The point is being made, rightly so, that the recent “statement” by the Very Stable Genius regarding figures associated with the Right whom he deems “nasty, jealous, not smart, and of no use to the greatness of our country” is ripe with irony. He names names - Peggy Noonan, Rich Lowry, George Will, Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes - and then proceeds to claim their irrelevancy. Why has he gone to the bother of enumerating them if that’s the case?
Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter is similarly fond of singling out specific writers he characterizes as ineffectual dweebs of no importance to contemporary conservatism. In particular, he has a notable preoccupation with David French, referring to French as a sissy whenever possible.
It’s pretty clear that such an expenditure of keystrokes belies a concern that those being called out do indeed pose an ongoing threat to the nationalist/populist mission. The fact that The Dispatch and The Bulwark didn’t die on the vine but rather have grown in influence since coming on the scene sticks in the craw of those who dream of commandeering a movement that traces its origins to Edmund Burke. (The national conservatives have even gone so far as to co-opt Burke’s name for that of a foundation that enshrines their agenda.)
Trumpists - perhaps a word more reflective of what their movement is evolving into will be found, but for now, the figure most associated with its rise still looms large over it - dismiss pre-Trumpist conservatives on the grounds of the latter’s being unwilling to fight against the Leftist encroachment onto every aspect of American life over the last six-plus decades. But this is a faulty view of things. David French went to bat for free speech on college campuses as a litigator with FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) for a substantial portion of his career. Look back over George Will’s columns from the 1980s, and you’ll see him taking straight aim at such grotesqueries as appeasement of Central American Marxist-Leninists and the trivialization of humanities departments in American universities.
Conservatism has long been galvanized around reacting to progressivism’s onslaught. National Review’s 1955 mission statement, and, indeed, William F. Buckley’s first book, God and Man at Yale, were broadsides against the direction in which liberalism was steering American society. Ronald Reagan’s October 1964 A Time for Choosing speech is often seen as the ushering in of a sunny-optimism/broad-appeal phase of conservatism, but it was replete with castigations of specific left-of-center policies.
The movement has always had a combative streak.
But at its core is an understanding that this fallen realm will always fall short of the transcendent order it was designed to express. It’s even been called a tragic worldview. Conservatives realize that there’s never going to be a final victory for the principles to which they adhere. Life doesn’t work that way.
Patrick Chovanec made the point thusly on Twitter recently:
Too many people, left and right, are under the delusion that all it will require is one decisive election or court case and they will never have to hear from their opponents ever again. That is not how democratic politics ever works.
Trumpists think it’s possible to stomp every last human being who embraces collectivism, identity politics, climate alarmism or militant secularism to any degree into the dust and be done with them.
That’s not only impossible, it’s an undesirable thing to aim for.
Another tenet at the core of real conservatism is a belief in love that is rooted in a Judeo-Christian understanding of the purpose for which human beings were made.
It comes down to the question of what conservatism is striving for. To couch it in terms of majorities in the legislative and executive branches of government, or eradication of DEI departments in the nation’s universities and corporations is to take a woefully shortsighted view of what it is we’re undertaking.
For one thing, assuming the kind of victory Trumpists envision were possible, what would they do with all the progressives they had stomped into the dust? These are people who have demonstrated fierce determination in pursuit of their vision, and they would not fade away quietly. We already see that with the ferocity with which they’r responding to the Dobbs decision.
Which gets us back to the point Chovanec makes. There is no point of finality that either side is going to arrive at. It’s not realistic to expect it.
So the question that one ought to ask of anybody who would presume to step forward as a spokesperson for, or leader of, the conservative movement is this: Is what you’re after consistent with what history shows us about human nature and what is possible?
No other litmus test is adequate, because nothing but a world in which people can comfortably and humanely maneuver through life’s givens is worth spending time pursuing.
