No deal for NoKo and the Dems and The Bulwark are stuck in 2016, fighting the last battle. Is conservativism conserved by mocking pro-lifers at CPAC? The intro/outro and Jon’s song of the week is “Cotton Skies” by Westkust and Stephen’s song of the week is “Maybe You’re the Reason” by The Japanese House. To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our all-new 2019 Spotify playlist!

Subscribe to The Conservatarians in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 24 comments.

  1. Thatcher

    I can only think that they named it thebulwark.com because someone had already registered thedumpsterfireofthevanities.com.

    • #1
    • March 1, 2019 at 4:53 pm
    • 13 likes
  2. Member

    “The Sean Hannitys to me are not that offensive because Sean Hannity is dumb as a box of rocks — he doesn’t know any better.” — Charlie Sykes, February 22, 2019, theatlantic.com

    (Through a spokesperson, Hannity responded, “If Charlie and the rest of the sore-loser, establishment Never Trumpers had their way, Hillary would be president … I wish them well supporting the next radical socialist that runs for president.”)

    Wow!

    Calling a fellow important conservative with a huge audience and decades of experience “dumb as a box of rocks” sort of proves that you might be as “dumb as a box of rocks”…

    Whatever happened to the Golden Rule, Reagan’s 11th Commandment, etc.

    Calling balls and strikes on the Trump administration? Sounds more like head-hunting beanball to me.

    Yikes.

    • #2
    • March 2, 2019 at 12:27 am
    • 4 likes
  3. Coolidge

    The Goldberg/Hayes project interests me. The Bulwark never did. Maybe if Bill Kristol launched a bigfoot erotica section….

    nah. I’ll stick with Jonah.

    • #3
    • March 2, 2019 at 2:18 am
    • 5 likes
  4. Member

    Jonah’s “Bulwark-lite” still doesn’t interest me. This piece at The Week explains it better than I can.

    “Generic white #NeverTrump conservative” is already the most overrepresented type in American media. There are approximately 200 of these people in the United States, and every single one of them has a column in a major newspaper and a book about why Drumpf is the logical and polar opposite of certain ideals supposedly embodied in whatever Tocqueville quotes their research assistants have just pulled up for them. They are the same people who have spent the last two decades insisting that all the things that actually keep people voting for the GOP against their own economics interests — opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage — are yucky. They are often referred to as “neocons,” but this appellation is insulting to the legacy of Irving Kristol and Christopher Lasch. A better one is “metro-conservatives,” i.e., think-tank grifters.

    #NeverTrump types are desperate to convince readers that clichés about “entrepreneurship,” endless war, and moaning about the Founding Fathers are still cool. But nobody listens. They had their shot with roughly 15 other candidates in 2016, and the American people rejected all of them, one by one. If your ideas are so bad that social conservatives would rather vote for a twice-divorced serial philanderer than pull the lever for any of the indistinguishable blue-blazered frat boys who are mouthpieces for them, maybe you should rethink what you’re doing. If the Never Trumpers had gotten the candidate they wanted, Hillary Clinton would have won Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

    They know this. They also couldn’t care less. Why should they, when the paychecks continue to cash? They have been insulated from the badness of their ideas for decades; this isn’t going to change, probably ever.

    . . .

    The rise of NeverTrump publications that will be read by nobody reinforces the long-standing view that conservative media is a form of welfare. Here are people who are not clever enough to be academics, not disciplined enough to practice law or any other useful profession, with no particular skills except writing things that no one agrees with who have still ended up rich.

    That they’re out looking for wealthy patrons — like The Bulwark‘s lefty billionaires who pay them to attack the President and other conservative voices — instead of depending on readers to actually fund, them tells me they’ll just be dancing to the tune of those who write the checks.

    Outside the Beltway and Twitter, few people care what these guys have to say.

