By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, January 28, 2016
As my colleague Jonah Goldberg notes, the Left and some
of the Right has long been waiting for a “conservative crack-up,” first
predicted by R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. of The
American Spectator . . . a generation ago. I am a middle-aged man with more
grey in my beard than I would really like to see in the morning, but I was a
high-school boy when Mr. Tyrell wrote that book.
These crack-ups are an awful long time coming.
If you spend very much time reading the Left’s advocacy
journalism — as I do, for my sins — then you are accustomed to seeing headlines
about the pending destruction of the Republican party and the conservative
movement. It has been nearly 15 years since John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira
heralded “The Emerging Democratic Majority” in their celebrated book by that
title. Articles titled “The End of the Republican Party” or similar are found
almost daily not only in moonbat online journals such as Salon but in the New York
Times.
This isn’t new. The failure to convict Bill Clinton in
his impeachment trial was welcomed by Democrats as the end of the Republican
party, as a sign of its “disarray” — they are fond of that word, for some
reason — and its debilitating internal contradictions. Clinton’s election had
been similarly greeted, as was Barack Obama’s. The eventual unpopularity of the
Iraq war among the fickle and childish American electorate was supposed to have
made the GOP a pariah for a generation. The Donald is not the first trump
sounding the conservative apocalypse.
After all that, where is the Republican party, and the
conservative movement, in actuality?
Despite what all the best and the brightest assured us
was inevitable, the Republican party is in its strongest electoral position
since the presidency of Herbert Hoover. It enjoys majorities in both houses of
Congress, and commands a large majority of the state legislative houses and
governorships. Conservatives have won important debates and political victories
on everything from taxation to free speech to foreign policy. Those conservatives
who complain that the Right hasn’t accomplished very much forget where the
country was in 1955 when National Review was founded and central planning was
assumed by all the right people to be the model of the future, or where the
country’s domestic policies stood in 1980 or its national-security policies in
2000.
Electoral controversies are only signs of catastrophic
disarray for Republicans.
The fact is that Senator Bernie Sanders, the honking
Vermont socialist, currently enjoys higher standing in the national polls than
does Donald Trump. He may win Iowa and is at the moment poised to win New
Hampshire. His philosophy is in fact much more radically at odds with the
mainstream of American politics than is Donald Trump’s daft and vulgar
populism. His ideas are the ideas of Hugo Chávez and Edmondo Rossoni (though he
probably doesn’t know the name) filtered through the loopy 1970s cultural
radicalism that at one point had Senator Sanders arguing that cervical cancer
is caused by an orgasm deficit.
Senator Sanders, whose politics are best suited to a soft
quiet room, as of this writing stands about 1 point ahead of Trump’s national
numbers in the RealClearPolitics
average of polls. But his emergence is not treated in the media as an
existential crisis for the Democratic party or the progressive movement the way
Trump’s is for Republicans and the Right.
This is related to a similar theme in our public
discourse: Conservatives are not allowed to be popular.
My friend Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine has written an unfortunately sneering piece blaming
National Review for the emergence of Trump, among other things noting the
magazine’s preference for an assertive foreign policy (Gillespie calls this
bellicosity) and particularly cites the magazine’s support for the Iraq war . .
. which Trump opposed, or at least says he opposed. Likewise, Gillespie blames
the National Review’s corporate views on immigration for the emergence of
Trump, who does not share those views. Nicole Hemmer, writing in U.S. News and World Report, makes a
similar argument under the headline “National Review rejects the populism it
fostered.” What follows is a familiar litany: Fox News, talk radio, etc. have
pushed the Republican party in a conservative direction, which set the stage
for . . . Donald Trump, who, if nominated, would be the least conservative
Republican presidential candidate since self-styled progressive Teddy
Roosevelt.
Whatever one imagines to be the sins of Rush Limbaugh or
Fox News, those sins are at least matched, if not exceeded, by their
counterparts on the Left, the vegan rage of SiriusXM Progress and MSNBC and the
like. The critical difference is: Conservatives are good at it. Despite vast
piles of money and stores of energy directed at the project, there is no
left-wing talk radio of any real significance to speak of, unless one counts
the bland suburban progressivism of NPR. Fox News on a good night exceeds in
audience share the rest of its cable news competitors combined. It surely is
not lost on our counterparts on the Left that the peaks of Republican-party
power have coincided with the influence of organized conservatism and its
journals, whereas the apex of Democratic power came under Bill Clinton, who ran
as hard against the campus-crusader radicalism of The Nation and Mother Jones
as he did against George H. W. Bush. Mrs. Clinton is running against that same
radicalism, albeit less convincingly and less successfully.
Popularity isn’t quality — we can be sure that Kanye West
will sell more music than Beethoven this year, and that more young Americans
will acquire STDs than Ph.D.s — but if you are a broadcaster or a political
campaign, it cannot be ignored, either.
This is in essence a vast exercise in concern-trolling by
progressives. National Review et al. have, in this analysis, simply been too
effective, driving the Republican party to such exotic reaches of extremism
that it is — do pardon me for noticing — winning previously unimaginable
political victories in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Michigan . . .
Yes, of course Trump is a problem, and he could hand the
2016 presidential election to the Democrats as Ross Perot did in 1992. And
inchoate populism is not, and never has been, a reliable ally of conservatism,
a philosophy that begins with the assumption that most public appetites will
never be satisfied and that many of them shouldn’t be satisfied even if it were
possible. What should conservatives do? What can they do? Oppose Trump, of
course.
But regardless of what happens on Election Day 2016, we
will wake up in a world in which property rights need to be secured, free trade
protected and expanded, government limited, the rule of law honored, children
reared, citizenship cultivated, and enemies defeated. These are among what
Russell Kirk called “the permanent things,” and the defense of them, which we
call “conservatism,” is the permanent burden of free people. That isn’t going
anywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment