07/22/2016
Needless to say thereâs frantic Main Stream Media spinning after Donald Trumpâs powerful (and immigration-patriotic) acceptance speech at the GOP convention in Cleveland. I believe itâs important to note that much of it comes from neoconservatives â for example Jennifer Rubin wrote in the Washington Post âenraged, angry rantâ seemed âmore indicative of a televangelist or a 1930s fascist leader than a president of the United States.â The neocons believe Trump represents what they themselves would call an âexistential threatâ to their grip on the American Right. They may be right.
Hereâs Bill Kristolâs tweet on the speech:
This is Pat Buchananâs 1992 convention speech, considerably dumbed down, and-- more important--delivered by the Republican Partyâs nominee.
â Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) July 22, 2016
Indeed, for some time we've seen that neoconservative pundits and âpolicy advisersâ are doing everything they can to defeat Trump. Some like Robert Kagan are openly supporting Hillary Clinton. Bill Kristol, Elliot Cohen, Rich Lowry, and Steve Hayes continue to spit their bile [No Trump, by Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, March 14, 2016].
As always with the neoconservatives, itâs 1939 all over again. Jacob Heilbrunn in Commentary has designated Trump as âthe No. 1 threat to American securityâ â an accusation that even a fellow traveler like Heilbrunn described as âhyperbolicâ [There is no escape from Trump, March 3, 2016].
National Reviewsays Trump is not a "conservative" [The GOPâs ideological earthquake and the aftermath, by Charles Krauthammer, May 5, 2016]. Commissar Leon Wolf âs Red State argues the GOP, âby supporting Trump, absolutely rejects conservatismâ [Trump as useful fool, by Kimberly Ross, June 10, 2016].
Of course, these same people screaming that Trump is not a real "conservative" had no trouble with Mitt Romney, John McCain and other Republican Establishment products â who, apart from anything else, were useless on immigration.
The reasons for this are obvious. Trump seems less willing than his opponent to engage in adventurous missions abroad under neoconservative guidance. He has positioned himself too far to the Right of the neocons on immigration â which they really donât want to see raised at all. Finally, he wishes to renegotiate all the trade deals that the neocons and their sponsors have energetically promoted.
But what might happen to these implacable neocon adversaries if Trump became president? This is far from unlikely. According to polls, Trump presently trails Hillary by only a few points among likely voters. In Rasmussen polls, Trump is actually winning. Voters, according to the latest polling, also no longer rate Hillary as âbetter preparedâ than Trump for the presidency. [Voters Question Clintonâs Qualifications, Now Rate Trump Equal, Rasmussen, July 11, 2016]
On the left, both Salon and Bill Maher were impressed with Trumpâs speech, not to say frightened: His dark materials: After that diabolical, masterful performance, Donald Trump could easily end up president, (by Andrew OâHehir, Salon, July 22, 2016).
But are the neoconservatives irreparably damaged if Donald Trump becomes President of the United States?
After long and bitter experience, I would say the odds are, no. The neoconservativesâ assets are so âyugeâ (as the Donald would say) it would take nothing short of a missile attack or an outbreak of the Black Plague in New York and Washington to destroy them. Among their considerable assets (and this is hardly exhaustive) is a vast media empire that press baron Rupert Murdoch has put at their disposal, numerous websites and think-tanks in the New York- D.C. Corridor, access to the Leftist national press (who regard neocons as the acceptable opposition) and publishing houses (such as Encounter and Regnery) that churn out neocon agitprop. âConservatism, Inc.â is a neocon holding, and it is impossible for me to imagine the present conservative movement without its neoconservative spokespersons and direction-givers.
That said, I doubt that the neoconservatives could endure a Trump-presidency without taking a hit. The GOPâs presidential nominee is now surrounded by politicians and public figures who were once tight with the neoconservatives. This widening list would include Rudolph Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, and on the basis of his recent statements, John Bolton. If Trump became president, these and his other supporters will not rejoin Trumpâs neoconservative detractors. Given persistence and virulence of the neoconservative campaign against Trump, Trumpâs new allies have no way back.
Plus the party figures the neoconservatives would still have are those GOP hacks and âmoderatesâ Trump crushed in the primaries. Not exactly a promising start for rebuilding oneâs political network!
We also canât forget the masses of voters who delivered Trump the greatest victory numbers in the history of Republican primaries. It is hard to imagine these Trump backers would harbor any affection for those bogus conservatives and questionable Republican loyalists who worked indefatigably to elect Hillary Clinton. Why would they attach positive motives to those who sought the humiliation of their beloved candidate? And why would Trump curry favor with sworn enemies, some of whom he angrily denounced as âlosersâ during the primaries? They would have nothing to offer him, given that he won the presidency in the teeth of their malicious opposition.
We also have to assume that Trump and/or his staff have been reading his anti-neoconservative supporters on the Right, like Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and various contributors to this website, who have underlined the irrepressible conflict between the Donald and the likes of Max Boot and Bill Kristol.
In a pungently written study called The Trump Revolution, paleolibertarian commentator Ilana Mercer stresses the close connection between the rise of the populist Right in the US and the clumsy behavior of neoconservative mediocrities. The problem faced by neoconservatives is not only that they donât relate to Americaâs nationalist base. They also have nothing much to offer anyone with even room temperature IQ or anyone who holds even minimally traditionalist views.
She writes that the Beltway Right âcounts among its greatest heroes not only MLK but the minor abolitionist Harriet Tubman. Major abolitionist and murderer John Brown is close to making the cut, at least in the view of National Reviewâs Kevin Williamson. Williamson reached 'peak leftism' when he declared his sympathies were âmore with John Brown than John Calhounâ in an article entitled We Have Officially Reached Peak Leftism (June 24, 2015)."
Mercer is equally unsparing in going through the current lineup of neoconservative âthinkers,â including the âintellectual pygmyâ Rich Lowry, the âmediocre scribblerâ âyouthful nullityâ Katie Pavlich, âirrational mysticâ Glenn Beck, and âgovernment functionary-cum-attorney-and Jeb Bush cheerleaderâ Michael Mukasey.
Mercer singles out the âponderous, self-important neoconservative âKrauthammer from his less intelligent soulmates. Significantly, however, although âhopping madâ about Trump, Krauthammer is ânowhere to be found among those aligned âAgainst Trumpâ at National Reviewâ. At least he understands that âto come out as a collective in an attempt to overthrow a candidate so popular with the Republican base and beyond, as Trump is, is pretty stupid.â
Lest I bring too much cheer to my readers (and myself) by painting prematurely the downfall of our opposition on the faux Right, let me repeat the caveat that I stated a few paragraphs ago: there is nothing in Trump victory would necessarily end the neoconservativesâ influence in the MSM or their practical control of Conservatism, Inc.
But, on the positive side, a Trump presidency would not bring the faux Right the political plums that fell into their laps during Wâs presidency or the perks they would garner if (Heaven forfend!) we get President Hillary. They would be forced to spend several years mending their political ties in Washington and, at the very least, face an unfriendly presidential administration.
Trump would have to be a total fool (which I doubt he is) to let these people become his âadvisers.â A far less destructive role as court clowns may suit them better.
Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of Marxism His most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.