so called) to stop Obama shows they are part of the Uniparty - an evil cabal out to destroy America.
Trump is a strong man nationalist. He will correct things. America has 20 million aliens, a million Muslin invaders per year bring bought in.
Elect Trump or you wives and daughters will be openly raped and the media forced to shut up about it like Germany.
That’s what’s at stake.
So whaddaya do?
Trump’s a Wall Street insider who peddled influence.
Cruz is just another DC insider lawyer beholden to the lobbyists.
And this is ultimately why we shouldn't care what the self-proclaimed "conservative purists," whether on FR or at National Review, have to say about anything.
We elected the conservative purists in 2010 and 2014. They did absolutely diddly. They were complete failures.
Modern day conservatism is a failure. It's a failure because it's an ideology, it's an "ism" that people think they have to conform to, rather than thinking for themselves. When people act on the basis of conforming to a checklist, then they will make all kinds of stupid decisions.
We don't need conservatism. We need Traditionalism. We need to really get back to the old ways, instead of letting artificial ideologies direct our thinking.
Outstanding article. Thanks for posting!
RE: Cruz is just another DC insider lawyer beholden to the lobbyists.
Can you show me a few instances where he sold his vote for the influence of lobbyists?
But Peter Brimelow has long been expunged from 'the conservative movement.'
I know Peter. Very true. You are not considered a conservative if you want to reduce legal immigration and oppose amnesty, i.e., legalization.
If he builds a wall and kicks out the interlopers he can then do whatever he wants. We can ditch him in 4 years if he strays to far left, which is something I do not think will happen..
Ted Cruz wants to increase H-1B visas from 65,000 to 325,000 annually
Why do you think Cruz wanted to increase H-1B visas by 500%?
Sen. Cruz Amendment to Immigration Legislation to Increase H-1B Visas
There's always been a government and an anti-government side to conservatism, and it would be naive to expect conservative politicians to attack government at all times.
Also, the figures he offers as examples of anti-establishment "true conservatives" are simply representatives of one form of conservatism who want to form an establishment of their own.
If all politicians are Establishment, so are all well-known talking heads.
Because his core New York values are left. I think for instance partial birth abortion is quite left. In fact it’s murder. And he has supported it.
Because his core New York values are left. I think for instance partial birth abortion is quite left. In fact it’s murder. And he has supported it.
What about the possibly three Supreme Court picks he would have?
Any one who is for ethanol mandates and the privatization of Emmient Domain is not a conservative. If he puts in three liberal supreme court justices, which I believe he would do, can you kick them to the curb after four years? This alone is the reason to favor Cruz over Trump.
I understand the incredible frustration with our betrayal by both parties, but we have to get this next election right. Yes, we have a big problem, but Trump is not the best solution.
The supreme disappointment has already given away the store and rendered itself useless.
I look for a Trump administration to be center right. Which jives with the majority of the citizens living in the US. Uber left and uber right are small minorities. Vocal but small.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.