Far from the clever and cerebral discourse of its founder, WFB, the slam against Trump, here, takes a headlong dive into the gutter, e.g. Mona Charen, stating: "My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body." We want to know Mona, is this disgust or is it fascination with certain organs altogether absent in the denizens of DC on either side of the aisle?
What is left unanswered is what are the conservative principles argued for, which of them are at stake in the present election, and what is endangered by Trump's candidacy.
The fundamental problem, of course, is that conservatism is built on the political foundation of the Republican Party, and, with that party's devolution into crony capitalism, what the National Review, here, seeks to defend is built on a "dismal" plague infested miasma. Defend the ramparts of your castle all you want. You are defending ground no one wants to occupy.
The second problem is that conservatism, whatever the 22 participants in this attack mean by it, is the mirror reflection of the liberalism that it seeks to undo. And liberalism has built itself up as the antidote to the conservatism that sees itself as the antidote to liberalism. Each assails the other's stronghold and accomplishes nothing while marauders sack the undefended ground in between.
Trump has triumphed by side-stepping this attack / counter-attack by showing up the shortcomings of both sides, approaching from a different angle altogether.
Foremost is the utter lack of competence of both sides of this debate. WFB did not share this inability to do anything useful at all. Privileged as his upbringing was, WFB did establish and publish a successful opinion magazine - and NR was in his day successful. WFB could also navigate a sailboat at sea and had mastered the art of celestial navigation. The present ruling class in DC cannot successfully navigate a snowstorm, much less manage minor electrical or plumbing repairs or understand what is wrong with swaps on increasing levels of national indebtedness, an ill already addressed by on conservative economist, long ago, Ricardo.
Hillary vs whatever part of the Republican spectrum you want to name, Bush, Rubio, or Cruz, is just not interesting precisely because it is not the resolution of any problem that the average person faces.
And this is Trump's genius. Framing issues in ways that reflects the problems faced by voters in their daily lives and not the problems argued by inside-the-beltway think-tanks on which NR has made itself a useless appendage that is easily excised and burned with other biological detritus.
Both your morning piece and this piece — you should combine and post as a separate thread! There are so many facets to your comments about the bafflement of NR about the rise of Trump and the Party and conservative spokespubs having become a parody of themselves; it’s delicious. Please do post it and ping me.
ping