Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Against Never Trump … By Rich Lowry?
The title is provocative: The Never Trump Delusion.
And this time the writer can’t be distanced from the title. Because the author is the editor. The editor of National Review and the force behind the well-timed but glancingly effective December 2015 “Against Trump” edition that laid the foundation stones, wittingly or not, for the Never Trump movement amongst many conservative intellectuals. (Personally, I think the “Against Trump” edition was gutsy and helped to provide Rubio his one shot at the end zone, but he fumbled and repeatedly kick the ball in NH when hit by a New Jersey lineman.)
To be fair, Lowry was never truly Never Trump. His support was always seemingly waylaid by yet another appalling Trump stunt. Yet Lowry often emphasized that Trump’s populist and nationalist conservatism was far closer to the mainstream of Republican politics than many of his fellow pundits often pretended. At NR, he occupied a painful space with Michael Brendan Dougherty (one truly fine thinker and writer).
Lowry’s piece pulls few punches. And he should expect some haymakers in return.
Yes, he notes the carnival aspects of Trump, but he’s pretty squarely in support of Trumpism, praising the version prevailing today with fighting words for many of his own fine writers: “…usefully points the way beyond a tired Reagan nostalgia.” (Lowry can drop 500 words on you.)
And his verdict on outstanding Never Trumpers is pretty unsparing: “the coterie of critics on the right — loosely referred to as Never Trump — often sound like they are in denial.”
Lowry’s quick tour of recent GOP successes downgrades “textbook libertarian economics” and highlights the departures made from orthodoxy by Buckley, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush (he neglects W and gay marriage but then everyone does today, don’t they?).
One can share Lowry’s lament at Trump’s personal shortcomings and his hope for a “more fully thought-out and integrated conservative populism.”
Yet his conclusion is not likely to be shared by many at his own magazine (Lowry’s an outstanding editor and probably knows how to get his writers back to work on a holiday weekend):
But make no mistake: On immigration and China trade, Trump is closer to the national Republican consensus than his conservative detractors.
A realistic attitude to Trump involves acknowledging both his flaws and how he usefully departs from a tired Reagan nostalgia. By all means, criticize him when he’s wrong. But don’t pretend that he’s just going away, or that he’s a wild outlier in the contemporary GOP.
What says Ricochet?
Published in General
This doesn’t strike me as speaking to any “NTers” that I read. It’s a straw argument. Who is pretending that he’s going away? Who considers someone who rolled to the nomination a “wild outlier”? The NTers that I’m aware of seem more concerned that he isn’t a wild outlier.
I read the piece. I think by and large I agree that Trumpism is far closer to the mean of Republican bases wishes. Which is why I don’t consider myself a Republican anymore, and don’t care much to support them as such. I guess I am without a political party then, but I don’t really care. Maybe the Democrats will make some room (probably not) or maybe the Republicans will change their ways (probably not) or maybe after some time alone I will change my ways (probably not). Can’t please everyone I guess. Maybe someone will come up with a synthesis of Trumpism that I will find tolerable, but I don’t think that will or can be Trump, and I’m not going to do his work for him.
And anyway I have developed enough personal antipathy towards the man that even if I were to decide to vote for him over whatever weirdo the Democrats nominate I wouldn’t stop beating up on him. If I have to tolerate his reprehensible behavior because of Gorsuch and taxcuts then he should have to tolerate my reprihensible behavior too.
That way we can be angry an miserable with each other together, like any marriage of convenience.
Have to disagree Hoyacon. Certainly true of more libertarian and conservatarian Republicans. I certainly hope that Trumpism isn’t the future of the party. But Trump is far, far closer to many of the neoconservatives at the Weekly Standard that they’d like to concede. If you read the once central text of magazine — A Return to National Greatness — it’s pretty Trumpy.
Sure, you can pull out a cliche or two here, but Lowry is making a pretty strong statement. Usefully departing from Reagan nostalgia? Them’s fighting words for many.
