Donald Trump, in his face-off with Fox News and the Murdoch media empire and his decision not to participate in the last Fox debate, threw down the gauntlet. Open warfare had been brewing on a slow burn for some time, but with the last Republican debate fiasco, guns are drawn and the OK Corral is here and now.
Let’s review the chain of events. Remember the first GOP debate with the Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly asking that prejudicially framed question about Trump’s supposed “sexism.” Megyn all but accused him of calculated rape, misogynist attitudes, physical abuse of women.
So, Trump raised the question and asked that Fox News replace her, given her bias, and not just demonstrated during that first GOP debate. Indeed, watching Kelly over the past few months is like watching a constant, never-ending stream of thinly-veiled anti-Trump invective. Thus, there was legitimacy in making the demand that she be replaced. She fully confirmed her prejudices the night after Trump’s refusal by inviting far-leftist Michael Moore to be her expert commentator about Trump’s decision on her prime time program. Moore praised her “courage.”
A few pundits (mostly on Fox) exclaimed their shocked outrage at Trump’s actions, as if his request and subsequent decision had somehow assaulted “free speech.” “No candidate can dictate our plans!” they screamed. How dare the Donald! But their protests were more like those of Claude Rains’ Captain Renault in that 1942 classic film, CASABLANCA: a rather unsubtle reminder, with a wink and sneer, that Fox stood to gain millions of viewers and even more millions of dollars, if Trump appeared.
Did they not recall that even the Republican National Committee removed NBC from debate sponsorship because of well-documented bias and prejudice on the part of moderators in an earlier, CNBC debate? Did they not know the long record of Megyn Kelly’s remarks—and not just in that first debate—about Trump?
Here’s an analogy: Suppose you are in an American History class at some university. You’re a good, even very good student and writer, from, let’s say, South Carolina. You have deep Confederate roots and are proud of your heritage. Your history professor is a well-known, zealously left-leaning guy whose views are well known and whose tolerance for differences is pretty low. So, your professor asks the class to do a paper on Robert E. Lee. You do a paper, and, by any standard it’s a well-written paper, praising Lee’s generalship and his Christian values. When you get it back, there are no red correction marks on it. But at the top is a big, fat “F.” You go to the professor, and he rebuffs you and ridicules you. Why should you want to do a second semester with that same professor? It doesn’t make sense.
After Trump had made his appeal to Fox with a posting on Instagram of a video record illustrating Kelly’s previous bias, Roger Ailes and Fox issued a mocking written response:
“We learned from a secret back channel that the ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president,” Fox said in the tongue-in-cheek statement. “A nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”
Now, let me ask a hypothetical question: how would you react to such an insulting and demeaning response? I know what I would say, and it would be an earnest desire that the authors go straight to a place that begins with the letter “h” and ends with “l.”
Let’s go deeper: various authors and historians, including Prof. Paul Gottfried, Prof. Claes Ryn, and Gary Dorrien (in his path-breaking volume, The Neoconservative Mind) have documented that the present-day “Mainstream Conservative Movement,” is, in fact, composed of power-seeking, self-congratulatory, and corrupt Neocon New York/DC elites, whose thin and venal intellectual fiber is the antithesis of an older, American conservatism.
More recently columnist Tucker Carlson, in Politico Magazine has observed exactly the thing. He writes about how baffled the Mainstream/Neocon Republican brain trust remains about Donald Trump’s rise: “In the case of Trump…the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn’t. [Tucker Carlson, “Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar…and Right: And, My Dear Republicans, It is All You Fault,” Politico Magazine ]
The Mainstream/Neocons control most foundations, think tanks, and publications that claim to be “conservative.” They provide the policy wonks for every GOP presidential candidate, except Trump. They exercise tight control over much Republican Party thinking, such as it is. This is, of course, key to the recent frantic, even desperate printed salvo by 22 Neocon writers in the Neocon publication, National Review. Trump threatens their authoritarian intellectual–and financial—control over the febrile and castrated supposed “opposition” to the onrushing Progressivism that is destroying this country. He represents a citizen profile which is truly “populist conservative,” and NOT elitist “movement conservative.” And that literally scares the “you know what” out of them….
