By Ben Shapiro
Thursday, September 08, 2016
This week, an extraordinarily lengthy piece at the Claremont Review of Books launched into
those conservatives who will not vote for Donald Trump. The piece has gotten
heavy media play from Trump voters, who apparently distribute it on the
tenth-grade sensibility that essay length substitutes for quality. The piece is
a shoddy straw man, filled with outright misrepresentations and silly
analogies. It’s pure, unadulterated Trumpsterism masquerading as high-minded
conservatism, all wrapped up in the pseudo-philosophical language of
misinterpreted virtù.
The first clue that something’s wrong with the piece is
the byline: Publius Decius Mus. Yes, the self-aggrandizing pseudonym harkens
back to the Roman consul of the same name, who sacrificed himself in battle in
order to save his comrades in 340 BC. We are meant to learn three things from
this byline: first, that the author is a classics genius familiar with the
writings of Livy; second, that he is a hero willing to die for his cause (but
not give his name for it); and finally, that he’s just like the founding
fathers, who wrote The Federalist Papers
pseudonymously, in his love of ideas.
What follows is, to paraphrase Cicero, incoherent,
mind-numbing horseshit.
Mr. Mus begins by suggesting that election 2016 is “the
Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or
the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly
or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death
is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian
Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and
take your chances.”
This has been the constant refrain from Republican “vote
for the lesser of two evils” establishment figures for my entire lifetime. If
you believe it, you should certainly vote Trump. That’s not facetious. If
that’s your risk calculation, you have a moral
duty to vote Trump.
But if you believe that the world won’t end if Hillary’s
president – if you believe that she’ll be a historically awful president, but
that there will be another election in four years in a heavily divided country
– then the Flight 93 analogy fails, and fails dramatically. If that’s the case,
then 2016 isn’t Flight 93, it’s Dunkirk, and conservatives had best save their
army for a later date when the reinvasion of the continent becomes possible.
The author knows that, and so he seeks to mock the very
notion that 2016 isn’t the end of the world: “To ordinary conservative ears,
this sounds histrionic. The stakes can’t be that high because they are never
that high—except perhaps in the pages of Gibbon….Cruz in 2024!” This offhanded
dismissal of the future of the country beyond 2016 reeks of self-congratulatory
smarminess (“See? I know Gibbon!”).
But it does prompt a question: if Trump loses, will all the conservatives who
insist the republic is done simply move to New Zealand? Will they stop
fighting? If so, who’s the coward, then?
Perhaps the most irritating element of the Claremont piece is the fact that the
author pretends that it’s a piece about the stakes of the election and the
myopia of those who refuse to see them, when it’s really just an apologia for
Pat Buchananism. Take, for example, this whopper: “The truth is that Trump
articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right
issues—immigration, trade, and war—right from the beginning.”
False. Trump thought Romney was too tough on immigration,
he’s been wrong on trade for decades, and he’s taken every conceivable position
on every conceivable war. This line alone should discredit the piece on grounds
of total intellectual dishonesty.
Unfortunately, the piece continues for another 9 pages of
closely-written chicken entrails.
Our pseudonymous hero writes, “One of the paradoxes—there
are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the
unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are
on a trajectory toward something very bad….they feel no such sense of urgency,
of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff.” Oh, really?
Name a conservative who thinks that we’re on a trajectory toward something
wonderful. One. Anyone. Bueller? Bueller?
I have spoken about America’s trajectory toward the cliff
for literally months, using that precise language, and I’ve done so especially regarding the Trump/Clinton
election. I’ve argued that the cliff we’re headed for cannot be averted by
anything less than conservatism, and it certainly can’t be averted by
Republicans turning over the future of conservatism to a Big Government
corporatist ad hoc blue dog Democrat
who will rip out the reverse gear on the car headed toward the oncoming ravine.
But according to Publius, I just don’t understand that fundamental change is required. Publius
writes condescendingly that while conservatives complain things are bad, they really just want to defend the status
quo: “Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas
adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are
even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart
of our problems?”
What sort of “fundamental” change is Publius looking for,
you ask? ("Interesting choice of phrase, that." -- Barack Obama) Not
conservatism – that’s failed: “Decentralization and federalism are all well and
good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how
are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that
Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction,
immorality, and corruption?”
No conservative would actually write this.
Decentralization and federalism, combined with a renewed societal focus on
virtue implemented at a familial and communal level, are the solution to an encroaching federal government. They are the
only solution.
But what is Publius’ solution? Why, Trump, of course!
“[Matthew] Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of
“stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national solidarity at home’
through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’
and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion.' That
sounds a lot like Trumpism,” writes our Roman hero.
So in other words, screw conservatism, let’s get the Big
Government corporatist ad hoc blue
dog Democrat in here. The guy who donated to Hillary Clinton will surely fix
things better than founding ideals ever have.
From there, Publius moves on to blame. Why won’t
conservatives just agree with him? Because they must be paid off! “Pecuniary
reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this
explanation until we have disproved all the others…. So what do we have to lose
by fighting back? Only our Washington Generals jerseys—and paychecks.” This is
the last refuge of the desperate Trump advocate – everyone with whom they
disagree has been bribed. The system is rigged. Someone ought to ask Sean
Hannity or Laura Ingraham or Breitbart.com just how much money they’ve lost backing Trump with the ardently hot
passion of a thousand smoldering suns. The answer: not a dime. And they’ve
gained ratings and presumably, the massive money that comes along with such
ratings. Some of us have actively
foregone significant money not to
worship at the Trumpian altar. It’s truly incredible how Trump supporters
darkly suggest that Jonah Goldberg is somehow getting rich off of opposing
Trump but simultaneously say National
Review is going bankrupt. Which is it, dolts?
