The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Politico: Whither GOP Intellectuals?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Politico:

What happens when the partnership that created the modern Republican Party shatters?

By Tevi Troy

April 19, 2016

One of the most spectacular fissures of this already dramatic political season has been the messy, public divorce of the Republican intelligentsia from the party’s suddenly energized populist voter base. As Donald Trump grips crowds and racks up delegates with a blunt nationalist message of jobs, protectionism and “winning,” true-believing conservatives—from dean of the conservative commentariat George Will, to Pete Wehner, who has worked for every GOP administration since Ronald Reagan, to Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol—have peeled off in anti-Trump directions. When National Review, the flagship magazine of modern conservative thinking, devoted an entire issue to rejecting the GOP front-runner, it felt like a separation being finalized. Trump, of course, was unfazed, saying, “You have people that are in National Review—they’re eggheads. They’re just eggheads.”

It’s easy to lay the blame at Donald Trump’s feet (after all, it’s hard to imagine another Republican candidate of the last four decades rejecting National Review so cavalierly), but this year’s split between intellectuals and the rank-and-file GOP goes beyond the front-runner. In fact, neither of Trump’s remaining rivals, Ted Cruz nor John Kasich, is particularly cozy with the conservative intelligentsia. (Think tankers tended to coalesce behind Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who are long since out of the race.) What’s really going on is that the ideas that the conservative intellectual community has been peddling for decades have failed to appeal to an angry blue-collar voter base. What worked in Reagan’s era just doesn’t work anymore, and Trump is simply exploiting the divide.

Perhaps the GOP needs some new intellectuals? Seriously, if you keep peddling ideas your dads’ came up with 45 years ago, ideas that, at their best, worked so well in Reagan’s era that they permanently solved the various problems they were intended to ameliorate, you should eventually notice that you need some new ideas to solve the new problems of this century.

Moynihan warned the president that the GOP needed to develop a robust group of Republican intellectuals rather than rely on Democrats, ex-Democrats or even Democrats with some conservative inclinations, such as Moynihan, to fill the ranks of the conservative intelligentsia. In 1970, Moynihan wrote in a memo to Nixon that there was a limit to the outreach he could do on Nixon’s behalf, emphasizing that this work “needs to be done by real Republicans.”

Like I’ve said before, the care and feeding of intellectuals isn’t all that expensive, but it’s not free. Rich guys do a pretty good job of paying for a libertarian intellectual counter-establishment, and rich Israel fans (and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) pay for a lot of the foreign policy establishment. But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.

 
Hide 129 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “ADL Urges Donald Trump to Reconsider “America First” in Foreign Policy Approach”

    http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-urges-donald-trump-to-reconsider-america-first.html

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @Anonymous

    Treasonous, no?

    , @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    They don't even try to hide it.

    I await the chorus of Jewish-American patriot voices speaking out against this shameless Jewish Supremacist rhetoric.

    ...

    ...anyone?

    [crickets]

  2. The problem with all conservative intellectuals is that they’re believers in democracy, so are in complete denial of what motivates their voters. The Democrats basically say “whites are evil,” and Republicans say “let’s not talk about that stuff,” and most whites see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. But Republican intellectuals have convinced themselves that they win elections because of advocacy of “small government,” even though polls show less than 10% of voters want cuts to education, entitlements, or any real part of the welfare state.

    So the Republican intellectual lives off cultural conservatism and white racial resentment, but is disgusted by these things.

    The fact is, that until this cycle, it worked. We got W., McCain, and Romney as the last three nominees. But the Internet has changed things, with popular sites like Breitbart and Drudge being practically friendly to white nationalism and making National Review and the Weekly Standard completely irrelevant.

    2016 may be an electoral disaster for the right, but it’s the start of something greater.

    • Agree: Das
    • Replies: @Das
    @Hepp

    Most GOP voters are fairly conservative.

    Most of the GOP intelligentsia has gone completely nuts and concluded that steelworkers and cops and plumbers who vote for the Republican party are interested in abolishing all tariffs, the capital gains tax, and Social Security. They think they just have to pass amnesty so that all the "Natural Conservative" illegal immigrants can start voting to drown government in a bathtub, and they'll have a permanent majority.

    This primary has proved that there is almost no constituency for that style of politics. We should treat the ravings of the National Review with about as much respect as we treat transgender feminist Tumblr blogs. They have about the same readership.

    , @Anonymous
    @Hepp

    Republican ideology just hasn't kept up with demographic and cultural changes within its own electorate and in the country. Northern WASPs who were the basis of the GOP no longer are the demographic and cultural force they once were, and the GOP now depends on Southern whites and northern non-WASP whites, who generally don't find the traditional moralistic Republican ideology very appealing in itself. This should change, as Steve has noted and called for, as the GOP becomes a more general white party rather than the traditional northern WASP one it was.

    , @Realist
    @Hepp

    "The problem with all conservative intellectuals is that they’re believers in democracy, so are in complete denial of what motivates their voters. "

    Democracy has never worked for long.

    , @Travis
    @Hepp

    the so-called republican leaders never seemed to really be for smaller government, the previous Republican presidential candidates all favored expanding government, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain and Romney all promoted larger government. I suppose they theoretically wanted to slow the growth of government, but once in power George W. Bush quickly went about expanding the Federal government's role in Education, expanded entitlements, expanded military interventions.

    The people quickly realize that the GOP politicians are not actually for smaller government. When the GOP took control of congress they embrued the continued expansion of government intrusion into our lives. This is why I have never voted for a Republican. (neither have i ever voted for a democrat). My first vote was 1988 for Ron Paul, when he ran as a Libertarian, then voted for Perot, then stopped voting.

    but i now realize, thanks to people like Steve Sailer, and HBD, why reducing immigration is a more important issue than small government. Trump will be the first Republican to get my vote.

    , @boogerbently
    @Hepp

    Conservative voters are a majority in search of a party/leadership/representation.

  3. ‘…Perhaps the GOP needs some new intellectuals?…’

    Not a bad idea.

    But when I go down the list of people on the right hand side of the page here, for example, I get maybe four people under 50. Over 75 you don’t want to know. And that’s not including dead people who make terrible new intellectuals.

    You have to replace somebody with somebody.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @anony-mouse

    Milo Yiannopoulous? (I kid.)

    Honestly: I think conservatives just don't do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don't do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left. The left-wing control of the universities doesn't help matters either.

    Replies: @Dahlia, @Almost Missouri, @James O'Meara, @guest, @SFG

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @anony-mouse

    All the young intellectuals who grapple with our 21st century problems necessarily come up with answers that don't appeal to the fat cats who support the conservative movement. So they either never find employment at the think tanks, or if they do are soon defenestrated. I'm thinking of Jason Richwine--a young man--and others.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @anony-mouse

    What about Richard Spencer? On a lighter more pop culture outreach, there's always Gavin McInnes, who is actually fairly conservative on the various issues that are relevant in 2016.

    There, those are two names of potentials under 50.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @anony-mouse

    Why should they be under 50? It takes time to develop a serious, stable, comprehensive Weltanschauung. It's rare in people under 50, and practically nonexistent in people under 40. There's a reason The Elders are elder.

    Even the Left, which idolizes youth, doesn't really have any young intellectuals. The apparently young, apparently intellectual, e.g., Cenk Uygur, are really neither. Uygur is 46 and is just a loudmouth showman/mountebank yelling very old, brittle and meaningless "ideas".

    By contrast, Steve's ideas are new, genuine, vital, relevant, and subject to a lot of good faith cross examination. Steve is over 50. So what?

  4. @anony-mouse
    '...Perhaps the GOP needs some new intellectuals?...'

    Not a bad idea.

    But when I go down the list of people on the right hand side of the page here, for example, I get maybe four people under 50. Over 75 you don't want to know. And that's not including dead people who make terrible new intellectuals.

    You have to replace somebody with somebody.

    Replies: @SFG, @Harry Baldwin, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Almost Missouri

    Milo Yiannopoulous? (I kid.)

    Honestly: I think conservatives just don’t do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don’t do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left. The left-wing control of the universities doesn’t help matters either.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
    @SFG

    SFG, I love ya, but this is the most tone-deaf comment; I'm laughing.

    Steve, when you ascend to your rightful place as a respected intellectual and Ron gets elected to the U.S. Senate, I hope you two don't forget us losers :)
    P.S. Sorry for the donation delay, but my itty, little bit is coming

    , @Almost Missouri
    @SFG

    Couple of wrinkles here.

    First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money. You might think that's the nature of the beast, but occasional movie forays by more hardheaded business types manage to bat way above the Hollywood average. A fairly obvious strategy is to make movies for the underserved G-rated market segment and avoid the over-saturated R-rated market segment. Yet Hollywood prefers to stuff the already overstuffed pipe of R-rated culture-dreck. Why? Draw your own conclusions, but "business acumen" probably won't be one of them.

    Second, yes the university monoculture of coercive prog-obeisance certainly gives the Left volume. But what does the Left do with that volume? To the extent it has ideas, they are just 80-year-old duds repackaged in new SJW wrappers. Empty shells fired from the world's biggest howitzer are still just empty shells: sound and fury signifying nothing. The only time the Left evinces something resembling thinking is when confronted by a genuine idea from outside their bubble. Then they think how to force the new idea to serve in the slave caravan of their Narrative. Or more usually, they just think how to murder the new idea before anyone hears it freely.

    When you have truth, you don't need volume. One shining truth, curtly presented, slays a million mewling lies.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Ozymandias, @S. anonyia

    , @James O'Meara
    @SFG

    " I think conservatives just don’t do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don’t do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left."

    Yeah, the "family thing" can be time and energy consuming. If only there was some group with high IQs and uninterested in marriage and family, that conservatives could recruit intellectuals from. Any ideas? Buehler?

    , @guest
    @SFG

    Your point about conservatives being just not into "the intellectual thing" is superficially plausible because it's been that way for a while. But it wasn't always so

    , @SFG
    @SFG

    I'll admit I was wrong. Where do you think conservative intellectual thought can thrive? The web?

  5. the care and feeding of intellectuals isn’t all that expensive, but it’s not free

    …and by the way it’s iSteve fundraising time!

    So is nominee Trump going to be eligible for federal campaign funds? How does that work? There’s like a billion dollars there, no?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @International Jew


    So is nominee Trump going to be eligible for federal campaign funds? How does that work? There’s like a billion dollars there, no?
     
    If Hyde Park Hussein could turn them down, why couldn't Trump? You're better off without them-- more freedom. And the Donald's core message ("We have a country") is rather cheap to get across. Voters are already most of the way there.

    Trump is where he is because he's a follower, not a leader. That's a cheaper path.
  6. “But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.”

    I think Putin is already starting to foot the bill, for better or for worse.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    @Anon

    Except that true to his KGB roots what he really likes investing in is things like BLM.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Anon, @Bill

  7. A political colossus that previously was a nervous at best and a combustible at worst mixture of centrist establishmentarians (“RINOs”), neoconservatives, lamestream conservative ideologues, conservative Christians, and right-libertarians, just got another match added to the fire, populist-nationalist. The big problem for this grab bag, in contrast to the other party’s coalition of the fringes, is that at least the Democrats have an easy common enemy to stroke to keep its side from falling apart, the good ole KKKrazy Glue. Red team doesn’t have an easy ready made common enemy.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    @countenance

    Soros, Zuckerberg, Adelson, Saban, the Koch Bros., AIPAC, Saudi Arabia, Israel, George Will and every other neocon on G-d's green earth, et al. are doing their damndest to fix that little problem. For what it's worth I hope they don't succeed in this. The country has enough problems already.

    Replies: @Henry Bowman

  8. I think the Republican intelligentsia was hoisted on its own petard IED.

    They wanted war, they got it, and look at what it accomplished.

    I mean, I’m a lifelong Republican but exactly what does it mean now? Fiscal conservatism? Who actually does that? Immigration Reform? Not from what I see. Improving the economy? How do they intend to do that?

    Yes, I realize a lot of people get riled up with the changing landscape in terms of culture; there’s quite a bit of venting about that, and especially here. And I do my share of venting, too. But it’s not like any of that involves the political process in any real sense. It seems clear that the majority of Americans either don’t care about these things, or, they prefer to simply bowl alone and retreat from the public square. Until they don’t. And when will that be? It won’t be because some intellectual funded by some conservative millionaire wrote a book.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @SPMoore8


    They wanted war, they got it, and look at what it accomplished.
     
    Okay, but how were we to know that the ROE would be defined by Amnesty International, or that GWB thought it was all about him.

    I say Jim Webb for Trump's Vice President (because as long as you are waving the American Eagle at them, why not go for broke?)
  9. You’d be a good and logical choice, Steve. I’m not sure you’d like kissing the royal pinkie ring of whoever’s donating the money though.

  10. I’d be nice if the conservative intellectual class of the Anglosphere gave Churchill, Chamberlain and Hitler a break. Not everything’s about WW2. Just this evening I see Bill Kristol on Twitter comparing his crowd to Charles de Gaulle and the rest of the GOP to Vichy collaborators. Give it a rest guys.

  11. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:

    “Seriously, if you keep peddling ideas your dads’ came up with 45 years ago, ideas that, at their best, worked so well in Reagan’s era that they permanently solved the various problems they were intended to ameliorate, you should eventually notice that you need some new ideas to solve the new problems of this century.”

    Though Reaganism is not what we need now, even them ideas would be preferable to what the GOP became under neocon-supremacism.

    I think Reagan would be appalled if he could see what happened to GOP.
    I think Buckley would be upset too.

    • Replies: @Decius
    @Priss Factor

    Buckley lived to see it. He didn't seem too upset.

    Replies: @Chiron, @Priss Factor, @Travis, @Charles Erwin Wilson

  12. Our approved “conservative intellectuals” are funded by Mexican oligarch Carlos Slim and neoliberal Jeff Bezos. This alone should explain a lot of the problems Republicans find themselves in today.

  13. In order to have new intellectuals you have to have new ideas that said intellectuals can support and eloquently defend. The so-called New Right came to power as a reaction to the excesses of the Great Society era and the complete failure of the Everett Dirkson/Joe Martin generation to do anything about it. We’ve reached the point where said intellectuals are now old, fossilized and stagnant, and their foreign and economic policies are completely discredited. However I don’t know if we have yet a generation of younger people willing to support an Alt-Right agenda on an intellectual level.

  14. I’m of two minds of this, Steve. Or maybe three.

    First, this is what passes for intellectualism on campus these days (link safe for work, definitely **NOT** safe for lunch), as the fat lady in the video is not singing (sadly) but screaming out slogans. Then she gets tired and has to look around for her Big Gulp.

    Second, intellectualism among Democrats is what got us anti-Whitism, and the mass Third World immigration into the West because it gives old idiots like Jeremy Corbyn in Britain and Bernie Sanders a slightly bigger and safer platform until Abdullah ushers them offstage (for the beheading).

    Third, I would not argue that thinking things through rather than ad hoc policy and dependence on Senator Sessions and Ann Coulter is better, wider, and deeper than what we see with Trump’s policy now. [I agree totally btw with his foreign policy speech.] But we have to be careful. Universities are poison, and feed fat young ladies who need help losing weight and putting down the slurpees a bunch of feminist idiocy; leading to a very bad and IMHO permanent rupture between most members of the sexes. Think tanks are even worse — would you want **ANYONE** from National Review? Or AEI? Or any of the others?

    We **DO** have intellectuals, but they are not “respectable.” They don’t have pedigrees, fancy university stamps, and lots of social connnections. But Heartiste/Roissy, La Griffe du Lion, Lion of the Blogosphere/Half Sigma, Jayman, Peter Frost, Mencius Moldbug, HBD Chick, and of course yourself have publicly thought about the challenges of the West and where we are going, and how to avoid utter disaster.

    I would rather Trump and the Republican Party spend say, $100,000 annually on each one of you to publicly explore and think about policy from both a short term and long term perspective than any money be spent on public intellectuals.

    I have the following reasons —

    Firstly the comments sections will keep you all honest. If you have faulty data, or more likely flawed/faulty assumptions, the breadth of internet knowledge will soon set you right. This is impossible in a public policy institution because of the slow, leisurely pace and insular setting.

    Secondly, policy proposals that are sound are quick to be adopted, because they will be disseminated quickly and openly, far more so than an AEI talk by Charles Murray. Who has done good work but has not the temperament or ability to rapidly develop policies and modify them which the demands of the time require. I am talking tempo here — an “Open Source Agile Policy” recommendation system would allow incremental, constantly improving development rather than a “waterfall” of complex, sure to fail policies raining down. And importantly, it will be done in the open, with contributions by all even those on the opposite partisan ends, making the policy more able to withstand criticism of those whose rice bowls are upset. That is, the grafters having an end to their graft.

    Thirdly I like the idea of being open because more smart and pressed SWPL will come away at least half convinced than something raining down from a new institute. Because they will have seen it develop, and be more comfortable with it, and perhaps even see their own advantages in the policy. Look at Neal Gabler who can’t make ends meet — he’s already halfway there to seeing a need for a big policy change.

  15. @anony-mouse
    '...Perhaps the GOP needs some new intellectuals?...'

    Not a bad idea.

    But when I go down the list of people on the right hand side of the page here, for example, I get maybe four people under 50. Over 75 you don't want to know. And that's not including dead people who make terrible new intellectuals.

    You have to replace somebody with somebody.

    Replies: @SFG, @Harry Baldwin, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Almost Missouri

    All the young intellectuals who grapple with our 21st century problems necessarily come up with answers that don’t appeal to the fat cats who support the conservative movement. So they either never find employment at the think tanks, or if they do are soon defenestrated. I’m thinking of Jason Richwine–a young man–and others.

  16. @countenance
    A political colossus that previously was a nervous at best and a combustible at worst mixture of centrist establishmentarians ("RINOs"), neoconservatives, lamestream conservative ideologues, conservative Christians, and right-libertarians, just got another match added to the fire, populist-nationalist. The big problem for this grab bag, in contrast to the other party's coalition of the fringes, is that at least the Democrats have an easy common enemy to stroke to keep its side from falling apart, the good ole KKKrazy Glue. Red team doesn't have an easy ready made common enemy.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    Soros, Zuckerberg, Adelson, Saban, the Koch Bros., AIPAC, Saudi Arabia, Israel, George Will and every other neocon on G-d’s green earth, et al. are doing their damndest to fix that little problem. For what it’s worth I hope they don’t succeed in this. The country has enough problems already.

    • Replies: @Henry Bowman
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    This..

  17. Mises Institute/ Lew Rockwell , all the thinkin’ one needs.

  18. Perhaps the GOP needs some new intellectuals?

    Who even cares what the GOP needs? The GOP is a tool of the .01%. As such it is deployed against the Trump insurgency because the .01% wants one of it’s own or perhaps owned would be more accurate.

    The worst thing my father could say about a thing was that it was “no good”. “That means there is no good in it” he would explain. There is no good in our legacy political parties. They don’t need something new. They need to die.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  19. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:

    Obama needs to go to Kenya and give a speech for the Dreamers from His Father.

    Tear down this wall.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/mideast-africa/2016/04/26/kenya-somalia-wall-security-border-al-shabab/83553482/

    UK would have been better if overrun by Germany or Russia during WWII.
    At least it would have remained European.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564126/More-200-000-migrants-arrive-London-year-official-figures-lay-bare-impact-Britain-s-open-door-policy-capital.html

  20. Part of the problem is that the nationalist, isolationist & race realist ideas are too close to common sense to signal elite intellectualism.

    If the regular folk are saying X, the intelligentsia must distinguish themselves from the uneducated rabble by saying Y. Even — maybe even especially — if reality is closer to X.

    • Agree: Alec Leamas
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Hosswire

    Uh oh. A similarly pat Golden Corral’d comment tempted me into posting an earnest, if acerbic amplification in the recent past. Cautioning strains of Kenny Loggins played somewhere in my consciousness, but gosh darn it if that song doesn’t pump you up! After much copying, pasting, and composing, i hit Publish Comment. For a few hours my somewhat tongue-in-cheek rebuttal was sidelined under an NFL-grade Cool Zone mist fan. Reader, I got the chills. I’ll say this, Hosswire: your qualification “Part of the problem…” makes it all go down smoother.

    , @rod1963
    @Hosswire

    Another part of the problem is that intellectuals need a sugar daddy as it's not a normally well paying gig unless you have tenure at a university. And that means finding monied individuals to support you. And it's usually a bargain with the devil because those with money want something in return. Buckely found that out and anyone who owns a newspaper or magazine does as well.

    Maybe you find a think tank to promote you and give you a stipend. But guess what a lot of those think tanks and foundations are fronts for corporations and the wealthy. And then you end up like Charles Murray writing a status quo op-ed in the WSJ supporting the worst abuses of the ruling class.

    In the worst case you end up as a desperate porch monkey for the elites and pen some of the most terrible pieces imaginable to excuse their agenda in the hopes they throw you some table scraps. Kevin Williams at TNR looks to be one of those.

  21. Dahlia says:
    @SFG
    @anony-mouse

    Milo Yiannopoulous? (I kid.)

    Honestly: I think conservatives just don't do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don't do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left. The left-wing control of the universities doesn't help matters either.

    Replies: @Dahlia, @Almost Missouri, @James O'Meara, @guest, @SFG

    SFG, I love ya, but this is the most tone-deaf comment; I’m laughing.

    Steve, when you ascend to your rightful place as a respected intellectual and Ron gets elected to the U.S. Senate, I hope you two don’t forget us losers 🙂
    P.S. Sorry for the donation delay, but my itty, little bit is coming

  22. @anony-mouse
    '...Perhaps the GOP needs some new intellectuals?...'

    Not a bad idea.

    But when I go down the list of people on the right hand side of the page here, for example, I get maybe four people under 50. Over 75 you don't want to know. And that's not including dead people who make terrible new intellectuals.

    You have to replace somebody with somebody.

    Replies: @SFG, @Harry Baldwin, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Almost Missouri

    What about Richard Spencer? On a lighter more pop culture outreach, there’s always Gavin McInnes, who is actually fairly conservative on the various issues that are relevant in 2016.

    There, those are two names of potentials under 50.

  23. @Anon
    "But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems."

    I think Putin is already starting to foot the bill, for better or for worse.

    Replies: @Sam Haysom

    Except that true to his KGB roots what he really likes investing in is things like BLM.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Sam Haysom

    Yes, Putin has poured a fortune into Black Lives Matter and also that tunnel to the Kingdom of Mole People at the centre of the Earth. He's also got the Smurfs on his payroll.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Anon
    @Sam Haysom

    The Russian and Chinese media did play up Ferguson for the "tu quoque" argument.

    That said, Putin is willing to exploit every avenue he can utilize. It's pragmatic, not ideological.

    When I see nationalists talk about Stalin as being a relative moderate within the USSR who at least saved Russia from the Trotskyites, I can guess who's paying for their kids' college tuition.

    Replies: @Bill

    , @Bill
    @Sam Haysom

    Putin, Soros, one of those guys on the TeeVee with a funny name.

  24. I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I wanted to unburden myself of some thoughts that have been kicking around in my head for some time.

    Trump has, of course, been derided as a shallow, unthinking ignoramus with no coherent views.

    But the more I’ve thought about it, the more it seems to me that the positions he has staked out are, in fact, far more coherent and sensible than the traditional views on either the right or the left. I don’t mean to imply that Trump put together his views after careful contemplation of theory and history. Mostly, he’s just followed his nose (and noticing) to his views, and doing so created a fairly consistent and compelling position (though with some obvious glitches).

    [MORE]

    At the base of his positions seems to be a hard commitment to “citizenism”. From this, combined with his secular orientation, pretty much all else follows. His basic idea is that we, as Americans, need to stick up for and support our fellow Americans, and to abandon the quest to accommodate, win over, conquer, or meddle in the affairs of others. We defend our borders, we defeat any enemies who attack us, and we make sure that immigration is restricted to suit the purposes of current citizens. We defend our workers against avoidable losses of jobs and incomes due to too much immigration or outsourcing of jobs. We forge trade deals entirely in this light and for that purpose.

    But his citizenism has another set of consequences that generally render Trump anathema to most on the right. That is his apparently quite sincere commitment to the importance of entitlements, including, obviously, Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Trump has even spoken postively of the possibility of something akin to Medicare for All. This may seem like a contradiction to many conservatives, but it isn’t, working from Trump’s basic principles. For Trump, it’s all about doing well by American citizens — supporting them and providing for them and allowing them to look forward to stable lives in which the government can smooth over the vicissitudes of the economy and their circumstances. And, frankly, it’s hard not to see the good in this. Germany seems to be a good example of a country that has managed to create a very prosperous and stable environments for its workers. They enjoy good incomes, steady jobs, and vacations that put us to shame.

    One of the most important pieces of research on our socio-political environment in the last 50 years is that of Robert Putnam, who found that social harmony was negatively correlated to diversity. On the right, this has been taken as a sign that we must minimize the amount of diversity if we want to have a country with minimal discord. That’s a fair enough conclusion. But they seem quite reluctant to acknowledge the obverse: if we minimize diversity, focus on American citizens, strengthen harmony and bonds among American citizens, the psychologically inevitable — and, I think, reasonable — consequence is more commitment to social safety nets, to the fate of “the common man”, to organizations and laws protecting workers. Such a socio-political setting is indeed found in Germany and other European welfare states — though no doubt it’s now being undermined by their own problems with diversity. The real challenge, in both Europe and America, is to maintain the trust and bonds inherent in our societies while not extending the compassionate attitudes lying behind such feelings to every human being everywhere–which is ultimately self-defeating. (And perhaps western societies must go through the experience of excessive diversity in order to oppose it. It’s a societal level game of Tit-for-Tat. Trump both understands — and embodies a play in — this game. (Trump would be, I suppose, Tit.))

    This seems to be the position and solution that Trump is, in effect, pointing toward. Rather than being the mindless, incoherent set of beliefs everybody has been characterizing Trump as putting forth, his stand — though it appears radical — is driven by a vision that is quite consistent, sensible, and even scientifically validated and evolutionarily sound.

    Is there indeed a better or deeper vision?

    I’m not sure what it might be.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @candid_observer


    I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I wanted to unburden myself of some thoughts that have been kicking around in my head for some time.
     
    No need to apologize.

    That was a thought-provoking, brilliant statement. I think it will influence a lot of people here.
    , @Perplexed
    @candid_observer

    Bravo. You get Trump. His supporters get him. Maybe he should lead the Common Sense Party. I've been laughing my ass off at the mystification of our intellectual betters. "Sire, the people are revolting." "They certainly are!"

    Trump is an intelligent, educated, experienced, canny man who has been preparing himself for decades. His chief attribute is courage. What a short strange trip it's been. Can't wait till he lays into Hillary.

    , @anon
    @candid_observer

    Citizenism sums up what democracy ought to provide but generally doesn't which is a weighted average of everyone's individual interests.

    And if you could write some software that took everyone in the countries interests and weighted them equally you'd get a set of polices similar to Trump.

    It only seems a radical departure because politics has been so distorted by the collusion of what are effectively the cultural far left and the economic far right.

    So I think you're right except I think he's mostly going on instinct, sniffing the air and going with gut feel but coming to the same conclusions you stated because they're actually the logical conclusions if you start from those premises.

    , @LondonBob
    @candid_observer

    Nah BLM is all Soros. What little I have seen of RT America it is a lot more left wing than RT Europe, a lot.

    , @Bill
    @candid_observer


    Mostly, he’s just followed his nose (and noticing) to his views, and doing so created a fairly consistent and compelling position (though with some obvious glitches).
     
    Yes. Because both lobes of our evil elite are lying more or less continuously about their goals and motives, the outwardly expressed ideology of both the GOP and the donks is bizarre. Just saying relatively coherent things is revolutionary.

    My favorite example of this was Trump's attempt to pander to pro-lifers. Naturally, he reasoned without really checking, if you think abortion is murder then you think a murderous mother ought to be punished. Only possible sane conclusion. Those pro-lifers set him straight, though, didn't they. "Don't you assume our thoughts make even rudimentary sense, you bastard, you!!!" The pro-life movement couldn't care less about making sense, or, for that matter, about achieving their ostensible goals. Their job is to deliver votes to the GOP.

  25. We aren’t lacking intellectuals. Our men are as creative, insightful, and witty as anyone in the public sphere today. To name a few of them:

    “Porter”

    kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com
    twitter.com/porter14159

    “CH”

    heartiste.wordpress.com
    twitter.com/ChateauEmissary

    “Steve”
    unz.com/isteve

    “Ricky Vaughn”
    twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99

    • Agree: Bill
  26. Yeb Boosh and Marco Rubio, there’s a couple of intellectual heavyweights for ya.

    ***

    Anon: If the ADL wants to peel off some of Trump’s supporters, they’re gonna have to endorse him.

    Ben: if my name was “Tevi,” I’d change it.

    Steve: So, Trump is a Citizenist, right?

    Stop Invading the World, Stop Inviting the World, Get Out of Hock to the World.

    Part of the problem is that the nationalist, isolationist & race realist ideas are too close to common sense to signal elite intellectualism.

    If the regular folk are saying X, the intelligentsia must distinguish themselves from the uneducated rabble by saying Y. Even — maybe even especially — if reality is closer to X.

    Cute but no.

  27. @Sam Haysom
    @Anon

    Except that true to his KGB roots what he really likes investing in is things like BLM.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Anon, @Bill

    Yes, Putin has poured a fortune into Black Lives Matter and also that tunnel to the Kingdom of Mole People at the centre of the Earth. He’s also got the Smurfs on his payroll.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Cagey Beast

    Saudi and Israel bought off US foreign policy. Steve rightly notes this.

    The KGB and, later on, Qatar bought off of the left. We all know this.

    Why is it hard to imagine that among the intellectual movement from which Trump drew his inspiration for his presidential campaign, Putinist money is starting to creep in?

    Replies: @Bill

  28. @Priss Factor
    "Seriously, if you keep peddling ideas your dads’ came up with 45 years ago, ideas that, at their best, worked so well in Reagan’s era that they permanently solved the various problems they were intended to ameliorate, you should eventually notice that you need some new ideas to solve the new problems of this century."

    Though Reaganism is not what we need now, even them ideas would be preferable to what the GOP became under neocon-supremacism.

    I think Reagan would be appalled if he could see what happened to GOP.
    I think Buckley would be upset too.

    Replies: @Decius

    Buckley lived to see it. He didn’t seem too upset.

    • Replies: @Chiron
    @Decius

    Yeah, it was Buckley who opened the doors for the Neocon/Troskyit takeover of the GOP and Conservtism Inc.

    Replies: @Priss Factor

    , @Priss Factor
    @Decius

    Buckley changed his mind on the Iraq War.

    I think he was privately unhappy with Bush II regime and Neocons.

    He just couldn't say it cuz he got in too deep.

    If he were alive now, he might be for Trump.

    Buckley could be surprising.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @Travis
    @Decius

    He is the main reason for the current mess at the National Review. Buckley purged those who opposed the neo-con takeover. remember when O’Sullivan was demoted from editorship by National Review ouster-in-chief William F. Buckley during a 1997 purge of Peter Brimelow.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Decius

    Using Buckley's dotage as a club to beat him with is disgusting and contemptible. Would you expect Ted Williams to have a Major-League batting average of .406 in 2000?

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  29. There are a handful of halfway decent Republican intellectuals like Douthat, Salam, and Frum.

    Though, their behavior over the last year has been less than inspiring. Based on what they have written in the past, they ought to be Donald Trump’s biggest boosters. This article from 2005 reads like a Trump manifesto: http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/7501

    Instead they completely whiffed.

    • Replies: @Richard
    @Das

    They were expecting a taller honest man.

  30. Between them Cultural Marxists and globalists have managed to make any alternative viewpoint immoral e.g. Richwine.

    So the first step in recreating a civilization that isn’t built entirely on lies is breaking the moral authority of the Marxists/globalists – which primarily means breaking the moral authority of their media/academia.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @anon

    Yes, we have to break their cartel built on shaming, scolding and ostracizing. That's all they have left in their toolkit now that they've run out of charm, wit, honesty and original insights. Say what you want about the Alt-Right but at least they have some likable and interesting guys among them.

  31. Like I’ve said before, the care and feeding of intellectuals isn’t all that expensive, but it’s not free.

    Like a Sunday in T.J.? It’s cheap but it’s not free. Cherry wine anyone? Passover but I think Kirschwasser from a shell is allowed.

    Ask Donald Fagan, he’d know.

  32. @Das
    There are a handful of halfway decent Republican intellectuals like Douthat, Salam, and Frum.

    Though, their behavior over the last year has been less than inspiring. Based on what they have written in the past, they ought to be Donald Trump's biggest boosters. This article from 2005 reads like a Trump manifesto: http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/7501

    Instead they completely whiffed.

    Replies: @Richard

    They were expecting a taller honest man.