For years since they infiltrated and subverted the older rightwing traditional conservative movement, which began back in the 1950s, the Neocons have offered rosy solutions which have led what is left of this nation into a succession of unwinnable wars, faulty nation-building, miserable failures and misadventures in foreign policy. They have pushed their secular nostrums with a quasi-religious zeal, inherited from their previous devotion to Leon Trotsky’s Marxist globalism, to impose liberal democracy and egalitarianism on every 13th century corner of the globe, including creating model peoples’ democracies in Uzkekistan, Zimbabwe, Upper Volta, and, even Lower Slobbovia. (If you don’t know where that is, go look up cartoonist Al Capp.) In this they’ve failed totally. The God-given Laws of Nature can’t be changed, even by the likes of George Will, John Bolton, or even Charles Krauthammer….
Domestically, their egalitarianism and mania for equality has led many formerly traditional conservative publications, especially National Review, and many so-called “conservative” writers, including Jonah Goldberg, and writers for The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard, plus Fox News pundits, to accept–and defend–same sex marriage as “conservative.” Now, some at NR even suggests that “transgenderism” may be “conservative.” What’s next? Incest as a “conservative” value? Actually, that’s been proposed in Germany. Expect to see Jonah Goldberg eventually writing in The Wall Street Journal defending it.
And the Neocons, especially at National Review and commentators on Fox (e.g. Krauthammer, Steve Hayes, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, et al), increasingly denounce, for example, Russia because it refuses to sanction same sex marriage and does not guarantee full “equality” for and lavish praise on its gay population. Given their fundamental philosophy, this is logical. It is they who are the ones afraid of open debate, not Donald Trump. (Ted Cruz’s taunt on this issue is completely laughable.)
Remember this quote by a National Review writer several years ago that actually let the cat out of the bag? Here is “conservative,” uber-Zionist writer Stephen Schwartz writing for NR, that formerly conservative publication founded by the late William F. Buckley:
“To my last breath, I will defend Trotsky who alone and pursued from country to country and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling to Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit that he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists and Stalinists in their second childhood make of it what they will.” [see Paul Gottfried's commentary on Takimag.com, April 17, 2007]
You tell me how any of this is truly “conservative,” at least as many of us once understood that term back in the 1960s?
Mainstream /Neoconservatism is at odds fundamentally and philosophically with the older, traditional conservatism that actually created this country in the late 1780s, what one writer has called “gut conservatism,” which reflects those familial and inherited beliefs and customs that first annealed this republic. What is amorphously termed “conservatism” today is largely farcical, a bunch of self-important, self-appointed endlessly-arguing “thought-setters” who end up talking to themselves and to an ever-shrinking circle of chattering class readers….all the while a much, much larger group of Americans sink inevitably into the defecated morass of a culturally and politically poisonous black hole, AKA, America circa 2016.
Donald Trump may not really know the value of his candidacy. But, in fact, he is now challenging frontally that rotten and poisonous “Mainstream/Neocon” narrative. He is reaching far beyond just the “movement” and their deleterious ideas and policies. And now, with the attack on Trump by the most prominent vehicle of the Mainstream/Neocon elites, National Review, and by its incestuous partner-in-crime, the Murdoch media empire, the war is fully joined.
It is time to get those pitchfork brigades out and do what the faithful Neapolitan peasants and farmers did to the Italian liberals who came with Napoleon’s troops to occupy Naples in the late 1790s. Under the leadership of that warrior prince of the Church, Cardinal Ruffo di Calabria, those peasant conservatives destroyed Napoleon’s army and then, after recapturing the capital of the Kingdom of Naples and restoring their rightful king, they proceeded to ferret out the remaining liberals, cut their heads off, and toss them over the walls of the Royal palace to assure the king that they were truly loyal and that they hated liberalism.
Sounds like a good model to me….