To respond to Hoya and Quake above, I think what Lowry means is that Trump isn’t so much an ideological, small government conservative. And a large swathe of Republicans aren’t, either. They don’t recoil from the statement “there oughtta be a law!” the way I, and other libertarian leaning conservatives do. I don’t think he’s talking about the personality stuff. Though I could be wrong.
I don’t want the personality stuff to be the future of the GOP. But I do want the GOP to grow a collective pair and stand up to the media and the left, and that seems to be, in part, what Trumpism is. I’m not in full agreement with Trumpism on trade and immigration, but I also don’t see the Trumpist view on those issues as being wholly destructive to our way of life as some of my stripe seem to think.
I’ll stand by my belief that that it’s OK to pull Lowry’s main message from his last-sentence punch line. His title speaks to a delusion, and his formulation of that delusion is summarized there. If anything, the recent budget hijinks highlight that, on an issue of major domestic significance, Trump and the representatives of his party are pretty simpatico. As for neocons and foreign policy, Trump is fully in the “speak loudly” camp, but that is the default foreign policy position for any Republican president. I guess that I just don’t get this “outlier” stuff or who actually believes it.
If outlier means “Trump isn’t really all that conservative, but the rest of the GOP is”, and that is what Lowery is referring to, then it makes sense to me.
I guess I parse the conclusion differently Hoyacon. He’s trying to counter a “delusion” by stating “A realistic attitude to Trump involves acknowledging both his flaws and how he usefully departs from a tired Reagan nostalgia.” That’s not a nothingburger from the editor of National Review.
Another key point Lowry emphasizes is the connections between Trumpism (which Lowry clearly supports more than Trump) and previous ornaments of both the GOP and the conservative movement.
I think you are throwing much too much emphasis on one weak sentence in a strong arguable piece.
Tom Cotton is probably working hardest to create that synthesis, in my opinion. He’s a good stand in for Trumpism without Trump’s negatives (and with some sterling qualities of his own). Most of my libertarian friends don’t care for him. Some conservatarians are on the fence about him. I’m a big fan.
Scott Walker, if he wins big this November, can maybe reposition himself. Ironically, he dropped out early and graciously enough to evade the full fire-in-the-belly label, though I might be wrong here.
Like everyone else, I’d nominate Haley. Like everyone else, I couldn’t give you a coherent policy-based 250-word letter of support. That’s either her real advantage or disadvantage. But major league talent.
I disagree with you that Lowry’s conclusion “is not likely to be shared by many at his own magazine”. There might be a few NT types there, but most are like Lowry, acknowledging both successes and shortcomings. The idea that NR is a hotbed of NT sentiment is simply wrong, as actually reading the magazine would demonstrate.
They have suffered a lot as people like me cancelled subscriptions and did not go on the cruise. Their first sin, and this was Lowry, was firing Derbyshire for telling the truth that everyone knows. Then they dropped Mark Steyn.
If you want to know where Trump came from, and I suspect you don’t, (Your moderators are almost enough to get me to quit Ricochet again) You might read Jim Webb’s book, “Born Fighting.”
I think the actual piece by Lowry was more directed at heading off a future primary challenge to Trump. That’s a defensible stance since this class of primary always harms the incumbent president. But it also speaks to a institutional interest. NR is wisely creating a platform for conservatives of all stripes, be they pro or anti Trump. Compare that take to Commentary or the Weekly Standard which both see Trump and his supporters as a cancer to be removed.
As Lowry says in his piece, it’s insane to primary a sitting president who commands 80% approval in his party. The subtext being it insane to totally alienate that potential readership by supporting a primary. Now as Mike K just emphasized, NR is too anti Trump for some. I think he and the others who left are wrong (is seeing Jonah Goldberg and Jay Nordlinger be mean to a politician really so awful?) because NR is more than a referendum on any one president. But Lowry is solidifying NR’s claim as the preeminent Conservative media institution. Right now, there is no second place.