  33. @International Jew

    the care and feeding of intellectuals isn’t all that expensive, but it’s not free
     
    ...and by the way it's iSteve fundraising time!

    So is nominee Trump going to be eligible for federal campaign funds? How does that work? There's like a billion dollars there, no?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    So is nominee Trump going to be eligible for federal campaign funds? How does that work? There’s like a billion dollars there, no?

    If Hyde Park Hussein could turn them down, why couldn’t Trump? You’re better off without them– more freedom. And the Donald’s core message (“We have a country”) is rather cheap to get across. Voters are already most of the way there.

    Trump is where he is because he’s a follower, not a leader. That’s a cheaper path.

  34. @Hepp
    The problem with all conservative intellectuals is that they're believers in democracy, so are in complete denial of what motivates their voters. The Democrats basically say "whites are evil," and Republicans say "let's not talk about that stuff," and most whites see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. But Republican intellectuals have convinced themselves that they win elections because of advocacy of "small government," even though polls show less than 10% of voters want cuts to education, entitlements, or any real part of the welfare state.

    So the Republican intellectual lives off cultural conservatism and white racial resentment, but is disgusted by these things.

    The fact is, that until this cycle, it worked. We got W., McCain, and Romney as the last three nominees. But the Internet has changed things, with popular sites like Breitbart and Drudge being practically friendly to white nationalism and making National Review and the Weekly Standard completely irrelevant.

    2016 may be an electoral disaster for the right, but it's the start of something greater.

    Replies: @Das, @Anonymous, @Realist, @Travis, @boogerbently

    Most GOP voters are fairly conservative.

    Most of the GOP intelligentsia has gone completely nuts and concluded that steelworkers and cops and plumbers who vote for the Republican party are interested in abolishing all tariffs, the capital gains tax, and Social Security. They think they just have to pass amnesty so that all the “Natural Conservative” illegal immigrants can start voting to drown government in a bathtub, and they’ll have a permanent majority.

    This primary has proved that there is almost no constituency for that style of politics. We should treat the ravings of the National Review with about as much respect as we treat transgender feminist Tumblr blogs. They have about the same readership.

  35. I favored Donald Trump for several months, from August through November 2015. During that period he posted what I considered to be good positions about immigration and about gun rights on his website. I expected that he gradually would improve his articulation of those and other positions.

    Instead, his positions have become steadily more incoherent and vulgarly articulated. He is manifesting himself not merely as a non-intellectual, but as an anti-intellectual.

    In the fall of 2015, he raised the issue of birth-right citizenship. When challenged, his responses indicated that he had familiarized himself with some articles written by legal scholars who argued that birth-right citizenship could be eliminated without a Constitutional amendment. When follow-up questions were asked, however, he lacked a sufficient command of that scholarship. Ultimately, he embarrassed himself by his inability to articulate a position that was based on intellectual, scholarly publications.

    He will not spend serious time and effort to master political issues intellectually. He spends practically all his time and effort on television interviews and on mass assemblies, where he spouts his opinions superficially and haphazardly. That never will change, even if he becomes President.

    I think that his personal experience in this campaign has taught him that he ultimately embarrasses himself by trying to justify his positions with intellectual arguments. Since he fails to master intellectual arguments adequately, he looks better when he simply avoids such arguments. Therefore he ignores or even disdains intellectuals who sincerely would like to advise him how to articulate and defend positions that he himself advocates.

    Apparently, Trump has become able to win about half of the Republican electorate with his own methods and arguments.

    I now favor Cruz, whom I consider to be intellectually effective, but he seems to be sinking into defeat. I respect Cruz’s religiosity, but I recognize that it repulses many voters. Also, Cruz goes off into some crazy rhetoric about carpet-bombing ISIS and abolishing the IRS, etc.

    • Replies: @Perplexed
    @Mike Sylwester

    This misreads Trump completely. People don't go to rallies for droning policy papers; they can read them on his website (and they are short enough to read). They want broad statements of his goals and direction. Practically the first thing Trump did after announcing was meet with Jeff Sessions, who wrote his immigration paper, and one of Sessions's aides is now working for Trump. Trump knows who to hire to further his policies. Besides, as Trump has said repeatedly, you have to change as circumstances change.

    You don't understand Trump, but the voters do.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Mike Sylwester

    , @Eric Novak
    @Mike Sylwester

    Cruz is a fraud who supports the legal importation of tens of millions of additional affirmative action beneficiaries, unassimilable hostiles, and government dependents. His wife is an open-borders globalist, as is his choice for VP.

  36. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam Haysom
    @Anon

    Except that true to his KGB roots what he really likes investing in is things like BLM.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Anon, @Bill

    The Russian and Chinese media did play up Ferguson for the “tu quoque” argument.

    That said, Putin is willing to exploit every avenue he can utilize. It’s pragmatic, not ideological.

    When I see nationalists talk about Stalin as being a relative moderate within the USSR who at least saved Russia from the Trotskyites, I can guess who’s paying for their kids’ college tuition.

    • Replies: @Bill
    @Anon

    Uh, OK. Stalin was a relative moderate within the USSR who at least saved Russia from the Trots. (Talk about damning with faint praise, but whatever, the truth is the truth )

    Now, who's paying for my kids college? Is there an evil Russian propagandist's kid scholarship they can apply for? Do they have to learn Cyrillic to fill out the forms? Will the fact that I don't actually like Russia be a problem? Link appreciated.

  37. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Cagey Beast
    @Sam Haysom

    Yes, Putin has poured a fortune into Black Lives Matter and also that tunnel to the Kingdom of Mole People at the centre of the Earth. He's also got the Smurfs on his payroll.

    Replies: @Anon

    Saudi and Israel bought off US foreign policy. Steve rightly notes this.

    The KGB and, later on, Qatar bought off of the left. We all know this.

    Why is it hard to imagine that among the intellectual movement from which Trump drew his inspiration for his presidential campaign, Putinist money is starting to creep in?

    • Replies: @Bill
    @Anon

    Trump: influenced by Black Lives Matter

  38. Politico: Whither GOP Intellectuals?

    “Whither” is awfully close to “whiter”. Careful!

    Their face, at first just ghostly, turned a whither shade of pale

    Or Marx’s unfulfilled promise of the whithering away of the state.

    Or Whithering Heights.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    @Reg Cæsar

    Whither wither whiter?

  39. @anon
    Between them Cultural Marxists and globalists have managed to make any alternative viewpoint immoral e.g. Richwine.

    So the first step in recreating a civilization that isn't built entirely on lies is breaking the moral authority of the Marxists/globalists - which primarily means breaking the moral authority of their media/academia.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    Yes, we have to break their cartel built on shaming, scolding and ostracizing. That’s all they have left in their toolkit now that they’ve run out of charm, wit, honesty and original insights. Say what you want about the Alt-Right but at least they have some likable and interesting guys among them.

  40. @candid_observer
    I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I wanted to unburden myself of some thoughts that have been kicking around in my head for some time.

    Trump has, of course, been derided as a shallow, unthinking ignoramus with no coherent views.

    But the more I've thought about it, the more it seems to me that the positions he has staked out are, in fact, far more coherent and sensible than the traditional views on either the right or the left. I don't mean to imply that Trump put together his views after careful contemplation of theory and history. Mostly, he's just followed his nose (and noticing) to his views, and doing so created a fairly consistent and compelling position (though with some obvious glitches).

    At the base of his positions seems to be a hard commitment to "citizenism". From this, combined with his secular orientation, pretty much all else follows. His basic idea is that we, as Americans, need to stick up for and support our fellow Americans, and to abandon the quest to accommodate, win over, conquer, or meddle in the affairs of others. We defend our borders, we defeat any enemies who attack us, and we make sure that immigration is restricted to suit the purposes of current citizens. We defend our workers against avoidable losses of jobs and incomes due to too much immigration or outsourcing of jobs. We forge trade deals entirely in this light and for that purpose.

    But his citizenism has another set of consequences that generally render Trump anathema to most on the right. That is his apparently quite sincere commitment to the importance of entitlements, including, obviously, Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Trump has even spoken postively of the possibility of something akin to Medicare for All. This may seem like a contradiction to many conservatives, but it isn't, working from Trump's basic principles. For Trump, it's all about doing well by American citizens -- supporting them and providing for them and allowing them to look forward to stable lives in which the government can smooth over the vicissitudes of the economy and their circumstances. And, frankly, it's hard not to see the good in this. Germany seems to be a good example of a country that has managed to create a very prosperous and stable environments for its workers. They enjoy good incomes, steady jobs, and vacations that put us to shame.

    One of the most important pieces of research on our socio-political environment in the last 50 years is that of Robert Putnam, who found that social harmony was negatively correlated to diversity. On the right, this has been taken as a sign that we must minimize the amount of diversity if we want to have a country with minimal discord. That's a fair enough conclusion. But they seem quite reluctant to acknowledge the obverse: if we minimize diversity, focus on American citizens, strengthen harmony and bonds among American citizens, the psychologically inevitable -- and, I think, reasonable -- consequence is more commitment to social safety nets, to the fate of "the common man", to organizations and laws protecting workers. Such a socio-political setting is indeed found in Germany and other European welfare states -- though no doubt it's now being undermined by their own problems with diversity. The real challenge, in both Europe and America, is to maintain the trust and bonds inherent in our societies while not extending the compassionate attitudes lying behind such feelings to every human being everywhere--which is ultimately self-defeating. (And perhaps western societies must go through the experience of excessive diversity in order to oppose it. It's a societal level game of Tit-for-Tat. Trump both understands -- and embodies a play in -- this game. (Trump would be, I suppose, Tit.))

    This seems to be the position and solution that Trump is, in effect, pointing toward. Rather than being the mindless, incoherent set of beliefs everybody has been characterizing Trump as putting forth, his stand -- though it appears radical -- is driven by a vision that is quite consistent, sensible, and even scientifically validated and evolutionarily sound.

    Is there indeed a better or deeper vision?

    I'm not sure what it might be.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Perplexed, @anon, @LondonBob, @Bill

    I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I wanted to unburden myself of some thoughts that have been kicking around in my head for some time.

    No need to apologize.

    That was a thought-provoking, brilliant statement. I think it will influence a lot of people here.

  41. @Hosswire
    Part of the problem is that the nationalist, isolationist & race realist ideas are too close to common sense to signal elite intellectualism.

    If the regular folk are saying X, the intelligentsia must distinguish themselves from the uneducated rabble by saying Y. Even --- maybe even especially --- if reality is closer to X.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @rod1963

    Uh oh. A similarly pat Golden Corral’d comment tempted me into posting an earnest, if acerbic amplification in the recent past. Cautioning strains of Kenny Loggins played somewhere in my consciousness, but gosh darn it if that song doesn’t pump you up! After much copying, pasting, and composing, i hit Publish Comment. For a few hours my somewhat tongue-in-cheek rebuttal was sidelined under an NFL-grade Cool Zone mist fan. Reader, I got the chills. I’ll say this, Hosswire: your qualification “Part of the problem…” makes it all go down smoother.

  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Hepp
    The problem with all conservative intellectuals is that they're believers in democracy, so are in complete denial of what motivates their voters. The Democrats basically say "whites are evil," and Republicans say "let's not talk about that stuff," and most whites see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. But Republican intellectuals have convinced themselves that they win elections because of advocacy of "small government," even though polls show less than 10% of voters want cuts to education, entitlements, or any real part of the welfare state.

    So the Republican intellectual lives off cultural conservatism and white racial resentment, but is disgusted by these things.

    The fact is, that until this cycle, it worked. We got W., McCain, and Romney as the last three nominees. But the Internet has changed things, with popular sites like Breitbart and Drudge being practically friendly to white nationalism and making National Review and the Weekly Standard completely irrelevant.

    2016 may be an electoral disaster for the right, but it's the start of something greater.

    Replies: @Das, @Anonymous, @Realist, @Travis, @boogerbently

    Republican ideology just hasn’t kept up with demographic and cultural changes within its own electorate and in the country. Northern WASPs who were the basis of the GOP no longer are the demographic and cultural force they once were, and the GOP now depends on Southern whites and northern non-WASP whites, who generally don’t find the traditional moralistic Republican ideology very appealing in itself. This should change, as Steve has noted and called for, as the GOP becomes a more general white party rather than the traditional northern WASP one it was.

  43. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Republican intellectuals, what Republican intellectuals? That motley crew of names have tried to insert themselves as gatekeepers of sorts, asserting that they are the chosen ones to hand out tickets to the affair. That’s over with, their roles as frontmen have become increasingly irrelevant. The best people are on the internet, available to all who care to try to make sense of things.

  44. The GOP is intellectually bankrupt. No intellectuals can save it.

    The GOP has one and only economic policy forever: Lower marginal tax rates. They can even cure diabetes.

    The GOP believes in open immigration because Americans are not defined by history, we are defined by an idea. And that idea is open immigration. So we must have open immigration forever. Otherwise we won’t be Americans.

    Every day is the same day to the GOP and that day is D-Day. The GOP can end “evil” forever.

    The GOP believes in “free trade”, because it is “free” and “free” is like “freedom” and “freedom” is like “freedom fries” and that is what we stand for. Freedom Fries.

    Or you can vote Trump.

  45. @Decius
    @Priss Factor

    Buckley lived to see it. He didn't seem too upset.

    Replies: @Chiron, @Priss Factor, @Travis, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Yeah, it was Buckley who opened the doors for the Neocon/Troskyit takeover of the GOP and Conservtism Inc.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    @Chiron

    No, I think Buckley just accepted it.

    Buckley didn't control the media or GOP.

    He was just a standard bearer of conservative intellectualism.

    Big Media increasingly favored Neocon voices. Lib Jews wanted Neocons as the face of conservatism. Since they held the media cards, there could make it happen. Buckley just acceded to the inevitable.
    Also, neocon think tanks and even non-neo-con thinktanks(like Heritage) began to rely on donations from Big Zionists.

    Money rules. Look how American Environmentalism(Sierra Club) became pro-immigration once big money rolled in from Big Globalists.

    Suppose Buckley hadn't played the role of middleman between neocons and GOP. Neocons would have found someone else.
    Buckley wasn't that powerful. He just provided legitimacy as the face of Conservatism.

    He was not a big player.

    He was just Johnny Ola.

  46. @Hosswire
    Part of the problem is that the nationalist, isolationist & race realist ideas are too close to common sense to signal elite intellectualism.

    If the regular folk are saying X, the intelligentsia must distinguish themselves from the uneducated rabble by saying Y. Even --- maybe even especially --- if reality is closer to X.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @rod1963

    Another part of the problem is that intellectuals need a sugar daddy as it’s not a normally well paying gig unless you have tenure at a university. And that means finding monied individuals to support you. And it’s usually a bargain with the devil because those with money want something in return. Buckely found that out and anyone who owns a newspaper or magazine does as well.

    Maybe you find a think tank to promote you and give you a stipend. But guess what a lot of those think tanks and foundations are fronts for corporations and the wealthy. And then you end up like Charles Murray writing a status quo op-ed in the WSJ supporting the worst abuses of the ruling class.

    In the worst case you end up as a desperate porch monkey for the elites and pen some of the most terrible pieces imaginable to excuse their agenda in the hopes they throw you some table scraps. Kevin Williams at TNR looks to be one of those.

  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    No, intellectuals are useless, lazy non-doers with sub-par minds who rely on the bullshit of other non-doers and repackage the latest bullshit fad or trend. Then these pathetic tools are all proud of themselves for assimilating all this bullshit and being all cute and clever (they think) in rephrasing it. And it’s all worthless bullshit.

    • Replies: @Perplexed
    @Anonymous

    Hard to argue with that (because I'm not an intellectual, or a lawyer).

  48. The brain is a poorly organized package of survival traits bequeathed by a couple million years of evolution and, for most people, really doesn’t include what it takes to make or embrace “some new ideas to solve the new problems of this century”.

    People have to give up the idea that other people are their property.

  49. I feel like calling Bill Kristol an “intellectual” is sort of like when Ta-Nehisi Coates called Melissa Harris-Perry the greatest public intellectual of our time.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @anon

    Bill Kristol, always wrong but never in doubt. He spawned a mini-industry of pundits pointing out his stellar history of idiotic predictions.
    His squinty visage looks a little like that of the late Gary Shandling, but at least the latter was good for some laughs.

  50. @candid_observer
    I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I wanted to unburden myself of some thoughts that have been kicking around in my head for some time.

    Trump has, of course, been derided as a shallow, unthinking ignoramus with no coherent views.