    • #4
    • March 2, 2019 at 8:00 am
    • 5 likes
  5. Member

    I am looking forward to Jonah’s new project. I am not a Trump fan, but find The Bulwark and Kristol obnoxious. Trump is the president. I don’t like him personally, but largely what he has done has been in agreement with what I wanted see. I am concerned that his personality and the anti-Trump right could damage his chances at a second term unless the idiot left gets their wish and nominates one of those leftist ideologues. Either way, conservatives should be supporting whoever is nominated by the party because, ultimately, it is binary. The country is horribly divided and, as such, we need to pick our side and hold to it.

    • #5
    • March 2, 2019 at 8:39 am
    • 6 likes
  6. Coolidge

    In case Steve Miller reads these comments:

    I caught your reverence to CCR when you said “I ain’t no fortunate son” during the Trump/Kim summit discussion. My question:

    Do they teach “Drop some cultural references now and again” in J school or is that just something you picked up on your own?

    And how many of your Gen X listeners caught the reference?

     

    PS Not trying to be snarky, truly interested.

    • #6
    • March 2, 2019 at 9:25 am
    • Like
  7. Member

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jonah’s “Bulwark-lite” still doesn’t interest me. This piece at The Week explains it better than I can.

    … #NeverTrump types are desperate to convince readers that clichés about “entrepreneurship,” endless war, and moaning about the Founding Fathers are still cool.

    I like moaning about the Founding Fathers, if you mean respecting them. I thought all conservatives did.

    Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg?

    The trick is to find two people who don’t have the exact same views. They even look similar except that one has more gray hair in his goatee and one has more gray hair on his head…

    Conrad Black is a pro-Trump media guy with nothing to do.

    All mainstream media programs should have a Leftist and a real conservative to balance things out to critique the other’s stories, but they refuse to do anything like this.

    • #7
    • March 2, 2019 at 9:34 am
    • Like
  8. Coolidge

    The Bulwark is a disaster. “Conservatism Conserved” is a childish tagline and hints they are doing the opposite. I think the name “Bulwark” might also be a pun for “Bull-werk” as in a factory for bull-sh*t.

    If Jonah can make something like WaPo, but from that right, that would be interesting. There is a market for that, but it would take a lot of money.

    • #8
    • March 2, 2019 at 11:05 am
    • 3 likes
  9. Member

    • #9
    • March 2, 2019 at 1:52 pm
    • 2 likes
  10. Member

    Kristol brags that he’s “triggered snowflakes” by sending a pro-abortion writer to CPAC to mock pro-lifers and conservatives in general.

    So . . . that’s the Bulwark. Mocking pro-lifers to own Trump.

     

    • #10
    • March 2, 2019 at 3:15 pm
    • 4 likes
  11. Thatcher

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    So . . . that’s the Bulwark. Mocking pro-lifers to own Trump.

    Don’t want any of those types voting for Bill’s preferred candidate.

    • #11
    • March 2, 2019 at 3:34 pm
    • 1 like
  12. Contributor

    Oh, for heaven’s sake! Painting Rick Wilson as a victim? Give me a friggin’ break. 

    • #12
    • March 2, 2019 at 4:38 pm
    • 5 likes
  13. Member

    terichristoph (View Comment):

    Oh, for heaven’s sake! Painting Rick Wilson as a victim? Give me a friggin’ break.

    Thank you.

    People claiming that their moral principles require them to reject President Trump while at the same time embracing the very foul Rick Wilson are the epitome of hypocrites.

    I would provide examples of some of Rick Wilson’s foul Tweets, except they would probably crash the Redacto-Bot.

    • #13
    • March 2, 2019 at 4:52 pm
    • 4 likes
  14. Member

    Maybe it was a bad decision for them to send Molly Jong-Fast to CPAC. That’s all it was; a bad decision. Her piece(s) are not Bulwark editorial positions. And most of the criticism of her is about the things she tweeted, which are not the same as her piece on the website. So the Bulwark itself is a few degrees removed from her tweets, and doesn’t deserve as much blame as it’s getting. They’re probably guilty of some tactical or editorial errors, but not every piece they run is going to be golden. Not every assignment is going to go over well. It seems like everyone is overreacting. This wouldn’t make sense to someone not on the internet.