Agajn, wise decision. Lowry’s position on populism is that if responsible people don’t deal with pressing issues like immigration, irresponsible ones will. Better to incorporate and channel a la MBD or VDH the populist themes than be irrelevant.
Mark Steyn left on his own accord.
The Lowry piece was tilting at windmills. There are good points in there about the folly of primary challenges and a need to synthesize common ground between nationalist populists and traditional conservatives, but the stuff about NeverTrumpers was all straw men and nonsense.
Why was it straw men and nonsense?
In fairness, Jean you are misreading what follows that “is not likely to be shared by many at his own magazine“. It has little to do with who is Never Trump and who is calling balls and strikes. Lowry asserts that Trump is closer to Republican voters on immigration and China trade than his critics (you might say this is just an observation) and then asserts that these positions “usefully depart from a tired Reagan nostalgia”. That’s not just an observation.
Does one have to be a Never Trumper to object when the editor of National Review finds Trumpism a useful departure from Reagan nostalgia?
Any Reagan Republicans out there?
Because there is no real NeverTrump contingent of significance anywhere. The vast majority of former NeverTrumpers fall into the “call balls and strikes” crowd. To continue to bring it up demonstrates that you don’t want to really deal with the reality of conservative criticisms of the President.
Okay Jamie. But Lowry wrote the article and Lowry titled the article. So you’re saying that the editor of the National Review doesn’t really want to deal with the reality of conservative criticisms of the President? Seems like he’s been dealing with that criticism pretty fairly and evenhandedly since November 2016. Is he delusional? Maybe he has more direct, personal relationships with these intellectuals than you or I and has gained a better understanding of the depth and breadth of their opposition to Trump?
The power in that question speaks to Lowry’s savvy here. I’m a dirty millennial (leading edge, born during the Reagan admin) so I find the nostalgia silly. But perhaps I was unduly influenced by Y Levin’s fractured republic. Regardless, the question going forward is how to keep the voters Trump brought without losing voters like me: young-ish, brownish and suburban-ish. Lowry has done a fine job splitting the baby thus far. He keeps someone like me from just totally tuning out.
I think that NR is best being NR. I would hate to see it become like those Trump described, those who would support him even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. There are plenty of bootlickers and celebrity lovers around without adding to their numbers.
I think it’s revealing that you describe firing Derbyshire as a “sin”. What the merits or demerits of that action are, or of dropping Mark Steyn, I can’t pretend to know as I am not privy to the whole of the story from both sides. Neither are you. Regardless, it’s interesting that instead of calling it a bad decision or a dumb move, you call it a “sin”! A moral transgression! Porking a porn star while your wife is nursing your newborn child is not a big deal, but woe be to them that make evil, sinful journalistic decisions.
Ahhh. Quake Voter, those are very good points and you are right, I was focusing on the “balls and strikes” and NTs, and skipping over what you point out about immigration and China trade. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
I don’t know what’s in Lowry’s head. I’ve had my issues with his commentary lately – especially his attempt to describe a conservative nationalism, but he’s a writer I respect and one I will never dismiss entirely. All our favorites make mistakes from time to time and I think Lowry makes a few here.
Same here but Trump was certainly not the cause. While I trace the actual separation to Mississippi 2014, the earliest signs of the coming departure are now clearly visible as far back as the Bush-Frist years….or even Bush capturing the party as a “compassionate” conservative…whatever the heck that was supposed to mean. I cannot say that I have a very high opinion of the republican-like factions that can now look back over the last decade and a half of their party’s performance but then point to Trump as “the” problem. Simple ignorance is their best defense…but in many cases I suspect worse.