    But the more I've thought about it, the more it seems to me that the positions he has staked out are, in fact, far more coherent and sensible than the traditional views on either the right or the left. I don't mean to imply that Trump put together his views after careful contemplation of theory and history. Mostly, he's just followed his nose (and noticing) to his views, and doing so created a fairly consistent and compelling position (though with some obvious glitches).

    At the base of his positions seems to be a hard commitment to "citizenism". From this, combined with his secular orientation, pretty much all else follows. His basic idea is that we, as Americans, need to stick up for and support our fellow Americans, and to abandon the quest to accommodate, win over, conquer, or meddle in the affairs of others. We defend our borders, we defeat any enemies who attack us, and we make sure that immigration is restricted to suit the purposes of current citizens. We defend our workers against avoidable losses of jobs and incomes due to too much immigration or outsourcing of jobs. We forge trade deals entirely in this light and for that purpose.

    But his citizenism has another set of consequences that generally render Trump anathema to most on the right. That is his apparently quite sincere commitment to the importance of entitlements, including, obviously, Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Trump has even spoken postively of the possibility of something akin to Medicare for All. This may seem like a contradiction to many conservatives, but it isn't, working from Trump's basic principles. For Trump, it's all about doing well by American citizens -- supporting them and providing for them and allowing them to look forward to stable lives in which the government can smooth over the vicissitudes of the economy and their circumstances. And, frankly, it's hard not to see the good in this. Germany seems to be a good example of a country that has managed to create a very prosperous and stable environments for its workers. They enjoy good incomes, steady jobs, and vacations that put us to shame.

    One of the most important pieces of research on our socio-political environment in the last 50 years is that of Robert Putnam, who found that social harmony was negatively correlated to diversity. On the right, this has been taken as a sign that we must minimize the amount of diversity if we want to have a country with minimal discord. That's a fair enough conclusion. But they seem quite reluctant to acknowledge the obverse: if we minimize diversity, focus on American citizens, strengthen harmony and bonds among American citizens, the psychologically inevitable -- and, I think, reasonable -- consequence is more commitment to social safety nets, to the fate of "the common man", to organizations and laws protecting workers. Such a socio-political setting is indeed found in Germany and other European welfare states -- though no doubt it's now being undermined by their own problems with diversity. The real challenge, in both Europe and America, is to maintain the trust and bonds inherent in our societies while not extending the compassionate attitudes lying behind such feelings to every human being everywhere--which is ultimately self-defeating. (And perhaps western societies must go through the experience of excessive diversity in order to oppose it. It's a societal level game of Tit-for-Tat. Trump both understands -- and embodies a play in -- this game. (Trump would be, I suppose, Tit.))

    This seems to be the position and solution that Trump is, in effect, pointing toward. Rather than being the mindless, incoherent set of beliefs everybody has been characterizing Trump as putting forth, his stand -- though it appears radical -- is driven by a vision that is quite consistent, sensible, and even scientifically validated and evolutionarily sound.

    Is there indeed a better or deeper vision?

    I'm not sure what it might be.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Perplexed, @anon, @LondonBob, @Bill

    Bravo. You get Trump. His supporters get him. Maybe he should lead the Common Sense Party. I’ve been laughing my ass off at the mystification of our intellectual betters. “Sire, the people are revolting.” “They certainly are!”

    Trump is an intelligent, educated, experienced, canny man who has been preparing himself for decades. His chief attribute is courage. What a short strange trip it’s been. Can’t wait till he lays into Hillary.

  51. But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.

    Nor any money behind artists more relevant either.

  52. @Mike Sylwester
    I favored Donald Trump for several months, from August through November 2015. During that period he posted what I considered to be good positions about immigration and about gun rights on his website. I expected that he gradually would improve his articulation of those and other positions.

    Instead, his positions have become steadily more incoherent and vulgarly articulated. He is manifesting himself not merely as a non-intellectual, but as an anti-intellectual.

    In the fall of 2015, he raised the issue of birth-right citizenship. When challenged, his responses indicated that he had familiarized himself with some articles written by legal scholars who argued that birth-right citizenship could be eliminated without a Constitutional amendment. When follow-up questions were asked, however, he lacked a sufficient command of that scholarship. Ultimately, he embarrassed himself by his inability to articulate a position that was based on intellectual, scholarly publications.

    He will not spend serious time and effort to master political issues intellectually. He spends practically all his time and effort on television interviews and on mass assemblies, where he spouts his opinions superficially and haphazardly. That never will change, even if he becomes President.

    I think that his personal experience in this campaign has taught him that he ultimately embarrasses himself by trying to justify his positions with intellectual arguments. Since he fails to master intellectual arguments adequately, he looks better when he simply avoids such arguments. Therefore he ignores or even disdains intellectuals who sincerely would like to advise him how to articulate and defend positions that he himself advocates.

    Apparently, Trump has become able to win about half of the Republican electorate with his own methods and arguments.

    I now favor Cruz, whom I consider to be intellectually effective, but he seems to be sinking into defeat. I respect Cruz's religiosity, but I recognize that it repulses many voters. Also, Cruz goes off into some crazy rhetoric about carpet-bombing ISIS and abolishing the IRS, etc.

    Replies: @Perplexed, @Eric Novak

    This misreads Trump completely. People don’t go to rallies for droning policy papers; they can read them on his website (and they are short enough to read). They want broad statements of his goals and direction. Practically the first thing Trump did after announcing was meet with Jeff Sessions, who wrote his immigration paper, and one of Sessions’s aides is now working for Trump. Trump knows who to hire to further his policies. Besides, as Trump has said repeatedly, you have to change as circumstances change.

    You don’t understand Trump, but the voters do.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Perplexed

    Trump's rallies are entertainment, almost stand up. He will know to keep it that way.

    , @Mike Sylwester
    @Perplexed


    People don’t go to rallies for droning policy papers; they can read them on his website (and they are short enough to read). They want broad statements of his goals and direction
     
    Here in this thread we are discussing mainly the troubled relationship between 1) Trump and his supporters and 2) conservative intellectuals and their supporters.

    We are not discussing the joyous relationship between 1) Trump and 2) people who attend his mass rallies. The percent of the electorate that ever has attended a Trump rally is probably less than one percent. His audiences are huge, but not compared to the total electorate.

    I have watched videos of him speaking at political rallies. He is a scatter-brain. He rambles from subject to subject. He rambles within sentences.

    I like Trump. I favored him for several months, and I would vote happily for him in the general election. I like him because in this election I am a single-issue voter on the immigration issue. However, most voters do not share my narrow focus on that one issue, and so most voters do not like him.

    I am happy that Trump has followed some of Senator Session's advice and has hired one of Session's aides. I regret that Trump, as a candidate for the office of US President, seems to study expert advice very little and seems to surround himself primarily with people who schedule television interviews and mass assemblies for him.

    Trump does not have to develop an intellectual, scholarly mastery of the major political issues. He does, however, have to develop a mastery that is sufficient to answer questions sensibly in interviews and debates.

    Apparently, he does not seriously study any political issue. He has learned in this campaign that, for him, "a little learning is a dangerous thing". If, for example, he learns that some legal scholars believe that birth-right citizenship can be revoked without a Constitutional amendment, it's better for him if he avoids saying so. If he does say something, then he cannot answer simple follow-up questions and so he looks foolish.

    Conservative intellectuals want to help Trump articulate and defend his own ideas, but he will not allow them to do so. Trump's listening to Sessions is a rare exception.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  53. @Anonymous
    No, intellectuals are useless, lazy non-doers with sub-par minds who rely on the bullshit of other non-doers and repackage the latest bullshit fad or trend. Then these pathetic tools are all proud of themselves for assimilating all this bullshit and being all cute and clever (they think) in rephrasing it. And it's all worthless bullshit.

    Replies: @Perplexed

    Hard to argue with that (because I’m not an intellectual, or a lawyer).

  54. Who thinks of Bill Kristol as an intellectual? Why not Beria? He had a lot to say. Personally, I would suggest that Leon Klinghoffer made the kind of positive intellectual contribution that should be emulated more widely among the ruling elite. That’s the kind of thoughtful leadership under which both the party and the people could prosper. Five Year Plan In Four!

  55. @anony-mouse
    '...Perhaps the GOP needs some new intellectuals?...'

    Not a bad idea.

    But when I go down the list of people on the right hand side of the page here, for example, I get maybe four people under 50. Over 75 you don't want to know. And that's not including dead people who make terrible new intellectuals.

    You have to replace somebody with somebody.

    Replies: @SFG, @Harry Baldwin, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Almost Missouri

    Why should they be under 50? It takes time to develop a serious, stable, comprehensive Weltanschauung. It’s rare in people under 50, and practically nonexistent in people under 40. There’s a reason The Elders are elder.

    Even the Left, which idolizes youth, doesn’t really have any young intellectuals. The apparently young, apparently intellectual, e.g., Cenk Uygur, are really neither. Uygur is 46 and is just a loudmouth showman/mountebank yelling very old, brittle and meaningless “ideas”.

    By contrast, Steve’s ideas are new, genuine, vital, relevant, and subject to a lot of good faith cross examination. Steve is over 50. So what?

  56. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:
    @Decius
    @Priss Factor

    Buckley lived to see it. He didn't seem too upset.

    Replies: @Chiron, @Priss Factor, @Travis, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Buckley changed his mind on the Iraq War.

    I think he was privately unhappy with Bush II regime and Neocons.

    He just couldn’t say it cuz he got in too deep.

    If he were alive now, he might be for Trump.

    Buckley could be surprising.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Priss Factor

    No he wouldn't. Some of Trump's nationalistic policies have streams in the camps of Buchanan and Samuel Francis. Buckley purged Buchanan from Conservatism back in the day, he seldom ever made mention of Sam Francis, which would suggest either: He never heard of Sam Francis, or, he couldn't stomach such a person (after all, Francis was from "The South". Not in Buckley's conception of the South but the south a la Jesse Helms. While born in LA, Buckley was most at home in NYC and more or less identified as a Northeasterner, though he'd play up his southern roots when it was convenient to do so. Much the way GWB and W have done).

    Or rather, what did Buckley ever think of Donald Trump personally before passing in '08? Also, what does his son Christopher think of Donald Trump's candidacy? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

    Anyone know what Christopher Buckley thinks of Donald Trump?

    If anything, it's probably a snobbish class thing. To the Buckley's of the US, Trump, Buchanan, and Francis are the proles, the bumpkins, the "wrong sort" of folks to emulate, to aspire to, and are best ignored or dismissed altogether.

    Another conservative intellectual, though admittedly a bit risky, would be Jared Taylor, who, in the ideal world would be a counterpart of Buckley's in the Conservative Movement at large.

    Replies: @Priss Factor

  57. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:
    @Chiron
    @Decius

    Yeah, it was Buckley who opened the doors for the Neocon/Troskyit takeover of the GOP and Conservtism Inc.

    Replies: @Priss Factor

    No, I think Buckley just accepted it.

    Buckley didn’t control the media or GOP.

    He was just a standard bearer of conservative intellectualism.

    Big Media increasingly favored Neocon voices. Lib Jews wanted Neocons as the face of conservatism. Since they held the media cards, there could make it happen. Buckley just acceded to the inevitable.
    Also, neocon think tanks and even non-neo-con thinktanks(like Heritage) began to rely on donations from Big Zionists.

    Money rules. Look how American Environmentalism(Sierra Club) became pro-immigration once big money rolled in from Big Globalists.

    Suppose Buckley hadn’t played the role of middleman between neocons and GOP. Neocons would have found someone else.
    Buckley wasn’t that powerful. He just provided legitimacy as the face of Conservatism.

    He was not a big player.

    He was just Johnny Ola.

  58. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @candid_observer
    I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I wanted to unburden myself of some thoughts that have been kicking around in my head for some time.

    Trump has, of course, been derided as a shallow, unthinking ignoramus with no coherent views.

    But the more I've thought about it, the more it seems to me that the positions he has staked out are, in fact, far more coherent and sensible than the traditional views on either the right or the left. I don't mean to imply that Trump put together his views after careful contemplation of theory and history. Mostly, he's just followed his nose (and noticing) to his views, and doing so created a fairly consistent and compelling position (though with some obvious glitches).

    At the base of his positions seems to be a hard commitment to "citizenism". From this, combined with his secular orientation, pretty much all else follows. His basic idea is that we, as Americans, need to stick up for and support our fellow Americans, and to abandon the quest to accommodate, win over, conquer, or meddle in the affairs of others. We defend our borders, we defeat any enemies who attack us, and we make sure that immigration is restricted to suit the purposes of current citizens. We defend our workers against avoidable losses of jobs and incomes due to too much immigration or outsourcing of jobs. We forge trade deals entirely in this light and for that purpose.

    But his citizenism has another set of consequences that generally render Trump anathema to most on the right. That is his apparently quite sincere commitment to the importance of entitlements, including, obviously, Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Trump has even spoken postively of the possibility of something akin to Medicare for All. This may seem like a contradiction to many conservatives, but it isn't, working from Trump's basic principles. For Trump, it's all about doing well by American citizens -- supporting them and providing for them and allowing them to look forward to stable lives in which the government can smooth over the vicissitudes of the economy and their circumstances. And, frankly, it's hard not to see the good in this. Germany seems to be a good example of a country that has managed to create a very prosperous and stable environments for its workers. They enjoy good incomes, steady jobs, and vacations that put us to shame.

    One of the most important pieces of research on our socio-political environment in the last 50 years is that of Robert Putnam, who found that social harmony was negatively correlated to diversity. On the right, this has been taken as a sign that we must minimize the amount of diversity if we want to have a country with minimal discord. That's a fair enough conclusion. But they seem quite reluctant to acknowledge the obverse: if we minimize diversity, focus on American citizens, strengthen harmony and bonds among American citizens, the psychologically inevitable -- and, I think, reasonable -- consequence is more commitment to social safety nets, to the fate of "the common man", to organizations and laws protecting workers. Such a socio-political setting is indeed found in Germany and other European welfare states -- though no doubt it's now being undermined by their own problems with diversity. The real challenge, in both Europe and America, is to maintain the trust and bonds inherent in our societies while not extending the compassionate attitudes lying behind such feelings to every human being everywhere--which is ultimately self-defeating. (And perhaps western societies must go through the experience of excessive diversity in order to oppose it. It's a societal level game of Tit-for-Tat. Trump both understands -- and embodies a play in -- this game. (Trump would be, I suppose, Tit.))

    This seems to be the position and solution that Trump is, in effect, pointing toward. Rather than being the mindless, incoherent set of beliefs everybody has been characterizing Trump as putting forth, his stand -- though it appears radical -- is driven by a vision that is quite consistent, sensible, and even scientifically validated and evolutionarily sound.

    Is there indeed a better or deeper vision?

    I'm not sure what it might be.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Perplexed, @anon, @LondonBob, @Bill

    Citizenism sums up what democracy ought to provide but generally doesn’t which is a weighted average of everyone’s individual interests.

    And if you could write some software that took everyone in the countries interests and weighted them equally you’d get a set of polices similar to Trump.

    It only seems a radical departure because politics has been so distorted by the collusion of what are effectively the cultural far left and the economic far right.

    So I think you’re right except I think he’s mostly going on instinct, sniffing the air and going with gut feel but coming to the same conclusions you stated because they’re actually the logical conclusions if you start from those premises.

  59. Leftist conservative [AKA "Make Unz.com Great Again"] says: • Website

    sailer wrote:

    Like I’ve said before, the care and feeding of intellectuals isn’t all that expensive, but it’s not free. Rich guys do a pretty good job of paying for a libertarian intellectual counter-establishment, and rich Israel fans (and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) pay for a lot of the foreign policy establishment. But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.

    as professor joan roelofs and frances stonor saunders showed in their books (Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism and The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters), the 20th century was really the century of Big Money using nonprofit foundations to fund writers/activists/academics who then generated reams of propaganda over a period of decades. Such propaganda, over time, found its way into school textbooks, movies, tv shows, etc.

    Propaganda made 20th century Western Culture. Propaganda funded by Big Money.

    What sort of propaganda did Big Money fund? Propaganda favoring the financial interests of Big Money, naturally. What sort of political ideas favor the financial interests of Big Money?

    Well, for starters, Big Money favors neoliberalism and multiculturalism. Mass immigration produces a heterogeneous population divided by race, national origin, language, etc., that cannot unite against Big Money.

    Big Money created an anti-populist Right and an anti-white Left.
    Trump and Bernie Sanders? Big Money don’t like them. They aint neoliberal.

    Watch for the possibility that Trump will pick Bernie Sanders as his running mate….after he gets the GOP nom.

