Donald Trump is not running as a conservative candidate. As I stated in Part I of this series, Trump is running as an American forged in the heated trials of the business world. If you have ever experienced the ferocious debates that take place in a boardroom, it should be readily understood that decorum may take a backseat in order to deliver a convincing message. Moreover, Trump’s message is not for conservatives, it is for Americans. An unintended, and yet welcome, consequence of his message will be the ability to reformulate American conservatism within a framework that expunges the neo-Jacobins that have commandeered this historically rich political philosophy and worldview. In addition to exposing and extricating the neo-Jacobins, there will also be an opportunity to ex-communicate the hopelessly confused, intellectually weak, double-minded, country club, journalistically motivated “conservatives.”
The reasoning in this piece by Rod Dreher, as well as the article he is highlighting by Ross Douthat, is as unoriginal as it is naive. In fact, the arguments offered are nothing new. They are the same whiney talking points veiled under the persona of prestige “conservatives” have been making against Trump from the beginning of his campaign. According to Dreher, their has not been an anti-Trump conservative argument articulated as well as Douthat’s. Not only does such an assertion exhibit magnificent cluelessness, it is yet another demonstration of the confused intellectual weakness of Dreher’s political opportunism. Apparently, leftist revolutionaries causing civil unrest if they don’t win an election is a consequence we should not be willing to live with, but the potential for nuclear war with Russia is worth the risk.
Has Dreher not been paying attention for the past year? Has he completely missed the litany of the same arguments made since the beginning of the Republican primaries against Trump?
“Trump is not fit for office.”
“Trump is outside of acceptable conservative politics.”
“Trump is clueless on policy.”
“Trump is a vulgarian.”
“There will be civil unrest if Trump is elected.”
“Hillary Clinton is bad, but Trump is just really mean.”
These voices attempting to influence public opinion are so frustratingly incoherent that the lack of argumentative self-awareness is as transparent as it is infuriating. When so-called conservatives parrot the arguments of their alleged progressive rivals, something other than an election is motivating these opinions. This mysterious “something” stirring up the mirrored triteness of progressive sensibilities among the “conservative” elite is the dreaded loss of meaningful influence peddling.
Simply stated, reputations are at stake.
At least one thing has become very clear in this election season, journalistically minded “conservatives” prefer the fuzzy feelings of well articulated speeches coupled with disastrous neo-Jacobin foreign and domestic policies to a vulgarian attempting to forge a new America first priority in these same policy avenues. As long as you speak in a way that is acceptable, policies don’t really matter; they some how magically become conservative if the words sound right.
Now, if someone has an argument against Trump’s policies, then make the argument. If, however, the argument is couched in the notion suggested by Douthat and Dreher, that Trump tramples on the “traditions” conservatives extoll, such an argument not only misses the point, but it ignores the fact that conservatism has roots going back further than George W. Bush.
I am starting to understand why these men are labeled “cuckservatives.”
– Lucas G. Westman