So now, as a comfortable outsider, I will admit that I do enjoy the daily/weekly poke-everyone-in-the eye-routine that is Trumpism, even though it is occasionally targeted in my general direction (i.e. conservative) to the semi-annual date rape (or worse) and pickpocketing of McConnellism that is by definition always targeted in my direction (i.e. country class). Make no mistake, McConnellism and its descendants will be around long after Mr. Trump is gone. He is nothing but an unfortunate (for them) speed bump in their long march against We the People.
I repeat, there is not enough tar and feathers on our shores to do a proper job of it. Now, if you wish, back to the anti-Trump distractions…
It seems to me that everyone’s an outsider, these days. It’s like the Goth kid who dresses that way to be unique, not realizing that everyone dresses different just to be different.
And, as the slightly older and more refined political thinker that I am, who once displayed his own individuality with a mullet that was so much better than the other twenty-two thousand mullets in town, I can…and will…still look down my nose at these silly “Goth” kids.
I say “Welcome to the Happy Warriors” Rich Lowry!
Is he allowed to say “delusion”? That sounds too close to the prohibited D-word.
Can anyone describe what “calling balls and strikes” really means? More often it functions as a cliche.
If you are calling balls and strikes on Trump, is Trump the pitcher or the hitter? I’d suppose Trump is the pitcher when evaluating his actions (what he’s throwing out there) and the hitter when judging the criticism thrown at him.
But the phrase is more often a substitute for judgement.
Umpires don’t just call balls and strikes, do they? They call batters out or call the ball that walks in the winning run (painful subject for Mets fans). At the end of nine innings, the Nationals don’t beat the Mets 259 strikes to 239. (They beat us with a three-run homer from Murph.)
Calling balls and strikes by former Never Trumpers seem more like dodge ball than hard ball.
Tell us what the score is? We are into the third or fourth inning of this first game (and it may be a doubleheader). Sure there have been a few errors and Trump misbehaves like Earl Weaver at times, but is he ahead?
How is Trump pitching this far into the season? Is he 6-2 with a 3.30 ERA (my rating) or 2-6 with a 5.50 ERA?
Or did you eject Trump from the game for unsportsmanlike conduct and you are really not calling balls and strikes at all.
Giving him the outside strike? Permitted him to throw hard inside without calling foul? How about the occasional brush back pitch? No place in the game for you?
Are you really still undecided about what team you (or Trump) are playing for?
Criticize POTUS when you believe he deserves it and praise him when you believe he deserves it. The problem now is we can’t even agree when he deserves criticism and praise.
For example, some of us believe that conduct in office matters. That the way the President communicates with the public affects not only his ability to do his job but drags out discourse further into the gutter. (Yes the media is awful in this regard too). Not only can we not agree that this even matters, but we can’t agree that even if it does that his conduct is in error. So the wheel spins on and the divide continues. Many further NTs feel like they have given an inch by moving off their former Never position, and many of the Presidents most ardent supporters are unable to move on from the election or forgive past “transgressions”. So the wheel spins on and the divide continues.
It’s pretty boring at this point.
Lowry’s article was pleasant to read and overdue.
Never Trump is the epitome of “All hat and no cattle” conservatism. It’s no surprise that these cowboys have been scattering lately in search of new places to hang their Stetsons. (I don’t think Lowry’s article and Kevin Williamson’s departure are a coincidence.)
The Brotherhood of Offended Sensibilities – which has the hubris of claiming to be both True Conservatives and Classical Liberals! – is the political equivalent of our Mainline Protestant denominations.
As with those religious groups, which also opted for cultural liberalism and egalitarianism, the result in conservatism is a highly credentialed ministry preaching from the formerly influential pulpits of legacy institutions to mostly empty pews. Like Episcopalians, the Brotherhood of Offended Sensibilities, aka Never Trump, continues to claim to be the true exponents of the faith and are occasionally showcased by the cultural Left – as long as they don’t talk any of that icky Jesus stuff.
This attitude right here is why the divide continues on the right and will continue for as long as people are more interested in recriminations than anything else.