Don't get Bill Kristol wrong. He's still bitter about 2016.
In January of that year, National Review, formerly an interesting and highly influential conservative periodical, published an issue with the words "Against Trump" prominently featured on the cover. Inside, Bill, NR's editors and a brunch of other Professional ConservativesTM issued solemn warning after solemn warning that merely giving Donald Trump the Republican nomination for president, never mind (gasp) actually electing him to the job, would be the single most devastating thing ever to happen to this country, far worse than the Civil War.
What kinds of charges did they all level? That Trump was merely an opportunist, that he wasn't a real conservative, and that many of the issues he publicly supported were bitterly opposed by Professional Conservatism.TM One could be nasty and point out that exactly the same charges could legitimately have been made against the GOP's 2012 candidate, Mitt Romney, a man the GOP assured us was a serious, thoughtful conservative. Nobody bought it, of course, the Bible thumpers sat out 2012 and Barry got four more years in office.
Then in 2016, the American electorate willfully, spitefully and deliberately ignored all the wise counsel and grim warnings from Professional ConservatismTM and not only made Donald J. Trump the GOP nominee but (God help me) elected him to the presidency. And we've all seen the results of that disaster. Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Other serious pro-lifers nominated for lesser courts.Murder Inc. Baby Parts 'R' US Planned Parenthood defunded. Stuff that never used to happen even when W had the job.
So it's easy to understand why Bill and the rest of Professional ConservatismTM are still so pissed off and have so completely lost confidence in the American electorate.
But Bill's a magnanimous guy (he kind of has to be since NeverTrumpistan can't do what it would dearly love to be able to do, which is, paraphrasing Bertolt Brecht, to dissolve the American electorate and elect another) so he's entirely willing to give you pinheads one more chance. All you have to do is sit down, shut up, keep your opinions to yourselves, don't push your stupid litmus tests, vote for whoever we tell you to vote for and don't ask questions.
Like American politics used to be before you idiots screwed everything up.
But with the revelations of the last week, and the launch of a formal impeachment inquiry, we are at a new moment. This is obviously the case for Republicans in Congress, who will have to vote on impeachment and perhaps on conviction. They have a unique part to play in this drama; the rest of us are merely observers or advisers. All we can really now ask of members of Congress is to keep an open mind and to evaluate the facts as they emerge.
Did we happen to mention that you only get one more chance to fix what the moronic public broke? And Professional ConservatismTM hopes you understand the importance of making certain that the "facts" do nothing but "emerge" in the way Professional ConservatismTM needs for them to emerge.
But we already have learned enough to know that the government whistle-blower is correct to say “that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”
Your hallucinations are not incontrovertible facts, Bill. No literate person with a genuinely "open mind" can see what you can apparently see clearly.
We know this latest instance is part of a history of repeated injuries and usurpations.
Which are?
We may not yet know whether removal from the office to which President Trump was elected is warranted.
An idiotic statement since if we actually did "know" the first two statements, the third is not arguable by me or anyone else waiting for NeverTrumpistan to actually prove something slightly more impeachable than "Trump is icky."
But surely we know enough to judge that Mr. Trump does not deserve renomination for that office for an additional four years.
No we don't know that. We don't know it at all. But just for the sake of argument, I'll concede the point and ask, "Now what? What should the GOP do about it?"
The 2020 Republican nomination is an open question. It is a decision of great consequence on which all Republicans have a say, and all have a responsibility.
To select Professional Conservatism'sTM approved candidate.
Republican leaders in particular — Republican elected officials and former elected officials, Republican activists and donors, appointees of this administration and of former Republican administrations — bear a weighty responsibility.
To select Professional Conservatism'sTM approved candidate.
They can support Donald Trump, and put a stamp of approval on his tenure in office. They can keep quiet, a stamp of approval of its own sort. Or they can step up and act for the honor of their party and the good of their country.
Told you Bill was bitter. So what direction should the GOP go?
There are currently three announced Republican challengers to Donald Trump. Republican leaders could in various ways support one or all three of them.
Great. Old Appalachian Trail, Mitt Romney II and...uh...Joe Walsh. Hold me back. Bill really needs to meet some actual Republican voters some time. But it doesn't have to be any of those three, replies Bill. The GOP could pick anybody.
And may I say directly to those Republicans who could run: You have a unique chance to act for your party and your country. You can play a role in overcoming the shame and stain of the past three years,
When people actually stopped listening to the leadership of a party that fielded two indescribably awful presidential candidates in a row, forfeiting any national influence and basically gutting principled conservatism in the process.
and in the reformation of a once great party.
That actually has substantial accomplishments and Professional ConservatismTM can never permit that. Makes 'em look bad.
Win or lose, you will go down in the history books as a man or woman of honor.
If Bill and the rest of Professional ConservatismTM regain control and undertake the expected purge, you won't have to worry too much about the first possibility ever happening any time soon.
Kristol's right about one thing. The GOP could run anyone it cares to. JEB! has got all kinds of free time these days. But the problem isn't which Republican could be nominated.
The issue is selecting a Republican who can run and win.
And since Professional ConservatismTM and most of the GOP leadership doesn't have the slightest idea how or why Donald Trump won in 2016, that is an extremely short list. I don't think Mike Pence, for example, has it in him to run the kind of campaign he'll need to run if he wants to have even a slight chance of winning the election.
Ted Cruz could pull it off (doesn't mean he will). And this person would be formidable.
Apart from those two, I don't see anyone viable on the Republican side, anyone who could fire the base up the way Trump did. But if you run John McCain for president and then follow him up with Mitt Romney, it doesn't seem like actually winning the presidency is a high priority with you.
As long as the CNN and MSDNC guest shots keep coming.
In January of that year, National Review, formerly an interesting and highly influential conservative periodical, published an issue with the words "Against Trump" prominently featured on the cover. Inside, Bill, NR's editors and a brunch of other Professional ConservativesTM issued solemn warning after solemn warning that merely giving Donald Trump the Republican nomination for president, never mind (gasp) actually electing him to the job, would be the single most devastating thing ever to happen to this country, far worse than the Civil War.
What kinds of charges did they all level? That Trump was merely an opportunist, that he wasn't a real conservative, and that many of the issues he publicly supported were bitterly opposed by Professional Conservatism.TM One could be nasty and point out that exactly the same charges could legitimately have been made against the GOP's 2012 candidate, Mitt Romney, a man the GOP assured us was a serious, thoughtful conservative. Nobody bought it, of course, the Bible thumpers sat out 2012 and Barry got four more years in office.
Then in 2016, the American electorate willfully, spitefully and deliberately ignored all the wise counsel and grim warnings from Professional ConservatismTM and not only made Donald J. Trump the GOP nominee but (God help me) elected him to the presidency. And we've all seen the results of that disaster. Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Other serious pro-lifers nominated for lesser courts.
So it's easy to understand why Bill and the rest of Professional ConservatismTM are still so pissed off and have so completely lost confidence in the American electorate.
But Bill's a magnanimous guy (he kind of has to be since NeverTrumpistan can't do what it would dearly love to be able to do, which is, paraphrasing Bertolt Brecht, to dissolve the American electorate and elect another) so he's entirely willing to give you pinheads one more chance. All you have to do is sit down, shut up, keep your opinions to yourselves, don't push your stupid litmus tests, vote for whoever we tell you to vote for and don't ask questions.
Like American politics used to be before you idiots screwed everything up.
But with the revelations of the last week, and the launch of a formal impeachment inquiry, we are at a new moment. This is obviously the case for Republicans in Congress, who will have to vote on impeachment and perhaps on conviction. They have a unique part to play in this drama; the rest of us are merely observers or advisers. All we can really now ask of members of Congress is to keep an open mind and to evaluate the facts as they emerge.
Did we happen to mention that you only get one more chance to fix what the moronic public broke? And Professional ConservatismTM hopes you understand the importance of making certain that the "facts" do nothing but "emerge" in the way Professional ConservatismTM needs for them to emerge.
But we already have learned enough to know that the government whistle-blower is correct to say “that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”
Your hallucinations are not incontrovertible facts, Bill. No literate person with a genuinely "open mind" can see what you can apparently see clearly.
We know this latest instance is part of a history of repeated injuries and usurpations.
Which are?
We may not yet know whether removal from the office to which President Trump was elected is warranted.
An idiotic statement since if we actually did "know" the first two statements, the third is not arguable by me or anyone else waiting for NeverTrumpistan to actually prove something slightly more impeachable than "Trump is icky."
But surely we know enough to judge that Mr. Trump does not deserve renomination for that office for an additional four years.