    • #14
    • March 2, 2019 at 6:57 pm
    • Like
  15. Member

    ExcitableBoy (View Comment):
    Maybe it was a bad decision for them to send Molly Jong-Fast to CPAC. That’s all it was; a bad decision. Her piece(s) are not Bulwark editorial positions.

    If you read Bill Kristol’s tweet calling anti-infanticide/anti-abortion people “snowflakes”, I think your might rethink your position on where he and the Bulwark stand relative to real conservatives.

    • #15
    • March 3, 2019 at 5:38 am
    • 3 likes
  16. Coolidge

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jonah’s “Bulwark-lite” still doesn’t interest me. This piece at The Week explains it better than I can.

    … #NeverTrump types are desperate to convince readers that clichés about “entrepreneurship,” endless war, and moaning about the Founding Fathers are still cool.

    I like moaning about the Founding Fathers, if you mean respecting them. I thought all conservatives did.

     

    The author of the piece is probably not what we would call a conservative — he jocularly refers to the Washington Post as a “center-right publication“ — but his critique of this tiny band of, as we used to say during the Cold War, “u——l i——s“, is mostly on the money.

    Not that I think it’s really about money: ego is a much more powerful motivator, in political life. (Also, don’t expect to see many articles like this in the print version of The Week, which gives Never Trumpers more space than they deserve.)

    As for the Founding Fathers, one could argue that, in a dominant culture which is swiftly converting them all into villains, of varying degrees of villainy, it is a futile exercise to discuss what they really thought about this or that policy. If you could get an honest answer from a progressive, he would say “we don’t care what they thought“. 

    • #16
    • March 3, 2019 at 10:45 am
    • Like
  17. Coolidge

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Kristol brags that he’s “triggered snowflakes” by sending a pro-abortion writer to CPAC to mock pro-lifers and conservatives in general.

    So . . . that’s the Bulwark. Mocking pro-lifers to own Trump.

     

    Bill Kristol congratulating himself via tweeting seems a lot like the actions of the guy he purports to hate.

    Does Bill pay a dude to untie him from all his self-inflicted pretzeling of himself? He’s folded in on himself so many times he must be nearing…The Singularity. The Singularity of Foppish Condescension.

    This is what comes from being picked last in every possible sporting event in childhood.

     

    • #17
    • March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am
    • 4 likes
  18. Coolidge

    ExcitableBoy (View Comment):

    Maybe it was a bad decision for them to send Molly Jong-Fast to CPAC. That’s all it was; a bad decision. Her piece(s) are not Bulwark editorial positions. And most of the criticism of her is about the things she tweeted, which are not the same as her piece on the website. So the Bulwark itself is a few degrees removed from her tweets, and doesn’t deserve as much blame as it’s getting. They’re probably guilty of some tactical or editorial errors, but not every piece they run is going to be golden. Not every assignment is going to go over well. It seems like everyone is overreacting. This wouldn’t make sense to someone not on the internet.

    Those are Bulwark tweets if she’s paid to go there, for the Bulwark, and tweet. Which she is. So if there’s no editorial control of that content, it’s still a Bulwark tweet. If they approved it, same thing.

    But they own it like they would a published story on their website.

    • #18
    • March 3, 2019 at 11:13 am
    • 3 likes
  19. Coolidge

    The Kim & Trump & Warmbier controversy reminds me of the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

    I pointed out at the time that, to Rupert Murdoch, the publication was hardly more than a line item. “The revenues are down. Do something about it.” “Yessir.“

    Eventually it would trickle down to the editor: “Jones, you haven’t brought in a scoop in 18 months. Do something about it.“ “Yessir.“

    In the same vein, I think it’s likely Kim was briefed about the existence of an American prisoner named Otto Warmbier. It’s conceivable he took an interest in the case; but, as we well know from experience , in a Communist society you always tell your superiors what they want to hear, not what is actually going on. 