  60. @Anonymous
    "ADL Urges Donald Trump to Reconsider “America First” in Foreign Policy Approach"

    http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-urges-donald-trump-to-reconsider-america-first.html

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @AndrewR

    Treasonous, no?

  61. @SFG
    @anony-mouse

    Milo Yiannopoulous? (I kid.)

    Honestly: I think conservatives just don't do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don't do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left. The left-wing control of the universities doesn't help matters either.

    Replies: @Dahlia, @Almost Missouri, @James O'Meara, @guest, @SFG

    Couple of wrinkles here.

    First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money. You might think that’s the nature of the beast, but occasional movie forays by more hardheaded business types manage to bat way above the Hollywood average. A fairly obvious strategy is to make movies for the underserved G-rated market segment and avoid the over-saturated R-rated market segment. Yet Hollywood prefers to stuff the already overstuffed pipe of R-rated culture-dreck. Why? Draw your own conclusions, but “business acumen” probably won’t be one of them.

    Second, yes the university monoculture of coercive prog-obeisance certainly gives the Left volume. But what does the Left do with that volume? To the extent it has ideas, they are just 80-year-old duds repackaged in new SJW wrappers. Empty shells fired from the world’s biggest howitzer are still just empty shells: sound and fury signifying nothing. The only time the Left evinces something resembling thinking is when confronted by a genuine idea from outside their bubble. Then they think how to force the new idea to serve in the slave caravan of their Narrative. Or more usually, they just think how to murder the new idea before anyone hears it freely.

    When you have truth, you don’t need volume. One shining truth, curtly presented, slays a million mewling lies.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Almost Missouri


    . . . yes the university monoculture of coercive prog-obeisance certainly gives the Left volume. But what does the Left do with that volume? To the extent it has ideas, they are just 80-year-old duds repackaged in new SJW wrappers.

     

    Most leftist 'ideas' are now at least 80 years old; many go back much further, e.g., and most obviously, the Great Lie of Marxism itself.

    In my own field, education, it's hard to identify a 'progressive' idea that's much less than a century old. For example, John Dewey's Democracy and Education was published exactly 100 years ago, and William Heard Kilpatrick's enormously influential iteration of the 'project learning' method featuring the teacher as a 'guide on the side' was roughly contemporaneous. The mostly-misguided precepts of these essentially 19th-century thinkers are recycled ad infinitum in American schools and universities.

    , @Ozymandias
    @Almost Missouri

    "A fairly obvious strategy is to make movies for the underserved G-rated market segment"

    Have you ever watched any of that dreck? It's primarily aimed at indoctrinating the young into the diversity cult. The last thing we need is more of it.

    , @S. anonyia
    @Almost Missouri

    R-rated movies are NOT an over saturated market. Lots of action, sci-fi and horror movies are re-cut so they will be PG-13, which is the big moneymaker. This actually annoys a lot of movie fans.


    Anyway, the worst political correctness is actually in kids movies.

  62. @Hepp
    The problem with all conservative intellectuals is that they're believers in democracy, so are in complete denial of what motivates their voters. The Democrats basically say "whites are evil," and Republicans say "let's not talk about that stuff," and most whites see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. But Republican intellectuals have convinced themselves that they win elections because of advocacy of "small government," even though polls show less than 10% of voters want cuts to education, entitlements, or any real part of the welfare state.

    So the Republican intellectual lives off cultural conservatism and white racial resentment, but is disgusted by these things.

    The fact is, that until this cycle, it worked. We got W., McCain, and Romney as the last three nominees. But the Internet has changed things, with popular sites like Breitbart and Drudge being practically friendly to white nationalism and making National Review and the Weekly Standard completely irrelevant.

    2016 may be an electoral disaster for the right, but it's the start of something greater.

    Replies: @Das, @Anonymous, @Realist, @Travis, @boogerbently

    “The problem with all conservative intellectuals is that they’re believers in democracy, so are in complete denial of what motivates their voters. ”

    Democracy has never worked for long.

  63. Pat Casey says:

    But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.

    Sorry Steve, but I’m going to publicly remonstrate you on this point, because at this point, by now, the absence of an intellectual power center behind Trump is largely your fault.

    You have too much fun blogging, and approving these comments, and writing short stuff at frivolous takimag, and approving more stupid comments, you have too much fun doing this to get serious and step up and claim your stake to what you’ve spawned, and lead the new neo-conservatism everyone understands you’re top dog of but which lacks a serious institution that can grow continuous tentacles into TV Media and Think Tanks and Government, lacks that because blogging is so fucking fun and easy and pajama-friendly.

    I’m not saying be the Bill Buckley you truly are (cause you’re not) I’m saying be one single step above a blogger: be Editor in Chief of a website that mints a persuasion on current events, culture, and philosophy. You should be telling people like me, don’t write that write this, attack not him but him, argue that next time so then you can start with this time, and, no you can’t write that but I will.

    Recall when John O’Sullivan identified the strain of opinion you had pretty suddenly made something to watch out for. That was the best eye at National Review tapping you to be the next Big Man on the Right. And let’s be honest Steve you haven’t live up to it because your pj’s are too cozy and you believe more comedians on your side is what counts. It’s definitely not.

    As it is you only wield the maximum influence possible for a man who leaves fleeting impressions. I asked you for that epistemology speech and didn’t get it cause you didn’t care. For a guy who talks about our posterity you apparently don’t have any sense of the posterity that comes from what you daily do. My God there are heavyweight opinion shapers who write about “nothing burgers.” And their gonna say yep when America was falling that’s how their prophets wrote, in the idiom about MickeyDs.

    No Big Money? Steve, be honest, how the hell would you know? Or, in other words, why is Rod Dreher Central not Steve Sailer Central? It matters. I mean how did that guy get a book deal to write that on Dante? Because he blogs for a real institution. For some reason he’s allowed to. Why does the better mind care less about that institution?

    If I were you, I’d give David Frum a call, and say, let’s say you do it right this time, with me. That, cause he’s the only one who has ever gotten the better of you.

    What do I know though? I know just enough to know you need a true institution to fulfill potential. I know that and I know how to moonlight as the leading authority on the pivotal novel after Ulysses.

    http://www.mattbucher.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IJ-FINAL-3.pdf

    But I owe what’s to come to the editorial sentiment I needed to hear, remember?

    • Replies: @Pericles
    @Pat Casey

    "You're a great pitcher, Steve. That's why you gotta be GM, you jackass."

    I dunno, sounds more like you should be telling Unz like it is instead. Is Unz good for endowing a couple of professor chairs? Maybe that's the ticket.

    Replies: @Bill

    , @AndrewR
    @Pat Casey

    Sailer is good for unorthodox insights and biting sarcasm but I doubt he has it in him to lead some big movement.

    I expect big things from Richard Spencer but he needs to clean Radix up. The comments are a cesspool of angry virgin basement dweller venom.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Pat Casey

    Yeeahhh!

    Now that’s the spirit! Pat, I get what you’re saying in your desire for an intellectual standard bearer to take National Discourse to the next level, and shift the Overton in a more refined, methodical (yet vigorous) way than, say, presumptive nominee Trump. This takes a bit of showbiz combined with intellect. Steve is a smart, self-aware man who knows his own strengths. He works on spec, on his own schedule, which gives him time to distill what the internet/media panopticon sends him. He Notices, and he nudges by way of analogy.

    Steve relentlessly skewers hypocrisy, but his observations are also leavened by a sense of the absurd. This is appealing to those of us who spend time here. He is a civil, hat-tipping calm Cassandra, a barometer that is read by smart ‘lurkers.’ Commenter "anonguy" once alluded to this blog’s “long tail” of influence. There has likely been a ripple effect on other, more mainstream, thinkfluencers. (Does Matt Groening still do those Forbidden Words lists?)

    Now here’s the bad news: What you are talking about ("be Editor in Chief of a website") is fields of text in clearing houses for ‘ideas’ like the old National Review, that the Candy Crushing, Vice City playing masses aren’t reading. How many read anything on Unz, etc., let alone know what is on the front page of the New York Times?

    Now, I’ve never personally met Steve (s’up bro!) but judging from this interview, Steve, while having an earnest, decent sounding voice and appearance, doesn’t have the (commanding? entertaining?) presence to directly take his ideas to the general public. His blinking, searching expressions are distracting. He could get professional training, I suppose, but that’s assuming that at this stage in life he would even want to become a tv/video ‘personality’. It’s certainly not for everyone, and yet that is what is required to take influence to the next level.

    The best the “alt-right” could do to go mainstream and have universal ‘household’ impact amongst Millenials and younger would be to have a youngish (late 20s to 30s) commentator with his (or her) channel on YouTube that gets so popular it would be hard to “shut it down!” This person would have to be an erudite, attractive, entertaining shitlord (in Heartiste parlance) and not just talk to the camera, but make use of satirical acting, comical/shocking cutaways, asides, etc. Maybe someone like a Tosh.O minus the fey delivery, and with deadly serious content…

    Like that old malediction may you live in interesting times: Many “core Americans,” “the middle,” whatever you want to call them, are Noticing by way of their own Lying Eyes. Where I live, a once ‘lily white’ region is being steadily Diversified. I mean you now see straight up off-the-boat Africans (and others) walking around. These are not polished, professional, right-side-of-the-bell-curve kids gets accepted to all the Ivies types.

    People are Noticing, and they don’t like it. Trump is a sign of that. The record-breaking volume of gun buying is a sign of that. The progress curve of postwar mass immigration to the West has been described by the aphorism “gradually, then suddenly.” The same can describe the likely upcoming (violent) backlash. When the temple comes tumbling down, and all the ‘best people’ are wailing to the heavens, at least Steve can say: You were warned.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Pat Casey

    And dammit Steve Sailer, why haven't you cured cancer, settled the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, deposed Kim-Jong Un, cleansed our air, purified our water, and sent the Starship Enterprise beyond the speed of light to explore new galaxies and go where no man has gone before! Steve, you slacker!

  64. @Almost Missouri
    @SFG

    Couple of wrinkles here.

    First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money. You might think that's the nature of the beast, but occasional movie forays by more hardheaded business types manage to bat way above the Hollywood average. A fairly obvious strategy is to make movies for the underserved G-rated market segment and avoid the over-saturated R-rated market segment. Yet Hollywood prefers to stuff the already overstuffed pipe of R-rated culture-dreck. Why? Draw your own conclusions, but "business acumen" probably won't be one of them.

    Second, yes the university monoculture of coercive prog-obeisance certainly gives the Left volume. But what does the Left do with that volume? To the extent it has ideas, they are just 80-year-old duds repackaged in new SJW wrappers. Empty shells fired from the world's biggest howitzer are still just empty shells: sound and fury signifying nothing. The only time the Left evinces something resembling thinking is when confronted by a genuine idea from outside their bubble. Then they think how to force the new idea to serve in the slave caravan of their Narrative. Or more usually, they just think how to murder the new idea before anyone hears it freely.

    When you have truth, you don't need volume. One shining truth, curtly presented, slays a million mewling lies.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Ozymandias, @S. anonyia

    . . . yes the university monoculture of coercive prog-obeisance certainly gives the Left volume. But what does the Left do with that volume? To the extent it has ideas, they are just 80-year-old duds repackaged in new SJW wrappers.

    Most leftist ‘ideas’ are now at least 80 years old; many go back much further, e.g., and most obviously, the Great Lie of Marxism itself.

    In my own field, education, it’s hard to identify a ‘progressive’ idea that’s much less than a century old. For example, John Dewey’s Democracy and Education was published exactly 100 years ago, and William Heard Kilpatrick’s enormously influential iteration of the ‘project learning’ method featuring the teacher as a ‘guide on the side’ was roughly contemporaneous. The mostly-misguided precepts of these essentially 19th-century thinkers are recycled ad infinitum in American schools and universities.

  65. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @countenance

    Soros, Zuckerberg, Adelson, Saban, the Koch Bros., AIPAC, Saudi Arabia, Israel, George Will and every other neocon on G-d's green earth, et al. are doing their damndest to fix that little problem. For what it's worth I hope they don't succeed in this. The country has enough problems already.

    Replies: @Henry Bowman

    This..

  66. @candid_observer
    I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I wanted to unburden myself of some thoughts that have been kicking around in my head for some time.

    Trump has, of course, been derided as a shallow, unthinking ignoramus with no coherent views.

    But the more I've thought about it, the more it seems to me that the positions he has staked out are, in fact, far more coherent and sensible than the traditional views on either the right or the left. I don't mean to imply that Trump put together his views after careful contemplation of theory and history. Mostly, he's just followed his nose (and noticing) to his views, and doing so created a fairly consistent and compelling position (though with some obvious glitches).

    At the base of his positions seems to be a hard commitment to "citizenism". From this, combined with his secular orientation, pretty much all else follows. His basic idea is that we, as Americans, need to stick up for and support our fellow Americans, and to abandon the quest to accommodate, win over, conquer, or meddle in the affairs of others. We defend our borders, we defeat any enemies who attack us, and we make sure that immigration is restricted to suit the purposes of current citizens. We defend our workers against avoidable losses of jobs and incomes due to too much immigration or outsourcing of jobs. We forge trade deals entirely in this light and for that purpose.

    But his citizenism has another set of consequences that generally render Trump anathema to most on the right. That is his apparently quite sincere commitment to the importance of entitlements, including, obviously, Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Trump has even spoken postively of the possibility of something akin to Medicare for All. This may seem like a contradiction to many conservatives, but it isn't, working from Trump's basic principles. For Trump, it's all about doing well by American citizens -- supporting them and providing for them and allowing them to look forward to stable lives in which the government can smooth over the vicissitudes of the economy and their circumstances. And, frankly, it's hard not to see the good in this. Germany seems to be a good example of a country that has managed to create a very prosperous and stable environments for its workers. They enjoy good incomes, steady jobs, and vacations that put us to shame.

    One of the most important pieces of research on our socio-political environment in the last 50 years is that of Robert Putnam, who found that social harmony was negatively correlated to diversity. On the right, this has been taken as a sign that we must minimize the amount of diversity if we want to have a country with minimal discord. That's a fair enough conclusion. But they seem quite reluctant to acknowledge the obverse: if we minimize diversity, focus on American citizens, strengthen harmony and bonds among American citizens, the psychologically inevitable -- and, I think, reasonable -- consequence is more commitment to social safety nets, to the fate of "the common man", to organizations and laws protecting workers. Such a socio-political setting is indeed found in Germany and other European welfare states -- though no doubt it's now being undermined by their own problems with diversity. The real challenge, in both Europe and America, is to maintain the trust and bonds inherent in our societies while not extending the compassionate attitudes lying behind such feelings to every human being everywhere--which is ultimately self-defeating. (And perhaps western societies must go through the experience of excessive diversity in order to oppose it. It's a societal level game of Tit-for-Tat. Trump both understands -- and embodies a play in -- this game. (Trump would be, I suppose, Tit.))

    This seems to be the position and solution that Trump is, in effect, pointing toward. Rather than being the mindless, incoherent set of beliefs everybody has been characterizing Trump as putting forth, his stand -- though it appears radical -- is driven by a vision that is quite consistent, sensible, and even scientifically validated and evolutionarily sound.

    Is there indeed a better or deeper vision?

    I'm not sure what it might be.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Perplexed, @anon, @LondonBob, @Bill

    Nah BLM is all Soros. What little I have seen of RT America it is a lot more left wing than RT Europe, a lot.

  67. @Perplexed
    @Mike Sylwester

    This misreads Trump completely. People don't go to rallies for droning policy papers; they can read them on his website (and they are short enough to read). They want broad statements of his goals and direction. Practically the first thing Trump did after announcing was meet with Jeff Sessions, who wrote his immigration paper, and one of Sessions's aides is now working for Trump. Trump knows who to hire to further his policies. Besides, as Trump has said repeatedly, you have to change as circumstances change.

    You don't understand Trump, but the voters do.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Mike Sylwester

    Trump’s rallies are entertainment, almost stand up. He will know to keep it that way.

  68. At this point, I doubt Western civilization, to say nothing of America, can be saved, no matter how many intellectuals one assembles.

    Perhaps it will survive in small, protected enclaves — but I think a new Dark Ages is pretty much here to stay. It just hasn’t hit us yet because we managed to pile up so much wealth over the past 500 years or so that it will take a long time to blow it all and send us back to mankind’s natural state of misery and poverty.

    But ultimately, we won’t re-learn the lessons of the past until we’ve managed to hit bottom again.