Like a dog licking its own vomit, Publius then returns to
his original argument: conservatives just don’t get that things are bad, and
that victory for Trump is the only answer. “Let’s be very blunt here: if you
genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you
have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong….you’ve implicitly accepted
that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization
will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer
than conservatism and superior to it.”
No, actually, it’s ardent Trump supporters who have done
that. They’ve done it by nominating an amply unfit leftist for high office and
calling him the solution to leftism. And now they insist that everyone join
them, or undermine conservatism – the cause they say they don’t care about
because it’s been losing for decades.
Publius’ oddest argument is that conservatives have been
losing, and only losing, for decades. This is historically ignorant. He
dismisses conservative solutions on crime with a wave of his perfumed fingers:
“And what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done
to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism that still engulfs our
every—literal and figurative—shore has receded not a bit but indeed has grown.
All your (our) victories are short-lived.”
Well, it has helped millions of Americans escape death,
injury, and privation. And it has raised literally hundreds of millions of
people from abject poverty. But no big deal.
No, says Publius, conservatism hasn’t done anything for
“20 years.” What of the argument that conservatism has been shunted aside in
favor of Bushism and Trumpism? Publius blames conservatives for it: “The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc.,
reeks of failure.” This is magical thinking of the highest order: conservatives
opposed huge swaths of the Bush agenda, and stopped some elements (amnesty, for
example) dead. But every bad thing can be placed at the feet of conservatives,
while every non-existent good thing that has never happened and will never
happen can be attributed to Donald Trump. How convenient. (But good news: if
you doubt Publius’ argument, he does
have an irrelevant classics reference for you: Hannibal and Cannae!)
Then, Publius descends into raving Trumpmania:
To the extent that you are ever on
the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy
rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade
giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war…. Their “opposition” may be in
all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t
dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran
sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify
them.
I’m not for open borders. I’m not for pointless, winless
war (please, name the person who is). I’ve never been to Davos, and I don’t
care about the interests of big businesses, who spend millions of dollars
lobbying for trade restrictions to
protect themselves from competition (actually, all the open borders Davos types
are backing Trump -- just talk to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan). I’m the guy
who has to be accompanied onto college campuses by armed police officers thanks
to threat of riots, the fellow who called a transgender "woman" a man
to his face on national television,
not to be cruel, but because biological men are men. But we’ve now come to
Publius’ real argument: 4chan slurs. His opponents lack “thymos” (Greek! for
“spiritedness” – they’re low energy!). They’re open borders absolutists! (Never
mind that we were for a wall long before Trump was, and we’ll be for a wall
long after he isn’t anymore.) They want to “Invade the World, Invite the
World!” (Sure, we opposed the Libyan adventure, and sure, we’re for immigration
restrictions on cultural grounds, but forget it, Bluto’s rolling!) They’re
selling out to “Third World foreigners” because they fear being called racists!
(Publius must have been thumbing furiously through his Latin/English dictionary
for a translation of “cuck.”)
Publius says he wants Republican victory. Publius
channels Susan Hayward: “Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this
or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I
want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I
want to end the insanity.” And yet he admits that if a Democrat had run on
closed borders, trade restrictions, and isolationism, he would have voted
Democrat. So this isn’t an argument for preserving the country at all. It’s
just an argument for the restoration of the Reform Party circa 1999.
Finally, Publius ends with the most cherished chestnut of
Trumpism: a refusal to vote for Trump is a preference for Hillary Clinton.
“We’ve established that most ‘conservative’ anti-Trumpites are in the Orwellian
sense objectively pro-Hillary,” he writes, assuming his conclusion without
providing a shred of argument or evidence. “What about the rest of you? If you
recognize the threat she poses, but somehow can’t stomach him, have you thought
about the longer term?”
Yes, we are thinking about the longer term. Publius
isn’t, as he readily admitted earlier: for him, there is no longer term. There’s merely this election or bust. Which he
then says, just sentences later: “The election of 2016 is a test—in my view,
the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core
of the American nation.”
Virtù, for the non-Machiavelli readers, is a term meaning
not virtue in the Aristotelian sense, but bravery, strength, and ruthlessness
in service to virtue. Publius could have just written “balls,” but that
wouldn’t have earned him a C+ in his Philosophy 101 course.
But in the end, the only fellow lacking virtù is the one
who hides behind Donald Trump’s skirts and a pseudonym to tar those with whom he
disagrees, and to do so while falsely representing his paleoconservative
nastiness as a defense of conservatism. Some of us have spent decades fighting
the left. Publius has wasted ten pages of valuable paper excusing his own
cowardice in failing to fight the left (where’s he been all this time?) on behalf of another coward who has failed
to fight the left (where’s Trump been
all this time, other than giving money to Democrats?).
There are good arguments for voting Trump. But this
diarrheic mess of jabbering drivel by a faux-intellectual substituting
classical references for wisdom ain’t it.
No comments:
Post a Comment