No we don't know that. We don't know it at all. But just for the sake of argument, I'll concede the point and ask, "Now what? What should the GOP do about it?"
The 2020 Republican nomination is an open question. It is a decision of great consequence on which all Republicans have a say, and all have a responsibility.
To select Professional Conservatism'sTM approved candidate.
Republican leaders in particular — Republican elected officials and former elected officials, Republican activists and donors, appointees of this administration and of former Republican administrations — bear a weighty responsibility.
To select Professional Conservatism'sTM approved candidate.
They can support Donald Trump, and put a stamp of approval on his tenure in office. They can keep quiet, a stamp of approval of its own sort. Or they can step up and act for the honor of their party and the good of their country.
Told you Bill was bitter. So what direction should the GOP go?
There are currently three announced Republican challengers to Donald Trump. Republican leaders could in various ways support one or all three of them.
Great. Old Appalachian Trail, Mitt Romney II and...uh...Joe Walsh. Hold me back. Bill really needs to meet some actual Republican voters some time. But it doesn't have to be any of those three, replies Bill. The GOP could pick anybody.
And may I say directly to those Republicans who could run: You have a unique chance to act for your party and your country. You can play a role in overcoming the shame and stain of the past three years,
When people actually stopped listening to the leadership of a party that fielded two indescribably awful presidential candidates in a row, forfeiting any national influence and basically gutting principled conservatism in the process.
and in the reformation of a once great party.
That actually has substantial accomplishments and Professional ConservatismTM can never permit that. Makes 'em look bad.
Win or lose, you will go down in the history books as a man or woman of honor.
If Bill and the rest of Professional ConservatismTM regain control and undertake the expected purge, you won't have to worry too much about the first possibility ever happening any time soon.
Kristol's right about one thing. The GOP could run anyone it cares to. JEB! has got all kinds of free time these days. But the problem isn't which Republican could be nominated.
The issue is selecting a Republican who can run and win.
And since Professional ConservatismTM and most of the GOP leadership doesn't have the slightest idea how or why Donald Trump won in 2016, that is an extremely short list. I don't think Mike Pence, for example, has it in him to run the kind of campaign he'll need to run if he wants to have even a slight chance of winning the election.
Ted Cruz could pull it off (doesn't mean he will). And this person would be formidable.
Apart from those two, I don't see anyone viable on the Republican side, anyone who could fire the base up the way Trump did. But if you run John McCain for president and then follow him up with Mitt Romney, it doesn't seem like actually winning the presidency is a high priority with you.
As long as the CNN and MSDNC guest shots keep coming.
4 comments:
So, Billy Boy, it is ok for the Democrats to ask Ukraine to cooperate with the Mueller witchhunt, but it is not ok for the other side to ask Ukraine to cooperate with Rudi Giuliani? It's ok for the Obama administration to wiretap a political opponent?
Your hypocrisy is outrageous and I am counting on the American voting public to see thru that.
It was 15 years ago that James Neuchterlein retired to Indiana. He gave an account of his career, offering that he'd left academe when he'd realized he hadn't any scholarly articles left in him, one lecture seemed like every other lecture and he'd lost interest in what students had to say. He was leaving Fr. Neuhaus' employ because he'd said all he had to say and if you want his assessment as to how successful had been their enterprise, well, you could contact him by post.
Reading George Will (who is just three years younger than Nuecheterlein and much wealthier), one does see the wisdom of putting your pen down. Wm. F. Buckley seemed drained of vitality the last 15 years of his life. Jeffrey Hart made a complete knob-head of himself until his proximate relatives muzzled him. Thomas Sowell and Midge Decter have never lost it, but they are much less voluble than they once were. Wm. Kristol hasn't been living his best life the last four years.
I think you've nailed it in one respect. The NeverTrump residue consists of three segments: (1) people who made foolishly categorical statements in 2015 and 2016 and are too arrogant to retract them or qualify them in any notable way. (2) People who work of liberal media outlets and are doing what they're paid to do, which is provide emotional validation for their employers (and whatever share of the publication's readers actually look at their commentary. (3) People who despise Trump's constituency as much as liberals do. (4) people who fit into more than one category above. All of these types have one thing in common: they're expendable and they would improve public life were they to depart from it.
"They can support Donald Trump, and put a stamp of approval on his tenure in office." Thanks, I think I will.
Post a Comment