  69. National Review and the others were right to criticize Trump as a fake conservative. Unfortunately, their favored candidates at the time (Walker, Bush, Rubio) were partly damaged goods themselves. Rubio, who was justly damaged beyond repair by his amnesty bill, leaned on a failed neocon foreign policy instead of a potentially promising reform conservative domestic policy.

    The mainstream conservative press is right that Trump’s candidacy is a joke and deserves pretty much all the scorn it gets. Sure, he’s not a crook like Clinton but that’s a incredibly low bar. The only thing that persistently annoys–but surprises no one–is their reliance on the language of the left (racism, sexism, &c.) in their canards. Trump has been a true coward, not taking on his sicker followers. There’s plenty of blame to go around.

    There really are no good magazines or websites left. You simply have to pick and choose the good writers on each site and ignore the rest. Most of the writers here are lunatics too, especially on foreign policy. But there are still a few good writers on each site, while the pro-Trump tabloids like Breitbart and Drudge are mere boob-bait just like talk radio.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @wonderbread

    How much do Hillary and Bernie take on their sicker supporters?

    The left never punches left and is never expected to. But you want to criticize Trump for not punching right? Vile.

  70. You think that after having given us the two Bushes, Dole, McCain, Romey, and lesser creatures like McConnell and Boehner, that we would stop referring to this corner of the political class as intellectuals.

  71. @Reg Cæsar

    Politico: Whither GOP Intellectuals?
     
    "Whither" is awfully close to "whiter". Careful!

    Their face, at first just ghostly, turned a whither shade of pale

    Or Marx's unfulfilled promise of the whithering away of the state.

    Or Whithering Heights.

    Replies: @Pericles

    Whither wither whiter?

  72. The left have been deft in taking command of public funding (universities, NGOs, etc) as well as various major foundations and charities. A river of stupid money to be abused at will.

  73. @Almost Missouri
    @SFG

    Couple of wrinkles here.

    First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money. You might think that's the nature of the beast, but occasional movie forays by more hardheaded business types manage to bat way above the Hollywood average. A fairly obvious strategy is to make movies for the underserved G-rated market segment and avoid the over-saturated R-rated market segment. Yet Hollywood prefers to stuff the already overstuffed pipe of R-rated culture-dreck. Why? Draw your own conclusions, but "business acumen" probably won't be one of them.

    Second, yes the university monoculture of coercive prog-obeisance certainly gives the Left volume. But what does the Left do with that volume? To the extent it has ideas, they are just 80-year-old duds repackaged in new SJW wrappers. Empty shells fired from the world's biggest howitzer are still just empty shells: sound and fury signifying nothing. The only time the Left evinces something resembling thinking is when confronted by a genuine idea from outside their bubble. Then they think how to force the new idea to serve in the slave caravan of their Narrative. Or more usually, they just think how to murder the new idea before anyone hears it freely.

    When you have truth, you don't need volume. One shining truth, curtly presented, slays a million mewling lies.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Ozymandias, @S. anonyia

    “A fairly obvious strategy is to make movies for the underserved G-rated market segment”

    Have you ever watched any of that dreck? It’s primarily aimed at indoctrinating the young into the diversity cult. The last thing we need is more of it.

  74. @Pat Casey

    But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.
     
    Sorry Steve, but I'm going to publicly remonstrate you on this point, because at this point, by now, the absence of an intellectual power center behind Trump is largely your fault.

    You have too much fun blogging, and approving these comments, and writing short stuff at frivolous takimag, and approving more stupid comments, you have too much fun doing this to get serious and step up and claim your stake to what you've spawned, and lead the new neo-conservatism everyone understands you're top dog of but which lacks a serious institution that can grow continuous tentacles into TV Media and Think Tanks and Government, lacks that because blogging is so fucking fun and easy and pajama-friendly.

    I'm not saying be the Bill Buckley you truly are (cause you're not) I'm saying be one single step above a blogger: be Editor in Chief of a website that mints a persuasion on current events, culture, and philosophy. You should be telling people like me, don't write that write this, attack not him but him, argue that next time so then you can start with this time, and, no you can't write that but I will.

    Recall when John O'Sullivan identified the strain of opinion you had pretty suddenly made something to watch out for. That was the best eye at National Review tapping you to be the next Big Man on the Right. And let's be honest Steve you haven't live up to it because your pj's are too cozy and you believe more comedians on your side is what counts. It's definitely not.

    As it is you only wield the maximum influence possible for a man who leaves fleeting impressions. I asked you for that epistemology speech and didn't get it cause you didn't care. For a guy who talks about our posterity you apparently don't have any sense of the posterity that comes from what you daily do. My God there are heavyweight opinion shapers who write about "nothing burgers." And their gonna say yep when America was falling that's how their prophets wrote, in the idiom about MickeyDs.

    No Big Money? Steve, be honest, how the hell would you know? Or, in other words, why is Rod Dreher Central not Steve Sailer Central? It matters. I mean how did that guy get a book deal to write that on Dante? Because he blogs for a real institution. For some reason he's allowed to. Why does the better mind care less about that institution?

    If I were you, I'd give David Frum a call, and say, let's say you do it right this time, with me. That, cause he's the only one who has ever gotten the better of you.

    What do I know though? I know just enough to know you need a true institution to fulfill potential. I know that and I know how to moonlight as the leading authority on the pivotal novel after Ulysses.

    http://www.mattbucher.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IJ-FINAL-3.pdf

    But I owe what's to come to the editorial sentiment I needed to hear, remember?

    Replies: @Pericles, @AndrewR, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    “You’re a great pitcher, Steve. That’s why you gotta be GM, you jackass.”

    I dunno, sounds more like you should be telling Unz like it is instead. Is Unz good for endowing a couple of professor chairs? Maybe that’s the ticket.

    • Replies: @Bill
    @Pericles

    Yeah, he definitely shouldn't endow any chairs. The way that works is, the second the check clears, the university stops pretending to care what you wanted done with the chair. You can ameliorate that effect only by hinting that this chair might be the first of five. And you can only ameliorate the effect that way, not make it go away.

  75. @Perplexed
    @Mike Sylwester

    This misreads Trump completely. People don't go to rallies for droning policy papers; they can read them on his website (and they are short enough to read). They want broad statements of his goals and direction. Practically the first thing Trump did after announcing was meet with Jeff Sessions, who wrote his immigration paper, and one of Sessions's aides is now working for Trump. Trump knows who to hire to further his policies. Besides, as Trump has said repeatedly, you have to change as circumstances change.

    You don't understand Trump, but the voters do.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Mike Sylwester

    People don’t go to rallies for droning policy papers; they can read them on his website (and they are short enough to read). They want broad statements of his goals and direction

    Here in this thread we are discussing mainly the troubled relationship between 1) Trump and his supporters and 2) conservative intellectuals and their supporters.

    We are not discussing the joyous relationship between 1) Trump and 2) people who attend his mass rallies. The percent of the electorate that ever has attended a Trump rally is probably less than one percent. His audiences are huge, but not compared to the total electorate.

    I have watched videos of him speaking at political rallies. He is a scatter-brain. He rambles from subject to subject. He rambles within sentences.

    I like Trump. I favored him for several months, and I would vote happily for him in the general election. I like him because in this election I am a single-issue voter on the immigration issue. However, most voters do not share my narrow focus on that one issue, and so most voters do not like him.

    I am happy that Trump has followed some of Senator Session’s advice and has hired one of Session’s aides. I regret that Trump, as a candidate for the office of US President, seems to study expert advice very little and seems to surround himself primarily with people who schedule television interviews and mass assemblies for him.

    Trump does not have to develop an intellectual, scholarly mastery of the major political issues. He does, however, have to develop a mastery that is sufficient to answer questions sensibly in interviews and debates.

    Apparently, he does not seriously study any political issue. He has learned in this campaign that, for him, “a little learning is a dangerous thing”. If, for example, he learns that some legal scholars believe that birth-right citizenship can be revoked without a Constitutional amendment, it’s better for him if he avoids saying so. If he does say something, then he cannot answer simple follow-up questions and so he looks foolish.

    Conservative intellectuals want to help Trump articulate and defend his own ideas, but he will not allow them to do so. Trump’s listening to Sessions is a rare exception.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Mike Sylwester

    Okay, so if I understand you correctly, Trump sucks, but you are voting for him (good on your vote). There are some conservative intellectuals that want to help him but Trump won't hear it. But if Trump would then he wouldn't look foolish on follow-up questions.

    I am glad you are voting for Trump. But Trump did not get here via the path you prescribe. Trump is not equipped to be the conventional candidate you seem to want.

    It may indeed be that the niceties of what has come to be known as Constitutional Law are traduced by Trump's claims. But really, when did the Left ever let that slow them down? You cannot ask us to live by rules routinely ignored by the other side. Your prescription has Trump pandering to the assholes working overtime to flush this country down the toilet. Trump has already rejected that path, much to his advantage.

    Vote Trump, and stop expecting him to conform to your, or anyone else's, prescription.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

  76. @Hepp
    The problem with all conservative intellectuals is that they're believers in democracy, so are in complete denial of what motivates their voters. The Democrats basically say "whites are evil," and Republicans say "let's not talk about that stuff," and most whites see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. But Republican intellectuals have convinced themselves that they win elections because of advocacy of "small government," even though polls show less than 10% of voters want cuts to education, entitlements, or any real part of the welfare state.

    So the Republican intellectual lives off cultural conservatism and white racial resentment, but is disgusted by these things.

    The fact is, that until this cycle, it worked. We got W., McCain, and Romney as the last three nominees. But the Internet has changed things, with popular sites like Breitbart and Drudge being practically friendly to white nationalism and making National Review and the Weekly Standard completely irrelevant.

    2016 may be an electoral disaster for the right, but it's the start of something greater.

    Replies: @Das, @Anonymous, @Realist, @Travis, @boogerbently

    the so-called republican leaders never seemed to really be for smaller government, the previous Republican presidential candidates all favored expanding government, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain and Romney all promoted larger government. I suppose they theoretically wanted to slow the growth of government, but once in power George W. Bush quickly went about expanding the Federal government’s role in Education, expanded entitlements, expanded military interventions.

    The people quickly realize that the GOP politicians are not actually for smaller government. When the GOP took control of congress they embrued the continued expansion of government intrusion into our lives. This is why I have never voted for a Republican. (neither have i ever voted for a democrat). My first vote was 1988 for Ron Paul, when he ran as a Libertarian, then voted for Perot, then stopped voting.

    but i now realize, thanks to people like Steve Sailer, and HBD, why reducing immigration is a more important issue than small government. Trump will be the first Republican to get my vote.

  77. If it was really about avoiding the ideas of the unwashed, then anything blacks advocate would be chopped liver.

    There are a handful of halfway decent Republican intellectuals like Douthat, Salam, and Frum.

    Though, their behavior over the last year has been less than inspiring. Based on what they have written in the past, they ought to be Donald Trump’s biggest boosters. This article from 2005 reads like a Trump manifesto: http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/7501

    Instead they completely whiffed.

    There is precedent for the idea of false opposition, with a variety of motives available. E.g., “I want to carve out a career niche saying this stuff, but G-d forbid anyone comes to power on my ostensible platform,” and, “we need an establishment outlet for these folks to be heard, but they must remain a permanent and powerless minority.” Some people are far more calculating than others. Not that this is the only explanation, of course.

    They were expecting a taller honest man.

    Signals a lack of seriousness.

    Mike Sylwester says:
    April 29, 2016 at 3:48 am GMT • 300 Words

    Wolves are smarter than dogs. Which do you want watching your back?

  78. First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money.

    Whiskey, is that you? This is a meaningless statement. You can make a blockbuster for $200m, rake in $400m, then use the $200m profit to make 3 small movies for $10m each that only bring in $7m each; “most movies lose money” would still be true.

    Then there’s the fact that “Hollywood Accounting” is infamous for being complete horseshit.

    Hollywood makes tons of money.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Svigor

    Who is Whiskey and why do you want to meet him?

    , @Brutusale
    @Svigor

    And after said Hollywood Accounting, even those blockbusters don't make any money, as Art Buchwald discovered:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount

  79. Hollywood makes tons of money.

    They make a lot of it bilking investors. That’s one big motive for the “creative accounting.”

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Svigor


    "Hollywood makes tons of money."
     
    Define Hollywood. The people who matter make buckets of money, and the investors get a chance at the remainder.
    , @Almost Missouri
    @Svigor

    We mainly agree here.

    The original comment (#4) said, "liberals don’t do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood)", which is true except for the exception. Hollywood doesn't really "make" money in the productive business sense. Most of Hollywood's affluence stems from oligopolies, abusive accounting, gullible investors and the tragic willingness of so many star-struck dupes to toss their lives, souls and fortunes into the maw of that pitiless machine. Producing a good and valuable product, not so much.

  80. I would describe NR as conservative Trotskyites. Underneath their supposed American conservatism lies a strong desire to social engineer. You really don’t find too many real American conservatives in Manhattan. This should not be surprising since Manhattan is a Globalist redoubt.

  81. @SFG
    @anony-mouse

    Milo Yiannopoulous? (I kid.)

    Honestly: I think conservatives just don't do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don't do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left. The left-wing control of the universities doesn't help matters either.

    Replies: @Dahlia, @Almost Missouri, @James O'Meara, @guest, @SFG

    ” I think conservatives just don’t do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don’t do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left.”

    Yeah, the “family thing” can be time and energy consuming. If only there was some group with high IQs and uninterested in marriage and family, that conservatives could recruit intellectuals from. Any ideas? Buehler?

  82. @Almost Missouri
    @SFG

    Couple of wrinkles here.

    First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money. You might think that's the nature of the beast, but occasional movie forays by more hardheaded business types manage to bat way above the Hollywood average. A fairly obvious strategy is to make movies for the underserved G-rated market segment and avoid the over-saturated R-rated market segment. Yet Hollywood prefers to stuff the already overstuffed pipe of R-rated culture-dreck. Why? Draw your own conclusions, but "business acumen" probably won't be one of them.

    Second, yes the university monoculture of coercive prog-obeisance certainly gives the Left volume. But what does the Left do with that volume? To the extent it has ideas, they are just 80-year-old duds repackaged in new SJW wrappers. Empty shells fired from the world's biggest howitzer are still just empty shells: sound and fury signifying nothing. The only time the Left evinces something resembling thinking is when confronted by a genuine idea from outside their bubble. Then they think how to force the new idea to serve in the slave caravan of their Narrative. Or more usually, they just think how to murder the new idea before anyone hears it freely.

    When you have truth, you don't need volume. One shining truth, curtly presented, slays a million mewling lies.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Ozymandias, @S. anonyia

    R-rated movies are NOT an over saturated market. Lots of action, sci-fi and horror movies are re-cut so they will be PG-13, which is the big moneymaker. This actually annoys a lot of movie fans.

    Anyway, the worst political correctness is actually in kids movies.

  83. @Anonymous
    "ADL Urges Donald Trump to Reconsider “America First” in Foreign Policy Approach"

    http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-urges-donald-trump-to-reconsider-america-first.html

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @AndrewR

    They don’t even try to hide it.

    I await the chorus of Jewish-American patriot voices speaking out against this shameless Jewish Supremacist rhetoric.

    …anyone?

    [crickets]

  84. @wonderbread
    National Review and the others were right to criticize Trump as a fake conservative. Unfortunately, their favored candidates at the time (Walker, Bush, Rubio) were partly damaged goods themselves. Rubio, who was justly damaged beyond repair by his amnesty bill, leaned on a failed neocon foreign policy instead of a potentially promising reform conservative domestic policy.

    The mainstream conservative press is right that Trump's candidacy is a joke and deserves pretty much all the scorn it gets. Sure, he's not a crook like Clinton but that's a incredibly low bar. The only thing that persistently annoys--but surprises no one--is their reliance on the language of the left (racism, sexism, &c.) in their canards. Trump has been a true coward, not taking on his sicker followers. There's plenty of blame to go around.

    There really are no good magazines or websites left. You simply have to pick and choose the good writers on each site and ignore the rest. Most of the writers here are lunatics too, especially on foreign policy. But there are still a few good writers on each site, while the pro-Trump tabloids like Breitbart and Drudge are mere boob-bait just like talk radio.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    How much do Hillary and Bernie take on their sicker supporters?

    The left never punches left and is never expected to. But you want to criticize Trump for not punching right? Vile.

  85. @Pat Casey

    But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.
     
    Sorry Steve, but I'm going to publicly remonstrate you on this point, because at this point, by now, the absence of an intellectual power center behind Trump is largely your fault.

