Reaping what they’ve sown

Lots of great stuff about the National Review’s issue of trying to take down Trump.  I especially enjoyed this take in The Guardian by Jeb Lund:

National Review, a Thurston Howell impression on print and with staples in it, published a special edition yesterday titled Against Trump. Not Stop Trump, or Dump Trump or even Chump Trump. “Against Trump.”Toward a Normative Understanding of Trump Negation. Whatever.

I’m sure it will be very effective with all 5,000 subscribers who are not conservative thinktanks. There is definitely no way that the snob mouthpiece of the Republican party rolling out a coordinated attack on Donald Trump will backfire. And nobody will make fun of the cover, and the august list of contributors definitely does not read like a grocery list beginning with “Lunatic”, stopping off twice at “Nepotist” and hitting all the other lowlights of fraudsters and homophobes, etc…

What makes this especially fun is that everything that makes Donald Trump a runaway success is a creation of conservatism. He is their Be Careful What You Wish For candidate. (This guy put it about as succinctly and hilariously as anyone can.) National Review can stand athwart history and yell stop, but they’re standing in front of a snowball they’ve been pushing down a hill for the last half-century. Even the hand-wringing that Donald Trump is such an ugly and hateful candidate is hilarious from a rag that started out defending liberty andsegregation. [emphasis mine]

Take Glenn Beck. I really don’t know what genius at National Review thought he would be a good representative for impeaching an opportunistic huckster prone to wild populist confabulation. Sending Beck to stop Trump is like trying to get a gravy stain out of a carpet by steamrolling a prime rib into it. This guy so regularly leaks torrents of crocodile tears that if you’d sent him back to Bronze Age Egypt, the denizens along the Nile would have invented the calendar to chart how often Glenn Beck flooded their banks…

Other contributors, like L Brent Bozell III, are hardly better. Bozell currently works for the Media Research Center and is formerly of the Parents Television Council, whose sole purpose was furnishing TV executives’ mailing addresses for every sexless tightass who wanted to write an angry letter whenever they saw lesbians kissing on TV…

Even attempts to chide Trump for insulting others come across as hollow. Mona Charen wrote “Who, except a pitifully insecure person, needs constantly to insult and belittle others …?” Has Charen ever looked at a single candidate’s Twitter page? It would take a thousand words to document every atrocity from the last three months.

About Steve Greene
Professor of Political Science at NC State

7 Responses to Reaping what they’ve sown

  1. rgbact says:

    Whatta joke. National Review is one part Thurston Howell, one part hate mongers that created Trump. This guy sounds like the Amanda Marcotte of the UK. Just bile and nonsense.

    • Jon K says:

      Personally, when I was very Republican, I would take the Weekly Standard hands down over National Review. In fact I was a subscriber for many years and have several Weekly Standard tote bags – that I never use- I got for subscribing.

      • Jon K says:

        I am actually embarrassed to admit it but I also took Reason magazine, which is mostly just a Koch mouthpiece, but at the time I had no idea of that bit of information.

      • rgbact says:

        Don’t think theres a huge difference between them. Point is, if you think they’ve caused Trump……right after calling them Thurston Howell and right after they featured an entire edition rippng on Trump……then you’re probably just a delusional unthinking partisan

        Trump appeals to more downscale voters. Yes, they can vote too. I suspect those people don’t read National Review. Thats just us Thurston Howell types.

      • Jon K says:

        The point they were making is that they enabled Trump. Its people like Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and yes the writers of National Review who brought us first Palin (I can still remember Fred Barnes talking about how great she was months before she was tapped for VP) then the Tea Party, then the Freedom Caucus and now Trump. Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin and National Review sat on their hands all summer and fall and enjoyed Trump because they thought he would fail and they liked he was marginalizing the ‘establishment’ that they believe aren’t conservative enough. Now, when its too freaking late, they are all trying to take out Trump. Hence they are reaping what they sowed. They could have pointed out all the problems they now have with Trump in August, but they didn’t they enjoyed and agreed with it. That’s the point of the article. Now the ‘conservative intelligentsia’ is trying to enlighten their followers at the last minute.

        Too little, too late, you made your bed now sleep in it. That’s what the point of the article was snarky Thurston Howell reference or not. I actually found it, and this whole situation quite funny and entertaining. When the GOP throws away their chance at the White House – and most likely the Senate as well (Americans don’t split voting tickets anymore like they used to. I just saw some PS research that showed for every 8 voters that split the ticket in 1980 1 does it now) they have nobody to blame but themselves.

        Elections have consequences. I’ve been hearing for years that ‘we didn’t win because we were’t conservative enough’ well it looks like you are going to get either the most conservative senator in the entire country – who is pretty much hated by everyone who has ever had to work with him – or your going to get a xenophobic, narcissistic megalomaniac. Bottom line is neither one of them can win.

        The only question is how bad do they hurt the GOP on their road to defeat?

      • rgbact says:

        Thats how populism works. You enable the crazies…..and eventually you create a monster. See the French Revolution. Heck, look at the PC movement on the Left. Point is, I wouldn’t lump NR with those others. I’ve actually been going to NR way more lately to avoid Trump zombies in all my other conservative media sources.

        Reason is libertarian. You can have a similar viewpoint as a rich person, without being a “mouthpiece”.

      • Jon K says:

        True, you can be. However, when you are 100% funded by Koch money, and the fact that they go to great lengths to obscure that fact, it makes you suspect in my eyes.

        I used to be a pretty hardcore “Who is John Galt?” libertarian in my time. The Fountainhead is still probably my favorite book of all time. So I don’t have a problem with libertarian. I have a problem with the Kochs buying the conservative movement and twisting it to fund their agenda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: