This Is Not Donald Trump’s Victory

By Kevin D. Williamson

Saturday, June 25, 2022

 

Here’s a thought experiment for you: You know a guy who is not especially bright and not especially responsible. He has a good job, but he refuses to put anything away for retirement. You ask him: “Bob, what are you going to do about your retirement?” And Bob says: “No problem — I’m going to win the lottery.” Ten years go by, and you have the same conversation: “Bob, are you saving for retirement?” “Nope. I’m going to hit the Powerball.” More years go by, Bob is now in his 60s, and you say: “Bob, you dummy, don’t you wish you’d saved something so that you could think about retiring?” “Don’t be crazy — I’m going to win the lottery.” And then, a few weeks after his 65th birthday, Bob wins a $400 million lottery jackpot. He’s flying private, you’re back there pinching your pennies in coach.

 

Question: Is expecting to win the lottery a responsible way to plan for your retirement?

 

Answer: Don’t be a goddamned jackass. Of course not.

 

A lucky or unlikely outcome, no matter how pleasing it is when it happens, does not retroactively redeem stupid and irresponsible decisions. The fact that something dumb worked out in a fortunate way does not mean that the thinking that went into it wasn’t stupid and irresponsible.

 

So, no, the Dobbs decision does not make me regret opposing Donald Trump in 2016. If anything, it highlights exactly how shallow and dishonest Trumpist criticism of the conservative movement often has been.

 

Donald Trump was, until he decided he wanted the Republican presidential nomination, an across-the-board social progressive: not only pro-abortion but “very pro-choice” in his own words, a supporter of gay marriage, a supporter of left-wing gun-control proposals, etc. He was economically on the left, too: For example, Trump supported a national wealth tax far in excess of anything dreamed up by Elizabeth Warren or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When Trump was asked what kind of justice he’d nominate for the Supreme Court, he suggested his sister — who is not exactly Clarence Thomas.

 

No conservative who knows how to read supported Trump in 2016 because he was solid on judicial originalism — or any other major conservative issue. Republicans who flocked to Trump were in part fanboys gobsmacked by celebrity and in part catharsis-seeking adolescents who backed Trump because he hated the people they hated and was hated by the people who hated them in turn.

 

It was movement conservatism — the institutions derided as “Conservative Inc.” by the rage-monkeys of Twitter and talk radio — that kept the Trump presidency from being a disaster for the Right. Trump signed Paul Ryan’s tax bill, he took up the Club for Growth’s deregulatory agenda, hired a couple of National Review editors for economic-policy advice (he should have listened to them more than he did), and, critically, delegated his judicial selections to the Federalist Society — because he did not really have any choice as a matter of political reality. You can’t be a Republican presidential candidate without backing — or at least saying you back — an originalist approach to the federal judiciary.

 

That is where you see the success of the long-term efforts of the conservative movement: Trump didn’t find Amy Coney Barrett on The Apprentice. And you have the Federalist Society and the broader conservative movement to thank for the fact that there was no Omarosa Manigault Newman nomination for the Supreme Court — or, God help us, a Maryanne Trump Barry nomination.

 

The author of the Dobbs decision was appointed by George W. Bush, not by Donald Trump. The most important originalist on the Court, Clarence Thomas, was appointed by George H. W. Bush. Donald Trump is not a trailblazing champion of constitutionalism — he is a guy who got out in front of a parade and pretended to be leading it.

 

Am I glad to see Roe gone? Absolutely. Do I think that Trump’s role in this could have been performed by a reasonably well-trained monkey? Absolutely. Does this somehow retroactively sanctify Trump and Trumpism?

 

Absolutely not.

 

I’m glad Augusto Pinochet beat the communists way back when, and it was good for Chile that he enacted some excellent economic policies: He was still a murdering son of a bitch, and there’s no sense or honor in denying the fact. I’m glad Francisco Franco came out on top in Spain, but he was still a fascist and a corrupt thug. I am very, very pleased that Roe v. Wade has been vacated, very grateful to the thousands of people who spent five decades undertaking hard and thankless work to get that done, in the face of bitter opposition from elite opinion — including, let us not forget, the opinion of Donald Trump for most of his career as a public figure.

 

Nobody is better pleased than I by the changes that have been wrought on the Supreme Court. Donald Trump is still a ridiculous buffoon, and those who supported him in 2016 were still fools to do so.

 

Yes, people sometimes win the lottery. People even sometimes win at Russian roulette — but I am not eager to play Russian roulette with the future of my country. Russian roulette is a game for fools, and if you play it and win, you are no less a fool for being a lucky fool.