    You have too much fun blogging, and approving these comments, and writing short stuff at frivolous takimag, and approving more stupid comments, you have too much fun doing this to get serious and step up and claim your stake to what you've spawned, and lead the new neo-conservatism everyone understands you're top dog of but which lacks a serious institution that can grow continuous tentacles into TV Media and Think Tanks and Government, lacks that because blogging is so fucking fun and easy and pajama-friendly.

    I'm not saying be the Bill Buckley you truly are (cause you're not) I'm saying be one single step above a blogger: be Editor in Chief of a website that mints a persuasion on current events, culture, and philosophy. You should be telling people like me, don't write that write this, attack not him but him, argue that next time so then you can start with this time, and, no you can't write that but I will.

    Recall when John O'Sullivan identified the strain of opinion you had pretty suddenly made something to watch out for. That was the best eye at National Review tapping you to be the next Big Man on the Right. And let's be honest Steve you haven't live up to it because your pj's are too cozy and you believe more comedians on your side is what counts. It's definitely not.

    As it is you only wield the maximum influence possible for a man who leaves fleeting impressions. I asked you for that epistemology speech and didn't get it cause you didn't care. For a guy who talks about our posterity you apparently don't have any sense of the posterity that comes from what you daily do. My God there are heavyweight opinion shapers who write about "nothing burgers." And their gonna say yep when America was falling that's how their prophets wrote, in the idiom about MickeyDs.

    No Big Money? Steve, be honest, how the hell would you know? Or, in other words, why is Rod Dreher Central not Steve Sailer Central? It matters. I mean how did that guy get a book deal to write that on Dante? Because he blogs for a real institution. For some reason he's allowed to. Why does the better mind care less about that institution?

    If I were you, I'd give David Frum a call, and say, let's say you do it right this time, with me. That, cause he's the only one who has ever gotten the better of you.

    What do I know though? I know just enough to know you need a true institution to fulfill potential. I know that and I know how to moonlight as the leading authority on the pivotal novel after Ulysses.

    http://www.mattbucher.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IJ-FINAL-3.pdf

    But I owe what's to come to the editorial sentiment I needed to hear, remember?

    Replies: @Pericles, @AndrewR, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Sailer is good for unorthodox insights and biting sarcasm but I doubt he has it in him to lead some big movement.

    I expect big things from Richard Spencer but he needs to clean Radix up. The comments are a cesspool of angry virgin basement dweller venom.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @AndrewR

    I can't shake the feeling that Spencer is a cross between David Duke and the Michael J Fox character from the sitcom Family Ties. Whenever I've seen him on panels with people like Brimelow and Derbyshire, he seems comparatively less informed about the world in general, less quick, and more interested in standing in front of a crowd in a suit and tie. Of course, I've never met him, so...

    Replies: @AndrewR

  86. “What’s really going on is that the ideas that the conservative intellectual community has been peddling for decades have failed to appeal to an angry blue-collar voter base.” Sigh. I’m so sick of any prole who leaves the liberal or conservative reservations being described as “angry”… It makes me so…ANGRY!

  87. @Sam Haysom
    @Anon

    Except that true to his KGB roots what he really likes investing in is things like BLM.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Anon, @Bill

    Putin, Soros, one of those guys on the TeeVee with a funny name.

  88. @Anon
    @Sam Haysom

    The Russian and Chinese media did play up Ferguson for the "tu quoque" argument.

    That said, Putin is willing to exploit every avenue he can utilize. It's pragmatic, not ideological.

    When I see nationalists talk about Stalin as being a relative moderate within the USSR who at least saved Russia from the Trotskyites, I can guess who's paying for their kids' college tuition.

    Replies: @Bill

    Uh, OK. Stalin was a relative moderate within the USSR who at least saved Russia from the Trots. (Talk about damning with faint praise, but whatever, the truth is the truth )

    Now, who’s paying for my kids college? Is there an evil Russian propagandist’s kid scholarship they can apply for? Do they have to learn Cyrillic to fill out the forms? Will the fact that I don’t actually like Russia be a problem? Link appreciated.

  89. @candid_observer
    I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I wanted to unburden myself of some thoughts that have been kicking around in my head for some time.

    Trump has, of course, been derided as a shallow, unthinking ignoramus with no coherent views.

    But the more I've thought about it, the more it seems to me that the positions he has staked out are, in fact, far more coherent and sensible than the traditional views on either the right or the left. I don't mean to imply that Trump put together his views after careful contemplation of theory and history. Mostly, he's just followed his nose (and noticing) to his views, and doing so created a fairly consistent and compelling position (though with some obvious glitches).

    At the base of his positions seems to be a hard commitment to "citizenism". From this, combined with his secular orientation, pretty much all else follows. His basic idea is that we, as Americans, need to stick up for and support our fellow Americans, and to abandon the quest to accommodate, win over, conquer, or meddle in the affairs of others. We defend our borders, we defeat any enemies who attack us, and we make sure that immigration is restricted to suit the purposes of current citizens. We defend our workers against avoidable losses of jobs and incomes due to too much immigration or outsourcing of jobs. We forge trade deals entirely in this light and for that purpose.

    But his citizenism has another set of consequences that generally render Trump anathema to most on the right. That is his apparently quite sincere commitment to the importance of entitlements, including, obviously, Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Trump has even spoken postively of the possibility of something akin to Medicare for All. This may seem like a contradiction to many conservatives, but it isn't, working from Trump's basic principles. For Trump, it's all about doing well by American citizens -- supporting them and providing for them and allowing them to look forward to stable lives in which the government can smooth over the vicissitudes of the economy and their circumstances. And, frankly, it's hard not to see the good in this. Germany seems to be a good example of a country that has managed to create a very prosperous and stable environments for its workers. They enjoy good incomes, steady jobs, and vacations that put us to shame.

    One of the most important pieces of research on our socio-political environment in the last 50 years is that of Robert Putnam, who found that social harmony was negatively correlated to diversity. On the right, this has been taken as a sign that we must minimize the amount of diversity if we want to have a country with minimal discord. That's a fair enough conclusion. But they seem quite reluctant to acknowledge the obverse: if we minimize diversity, focus on American citizens, strengthen harmony and bonds among American citizens, the psychologically inevitable -- and, I think, reasonable -- consequence is more commitment to social safety nets, to the fate of "the common man", to organizations and laws protecting workers. Such a socio-political setting is indeed found in Germany and other European welfare states -- though no doubt it's now being undermined by their own problems with diversity. The real challenge, in both Europe and America, is to maintain the trust and bonds inherent in our societies while not extending the compassionate attitudes lying behind such feelings to every human being everywhere--which is ultimately self-defeating. (And perhaps western societies must go through the experience of excessive diversity in order to oppose it. It's a societal level game of Tit-for-Tat. Trump both understands -- and embodies a play in -- this game. (Trump would be, I suppose, Tit.))

    This seems to be the position and solution that Trump is, in effect, pointing toward. Rather than being the mindless, incoherent set of beliefs everybody has been characterizing Trump as putting forth, his stand -- though it appears radical -- is driven by a vision that is quite consistent, sensible, and even scientifically validated and evolutionarily sound.

    Is there indeed a better or deeper vision?

    I'm not sure what it might be.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Perplexed, @anon, @LondonBob, @Bill

    Mostly, he’s just followed his nose (and noticing) to his views, and doing so created a fairly consistent and compelling position (though with some obvious glitches).

    Yes. Because both lobes of our evil elite are lying more or less continuously about their goals and motives, the outwardly expressed ideology of both the GOP and the donks is bizarre. Just saying relatively coherent things is revolutionary.

    My favorite example of this was Trump’s attempt to pander to pro-lifers. Naturally, he reasoned without really checking, if you think abortion is murder then you think a murderous mother ought to be punished. Only possible sane conclusion. Those pro-lifers set him straight, though, didn’t they. “Don’t you assume our thoughts make even rudimentary sense, you bastard, you!!!” The pro-life movement couldn’t care less about making sense, or, for that matter, about achieving their ostensible goals. Their job is to deliver votes to the GOP.

  90. @Anon
    @Cagey Beast

    Saudi and Israel bought off US foreign policy. Steve rightly notes this.

    The KGB and, later on, Qatar bought off of the left. We all know this.

    Why is it hard to imagine that among the intellectual movement from which Trump drew his inspiration for his presidential campaign, Putinist money is starting to creep in?

    Replies: @Bill

    Trump: influenced by Black Lives Matter

  91. @Pericles
    @Pat Casey

    "You're a great pitcher, Steve. That's why you gotta be GM, you jackass."

    I dunno, sounds more like you should be telling Unz like it is instead. Is Unz good for endowing a couple of professor chairs? Maybe that's the ticket.

    Replies: @Bill

    Yeah, he definitely shouldn’t endow any chairs. The way that works is, the second the check clears, the university stops pretending to care what you wanted done with the chair. You can ameliorate that effect only by hinting that this chair might be the first of five. And you can only ameliorate the effect that way, not make it go away.

  92. @anon
    I feel like calling Bill Kristol an "intellectual" is sort of like when Ta-Nehisi Coates called Melissa Harris-Perry the greatest public intellectual of our time.

    Replies: @Ivy

    Bill Kristol, always wrong but never in doubt. He spawned a mini-industry of pundits pointing out his stellar history of idiotic predictions.
    His squinty visage looks a little like that of the late Gary Shandling, but at least the latter was good for some laughs.

  93. @Hepp
    The problem with all conservative intellectuals is that they're believers in democracy, so are in complete denial of what motivates their voters. The Democrats basically say "whites are evil," and Republicans say "let's not talk about that stuff," and most whites see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. But Republican intellectuals have convinced themselves that they win elections because of advocacy of "small government," even though polls show less than 10% of voters want cuts to education, entitlements, or any real part of the welfare state.

    So the Republican intellectual lives off cultural conservatism and white racial resentment, but is disgusted by these things.

    The fact is, that until this cycle, it worked. We got W., McCain, and Romney as the last three nominees. But the Internet has changed things, with popular sites like Breitbart and Drudge being practically friendly to white nationalism and making National Review and the Weekly Standard completely irrelevant.

    2016 may be an electoral disaster for the right, but it's the start of something greater.

    Replies: @Das, @Anonymous, @Realist, @Travis, @boogerbently

    Conservative voters are a majority in search of a party/leadership/representation.

  94. @Decius
    @Priss Factor

    Buckley lived to see it. He didn't seem too upset.

    Replies: @Chiron, @Priss Factor, @Travis, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    He is the main reason for the current mess at the National Review. Buckley purged those who opposed the neo-con takeover. remember when O’Sullivan was demoted from editorship by National Review ouster-in-chief William F. Buckley during a 1997 purge of Peter Brimelow.

  95. Perhaps the GOP needs some new intellectuals? Seriously, if you keep peddling ideas your dads’ came up with 45 years ago… you should eventually notice that you need some new ideas to solve the new problems of this century.

    Anyone who has spent any significant amount of time on a university campus in the last 45 years knows that there has been an outright purge of conservative and non-leftist intellectuals as thorough as anything that Mao accomplished during the Cultural Revolution. Pretty much the same for intellectuals dependent upon think-tank and foundation money.

    There’s a name for a Ph.D. who doesn’t toe the Cultural Marxist Party line: janitor.

    • Agree: Travis, BB753
  96. anon • Disclaimer says:

    One of the problems for conservative intellectuals is people like Plato, Thucydides, Confucius etc covered all the important stuff years ago.

    What conservatives need are better archivists.

    Actually now I think of it that explains the war on DWEMs – it’s a war on the conservative archive – millions of dudes roaming around quoting aphorisms from Seneca that were true then and still true now would make SJWism much more difficult.

    #

    there’s a money making project for someone – a book of conservative quotes for every occasion

    neither a borrower nor a lender be… etc

  97. @Pat Casey

    But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.
     
    Sorry Steve, but I'm going to publicly remonstrate you on this point, because at this point, by now, the absence of an intellectual power center behind Trump is largely your fault.

    You have too much fun blogging, and approving these comments, and writing short stuff at frivolous takimag, and approving more stupid comments, you have too much fun doing this to get serious and step up and claim your stake to what you've spawned, and lead the new neo-conservatism everyone understands you're top dog of but which lacks a serious institution that can grow continuous tentacles into TV Media and Think Tanks and Government, lacks that because blogging is so fucking fun and easy and pajama-friendly.

    I'm not saying be the Bill Buckley you truly are (cause you're not) I'm saying be one single step above a blogger: be Editor in Chief of a website that mints a persuasion on current events, culture, and philosophy. You should be telling people like me, don't write that write this, attack not him but him, argue that next time so then you can start with this time, and, no you can't write that but I will.

    Recall when John O'Sullivan identified the strain of opinion you had pretty suddenly made something to watch out for. That was the best eye at National Review tapping you to be the next Big Man on the Right. And let's be honest Steve you haven't live up to it because your pj's are too cozy and you believe more comedians on your side is what counts. It's definitely not.

    As it is you only wield the maximum influence possible for a man who leaves fleeting impressions. I asked you for that epistemology speech and didn't get it cause you didn't care. For a guy who talks about our posterity you apparently don't have any sense of the posterity that comes from what you daily do. My God there are heavyweight opinion shapers who write about "nothing burgers." And their gonna say yep when America was falling that's how their prophets wrote, in the idiom about MickeyDs.

    No Big Money? Steve, be honest, how the hell would you know? Or, in other words, why is Rod Dreher Central not Steve Sailer Central? It matters. I mean how did that guy get a book deal to write that on Dante? Because he blogs for a real institution. For some reason he's allowed to. Why does the better mind care less about that institution?

    If I were you, I'd give David Frum a call, and say, let's say you do it right this time, with me. That, cause he's the only one who has ever gotten the better of you.

    What do I know though? I know just enough to know you need a true institution to fulfill potential. I know that and I know how to moonlight as the leading authority on the pivotal novel after Ulysses.

    http://www.mattbucher.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IJ-FINAL-3.pdf

    But I owe what's to come to the editorial sentiment I needed to hear, remember?

    Replies: @Pericles, @AndrewR, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Yeeahhh!

    Now that’s the spirit! Pat, I get what you’re saying in your desire for an intellectual standard bearer to take National Discourse to the next level, and shift the Overton in a more refined, methodical (yet vigorous) way than, say, presumptive nominee Trump. This takes a bit of showbiz combined with intellect. Steve is a smart, self-aware man who knows his own strengths. He works on spec, on his own schedule, which gives him time to distill what the internet/media panopticon sends him. He Notices, and he nudges by way of analogy.

    Steve relentlessly skewers hypocrisy, but his observations are also leavened by a sense of the absurd. This is appealing to those of us who spend time here. He is a civil, hat-tipping calm Cassandra, a barometer that is read by smart ‘lurkers.’ Commenter “anonguy” once alluded to this blog’s “long tail” of influence. There has likely been a ripple effect on other, more mainstream, thinkfluencers. (Does Matt Groening still do those Forbidden Words lists?)

    Now here’s the bad news: What you are talking about (“be Editor in Chief of a website”) is fields of text in clearing houses for ‘ideas’ like the old National Review, that the Candy Crushing, Vice City playing masses aren’t reading. How many read anything on Unz, etc., let alone know what is on the front page of the New York Times?

    Now, I’ve never personally met Steve (s’up bro!) but judging from this interview, Steve, while having an earnest, decent sounding voice and appearance, doesn’t have the (commanding? entertaining?) presence to directly take his ideas to the general public. His blinking, searching expressions are distracting. He could get professional training, I suppose, but that’s assuming that at this stage in life he would even want to become a tv/video ‘personality’. It’s certainly not for everyone, and yet that is what is required to take influence to the next level.

    The best the “alt-right” could do to go mainstream and have universal ‘household’ impact amongst Millenials and younger would be to have a youngish (late 20s to 30s) commentator with his (or her) channel on YouTube that gets so popular it would be hard to “shut it down!” This person would have to be an erudite, attractive, entertaining shitlord (in Heartiste parlance) and not just talk to the camera, but make use of satirical acting, comical/shocking cutaways, asides, etc. Maybe someone like a Tosh.O minus the fey delivery, and with deadly serious content…

    Like that old malediction may you live in interesting times: Many “core Americans,” “the middle,” whatever you want to call them, are Noticing by way of their own Lying Eyes. Where I live, a once ‘lily white’ region is being steadily Diversified. I mean you now see straight up off-the-boat Africans (and others) walking around. These are not polished, professional, right-side-of-the-bell-curve kids gets accepted to all the Ivies types.

    People are Noticing, and they don’t like it. Trump is a sign of that. The record-breaking volume of gun buying is a sign of that. The progress curve of postwar mass immigration to the West has been described by the aphorism “gradually, then suddenly.” The same can describe the likely upcoming (violent) backlash. When the temple comes tumbling down, and all the ‘best people’ are wailing to the heavens, at least Steve can say: You were warned.