    Thus, the idea Kim was responsible for Warmbier’s mistreatment is not preposterous, but it is unlikely. And as a CEO himself, Trump understands this. 

    Incidentally, Kim was born into an evil system; he didn’t create it. We don’t blame Washington and Jefferson for creating the slave system.

    Finally, I’m amazed more conservatives don’t point out that, if Russia stole the 2016 election, then Barack Obama is a strong contender for Worst President in American History.

    • #19
    • March 3, 2019 at 11:43 am
    • Like
  20. Thatcher

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Kristol brags that he’s “triggered snowflakes” by sending a pro-abortion writer to CPAC to mock pro-lifers and conservatives in general.

    So . . . that’s the Bulwark. Mocking pro-lifers to own Trump.

     

    Bill Kristol congratulating himself via tweeting seems a lot like the actions of the guy he purports to hate.

    Does Bill pay a dude to untie him from all his self-inflicted pretzeling of himself? He’s folded in on himself so many times he must be nearing…The Singularity. The Singularity of Foppish Condescension.

    This is what comes from being picked last in every possible sporting event in childhood.

     

    Don’t judge Bill Krystol until you’ve walked a mile in his Gucci brogues.

    • #20
    • March 3, 2019 at 12:03 pm
    • 2 likes
  21. Member

    I love that Stephen Miller, who has never served in the military despite being a military-aged male throughout almost the entirety of the War on Terror, makes a jab at Trump for not serving in Vietnam. An evergreen bonespurs joke–good job, buddy. Also enjoyed his assessment regarding war on the Korean Peninsula. While I only have 175 Twitter followers, which evidently makes me an individual worthy of Miller’s contempt, I also have a security clearance and receive updates/briefs on the particulars of such a war. I also know that early in the Trump Administration, McMaster, et al were planning for a “bloody-nose” strike on Kim because the defense establishment’s assessment of North Korean capability and intent was so dire that many of them believed getting the jump on the Norks in a war might be the best solution; I also happen to know how horrifically bloody any conflict on the Peninsula will be, how quickly we run out of missiles, how long our citizens will be waiting at ports of entry for air and sea lift to evacuate the Peninsula, etc, etc. I know all these things and I disagree with Stephen Miller, but I only have 175 Twitter followers and he has 117K, so we know who the real expert is here.

    [A recurring moral-of-the-story in these times: Conservative, Inc. jackassery is how you get Trump.]

    • #21
    • March 4, 2019 at 7:20 am
    • 4 likes
  22. Lincoln

    You basically described how I think Trump thinks of Kim and his attempts to make a deal. Sorry, I still don’t really know which one of you is which.

    • #22
    • March 4, 2019 at 7:23 am
    • Like
  23. Contributor

    I usually stay out of the soap that is the tiresome, supercilious remnants of NT, but my impression of those representing Bulwark on a panel or two at CPAC was they were meek and disdainful of the proletariat class of conservatives they found themselves amongst. When they spoke in their soft NPR tones it was a steady stream of superlative based sanctimony toward most of the audience.

    One female who represented the upstart, (I don’t care to name but easy to look up) spoke in such a soft volume you barely realized she was insulting you until her library-level decibels were drowned out by the strong female on their panel ready to take the fight to the left and any contemptuous “conservatives” who refuse to accept the free market spoke: They are neither relevant nor wanted.

    If these are the people Bill and Co. want to be the face of Conservativism, we would stand no chance of reversing the Marxist march through the institutions.

    • #23
    • March 4, 2019 at 4:40 pm
    • 4 likes
  24. Contributor

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    People claiming that their moral principles require them to reject President Trump while at the same time embracing the very foul Rick Wilson are the epitome of hypocrites.

    Amen to this! There are very few things that will make me unfollow a person or stop listening to their podcast, but revering Rick Wilson is one of them.

     

    • #24
    • March 5, 2019 at 11:44 am
    • 1 like