  98. @Svigor

    Hollywood makes tons of money.
     
    They make a lot of it bilking investors. That's one big motive for the "creative accounting."

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri

    “Hollywood makes tons of money.”

    Define Hollywood. The people who matter make buckets of money, and the investors get a chance at the remainder.

  99. Seriously, after the past several elections, the term “GOP intellectuals” takes on the patina of “military intelligence” and all that.

  100. @SFG
    @anony-mouse

    Milo Yiannopoulous? (I kid.)

    Honestly: I think conservatives just don't do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don't do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left. The left-wing control of the universities doesn't help matters either.

    Replies: @Dahlia, @Almost Missouri, @James O'Meara, @guest, @SFG

    Your point about conservatives being just not into “the intellectual thing” is superficially plausible because it’s been that way for a while. But it wasn’t always so

  101. @SPMoore8
    I think the Republican intelligentsia was hoisted on its own petard IED.

    They wanted war, they got it, and look at what it accomplished.

    I mean, I'm a lifelong Republican but exactly what does it mean now? Fiscal conservatism? Who actually does that? Immigration Reform? Not from what I see. Improving the economy? How do they intend to do that?

    Yes, I realize a lot of people get riled up with the changing landscape in terms of culture; there's quite a bit of venting about that, and especially here. And I do my share of venting, too. But it's not like any of that involves the political process in any real sense. It seems clear that the majority of Americans either don't care about these things, or, they prefer to simply bowl alone and retreat from the public square. Until they don't. And when will that be? It won't be because some intellectual funded by some conservative millionaire wrote a book.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    They wanted war, they got it, and look at what it accomplished.

    Okay, but how were we to know that the ROE would be defined by Amnesty International, or that GWB thought it was all about him.

    I say Jim Webb for Trump’s Vice President (because as long as you are waving the American Eagle at them, why not go for broke?)

  102. @Decius
    @Priss Factor

    Buckley lived to see it. He didn't seem too upset.

    Replies: @Chiron, @Priss Factor, @Travis, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Using Buckley’s dotage as a club to beat him with is disgusting and contemptible. Would you expect Ted Williams to have a Major-League batting average of .406 in 2000?

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Ted Williams, no. Ty Cobb, yes. Yes, I would. Especially since Cobb played in three distinct eras: the later dead ball era (1905-09) the transition to lively ball era; (1910-1919) and the lively ball era (1920 onward), and dominated in all three eras.

    In Lawrence S. Ritter's The Glory of Their Times, HOFer Lefty O'Doul recounts a story ca.1960 about how Leo Durocher considered Willie Mays to be the greatest MLB ever. O'Doul makes mention that obviously Leo never saw Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, etc. and that Cobb could hit no matter the era.

    "What do you think Cobb would hit today with the lively ball (in 1960)."

    "About .310, same as Mays"

    "Then how can you say Cobb's that great? Considering that he'd only hit as well as Mays?"

    "Well," O'Doul finishes "You have to remember that Ty Cobb is right now about seventy-four yrs old!"

    Point is: The great ones always find a way to get it done.

    Buckley's dottage seemed to last a fairly long time, as in the last twenty plus yrs of his life. That's not exactly dotage, that's a conscious attempt to close off debates and a steadfast refusal to welcome new and fresh ideas into the movement to address the challenges of the post-Cold War world.

  103. @Priss Factor
    @Decius

    Buckley changed his mind on the Iraq War.

    I think he was privately unhappy with Bush II regime and Neocons.

    He just couldn't say it cuz he got in too deep.

    If he were alive now, he might be for Trump.

    Buckley could be surprising.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    No he wouldn’t. Some of Trump’s nationalistic policies have streams in the camps of Buchanan and Samuel Francis. Buckley purged Buchanan from Conservatism back in the day, he seldom ever made mention of Sam Francis, which would suggest either: He never heard of Sam Francis, or, he couldn’t stomach such a person (after all, Francis was from “The South”. Not in Buckley’s conception of the South but the south a la Jesse Helms. While born in LA, Buckley was most at home in NYC and more or less identified as a Northeasterner, though he’d play up his southern roots when it was convenient to do so. Much the way GWB and W have done).

    Or rather, what did Buckley ever think of Donald Trump personally before passing in ’08? Also, what does his son Christopher think of Donald Trump’s candidacy? The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

    Anyone know what Christopher Buckley thinks of Donald Trump?

    If anything, it’s probably a snobbish class thing. To the Buckley’s of the US, Trump, Buchanan, and Francis are the proles, the bumpkins, the “wrong sort” of folks to emulate, to aspire to, and are best ignored or dismissed altogether.

    Another conservative intellectual, though admittedly a bit risky, would be Jared Taylor, who, in the ideal world would be a counterpart of Buckley’s in the Conservative Movement at large.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I disagree.

    I think, deep down inside, Buckley had more in common with Brimelow than with neocons.

    The NR had some racy stuff in the 90s, even publishing Sailer once.
    And the Derb was part of the crowd.

    I think Buckley's move was strategic. He had to consider the big money and big media.

    And Buchanan wasn't booted by Buckley. Buckley's piece on 'antisemitism' finally concluded that Buchanan isn't one even if Buchanan did say stuff that could be construed as 'antisemitic'.
    It was fair enough since Buchanan's ideological roots do have some very close ties to classic antisemitism.
    Lindbergh's shilling for Germany and playing fellow-traveler was disgraceful.

    Buchanan fell out of favor cuz of his anti-free trade stance and because big media trashed him for the culture speech in 92. Big media made him persona non grata, and there was nothing the Conservatism could do about it. Ironically however, Buchanan's economic nationalism and anti-war stance won some grudging respect from the Left. (Same with Paul Craigster.)

    In the end, big media decide who will be the face of conservatism. Buckley was made by the media that gave him a show on PBS and put him often on TV. Had big media favored someone else, the face of conservatism would have been different.

    Now, the new 'golden boy' of conservatism favored by big media is... Milo Yiannopoulos, the greek-jewish interracial homo!!

    He's getting favored coverage all over.

    He is the new Buckley or Butt*uckley.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATAdhcq3S-k

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  104. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Decius

    Using Buckley's dotage as a club to beat him with is disgusting and contemptible. Would you expect Ted Williams to have a Major-League batting average of .406 in 2000?

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Ted Williams, no. Ty Cobb, yes. Yes, I would. Especially since Cobb played in three distinct eras: the later dead ball era (1905-09) the transition to lively ball era; (1910-1919) and the lively ball era (1920 onward), and dominated in all three eras.

    In Lawrence S. Ritter’s The Glory of Their Times, HOFer Lefty O’Doul recounts a story ca.1960 about how Leo Durocher considered Willie Mays to be the greatest MLB ever. O’Doul makes mention that obviously Leo never saw Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, etc. and that Cobb could hit no matter the era.

    “What do you think Cobb would hit today with the lively ball (in 1960).”

    “About .310, same as Mays”

    “Then how can you say Cobb’s that great? Considering that he’d only hit as well as Mays?”

    “Well,” O’Doul finishes “You have to remember that Ty Cobb is right now about seventy-four yrs old!”

    Point is: The great ones always find a way to get it done.

    Buckley’s dottage seemed to last a fairly long time, as in the last twenty plus yrs of his life. That’s not exactly dotage, that’s a conscious attempt to close off debates and a steadfast refusal to welcome new and fresh ideas into the movement to address the challenges of the post-Cold War world.

  105. @Mike Sylwester
    @Perplexed


    People don’t go to rallies for droning policy papers; they can read them on his website (and they are short enough to read). They want broad statements of his goals and direction
     
    Here in this thread we are discussing mainly the troubled relationship between 1) Trump and his supporters and 2) conservative intellectuals and their supporters.

    We are not discussing the joyous relationship between 1) Trump and 2) people who attend his mass rallies. The percent of the electorate that ever has attended a Trump rally is probably less than one percent. His audiences are huge, but not compared to the total electorate.

    I have watched videos of him speaking at political rallies. He is a scatter-brain. He rambles from subject to subject. He rambles within sentences.

    I like Trump. I favored him for several months, and I would vote happily for him in the general election. I like him because in this election I am a single-issue voter on the immigration issue. However, most voters do not share my narrow focus on that one issue, and so most voters do not like him.

    I am happy that Trump has followed some of Senator Session's advice and has hired one of Session's aides. I regret that Trump, as a candidate for the office of US President, seems to study expert advice very little and seems to surround himself primarily with people who schedule television interviews and mass assemblies for him.

    Trump does not have to develop an intellectual, scholarly mastery of the major political issues. He does, however, have to develop a mastery that is sufficient to answer questions sensibly in interviews and debates.

    Apparently, he does not seriously study any political issue. He has learned in this campaign that, for him, "a little learning is a dangerous thing". If, for example, he learns that some legal scholars believe that birth-right citizenship can be revoked without a Constitutional amendment, it's better for him if he avoids saying so. If he does say something, then he cannot answer simple follow-up questions and so he looks foolish.

    Conservative intellectuals want to help Trump articulate and defend his own ideas, but he will not allow them to do so. Trump's listening to Sessions is a rare exception.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Okay, so if I understand you correctly, Trump sucks, but you are voting for him (good on your vote). There are some conservative intellectuals that want to help him but Trump won’t hear it. But if Trump would then he wouldn’t look foolish on follow-up questions.

    I am glad you are voting for Trump. But Trump did not get here via the path you prescribe. Trump is not equipped to be the conventional candidate you seem to want.

    It may indeed be that the niceties of what has come to be known as Constitutional Law are traduced by Trump’s claims. But really, when did the Left ever let that slow them down? You cannot ask us to live by rules routinely ignored by the other side. Your prescription has Trump pandering to the assholes working overtime to flush this country down the toilet. Trump has already rejected that path, much to his advantage.

    Vote Trump, and stop expecting him to conform to your, or anyone else’s, prescription.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    Trump did not get here via the path you prescribe. Trump is not equipped to be the conventional candidate you seem to want. .... Vote Trump, and stop expecting him to conform to your, or anyone else’s, prescription.
     
    If Trump wins the Republican nomination, then we will see how well he does in the general election.

    I will vote for him, but current opinion polls indicate that he will lose badly.

    He acts un-Presidential, and a lot of people will vote against him for that reason. This includes people who normally might vote for the Republican candidate. They will not vote for anyone of Trump's personal demeanor and intellectual superficiality to be US President.

    Sometimes a major political party's Presidential candidate loses in a landslide. That's what happened when the Democratic Party nominated George McGovern in 1972 and the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  106. My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. That’s why I also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. We have to look to new people because many of the old people frankly don’t know what they’re doing, even though they may look awfully good writing in the New York Times or being watched on television.

    –Donald Trump, 4/27/16.

  107. @Pat Casey

    But, unsurprisingly, there’s not much big money behind intellectuals with ideas more relevant to 21st Century problems.
     
    Sorry Steve, but I'm going to publicly remonstrate you on this point, because at this point, by now, the absence of an intellectual power center behind Trump is largely your fault.

    You have too much fun blogging, and approving these comments, and writing short stuff at frivolous takimag, and approving more stupid comments, you have too much fun doing this to get serious and step up and claim your stake to what you've spawned, and lead the new neo-conservatism everyone understands you're top dog of but which lacks a serious institution that can grow continuous tentacles into TV Media and Think Tanks and Government, lacks that because blogging is so fucking fun and easy and pajama-friendly.

    I'm not saying be the Bill Buckley you truly are (cause you're not) I'm saying be one single step above a blogger: be Editor in Chief of a website that mints a persuasion on current events, culture, and philosophy. You should be telling people like me, don't write that write this, attack not him but him, argue that next time so then you can start with this time, and, no you can't write that but I will.

    Recall when John O'Sullivan identified the strain of opinion you had pretty suddenly made something to watch out for. That was the best eye at National Review tapping you to be the next Big Man on the Right. And let's be honest Steve you haven't live up to it because your pj's are too cozy and you believe more comedians on your side is what counts. It's definitely not.

    As it is you only wield the maximum influence possible for a man who leaves fleeting impressions. I asked you for that epistemology speech and didn't get it cause you didn't care. For a guy who talks about our posterity you apparently don't have any sense of the posterity that comes from what you daily do. My God there are heavyweight opinion shapers who write about "nothing burgers." And their gonna say yep when America was falling that's how their prophets wrote, in the idiom about MickeyDs.

    No Big Money? Steve, be honest, how the hell would you know? Or, in other words, why is Rod Dreher Central not Steve Sailer Central? It matters. I mean how did that guy get a book deal to write that on Dante? Because he blogs for a real institution. For some reason he's allowed to. Why does the better mind care less about that institution?

    If I were you, I'd give David Frum a call, and say, let's say you do it right this time, with me. That, cause he's the only one who has ever gotten the better of you.

    What do I know though? I know just enough to know you need a true institution to fulfill potential. I know that and I know how to moonlight as the leading authority on the pivotal novel after Ulysses.

    http://www.mattbucher.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IJ-FINAL-3.pdf

    But I owe what's to come to the editorial sentiment I needed to hear, remember?

    Replies: @Pericles, @AndrewR, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    And dammit Steve Sailer, why haven’t you cured cancer, settled the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, deposed Kim-Jong Un, cleansed our air, purified our water, and sent the Starship Enterprise beyond the speed of light to explore new galaxies and go where no man has gone before! Steve, you slacker!

  108. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Mike Sylwester

    Okay, so if I understand you correctly, Trump sucks, but you are voting for him (good on your vote). There are some conservative intellectuals that want to help him but Trump won't hear it. But if Trump would then he wouldn't look foolish on follow-up questions.

    I am glad you are voting for Trump. But Trump did not get here via the path you prescribe. Trump is not equipped to be the conventional candidate you seem to want.

    It may indeed be that the niceties of what has come to be known as Constitutional Law are traduced by Trump's claims. But really, when did the Left ever let that slow them down? You cannot ask us to live by rules routinely ignored by the other side. Your prescription has Trump pandering to the assholes working overtime to flush this country down the toilet. Trump has already rejected that path, much to his advantage.

    Vote Trump, and stop expecting him to conform to your, or anyone else's, prescription.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Trump did not get here via the path you prescribe. Trump is not equipped to be the conventional candidate you seem to want. …. Vote Trump, and stop expecting him to conform to your, or anyone else’s, prescription.

    If Trump wins the Republican nomination, then we will see how well he does in the general election.

    I will vote for him, but current opinion polls indicate that he will lose badly.

    He acts un-Presidential, and a lot of people will vote against him for that reason. This includes people who normally might vote for the Republican candidate. They will not vote for anyone of Trump’s personal demeanor and intellectual superficiality to be US President.

    Sometimes a major political party’s Presidential candidate loses in a landslide. That’s what happened when the Democratic Party nominated George McGovern in 1972 and the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Mike Sylwester

    Well, a great deal of this will also be counterbalanced by those that respect a strong willed leader type and will turn out to vote for him. Also, how did Mitt Romney do in '12? He certainly acted and behaved very moderate in tone, appeared reasonable to all, and didn't alienate hardly anyone on either side. How did he do in the GE?

    Whether landslide or a "respectable" loss, not winning the GE is still a loss.

    But still remain puzzled by this "landslide" idea. At the very least, Trump can expect to carry nearly all the exact same states that Romney carried in '12 (and Romney didn't lose in a landslide).

    Keep in mind that Goldwater, McGovern, as well as Mondale (the three candidates who lost in landslides within the last half century) ALL of them ran vs incumbents and quite popular ones at that. Both Goldwater and McGovern it can be argued were not as well known nationally as Presidents LBJ and Nixon when they ran in the GE. When that happens the candidate has to spend a great deal of time has to be spent just to establish who they are. This is the reason why both Dukakis and Romney didn't win; they were up vs. somewhat popular incumbents (GHWBush was part of the Reagan administration so he was technically an incumbent).

    This year is totally different. There is no incumbent running for President in either party. History doesn't exist in a vacuum and previous elections while helpful to study can't really be compared to recent GE's, especially when it was an entirely different US demographic a half a century ago.

    Also, one of the main reasons that the three candidates lost in landslides were that they didn't have a base or region of support that was large enough to make their GE's competitive. Goldwater carried his own state and five southern states (the Southern Strategy had not yet been carried out in GOP politics); McGovern ran on basically a single issue, namely, to end Vietnam. Once Nixon did that, McGovern's candidacy collapsed like a house of cards (also having his first VP admitting to taking electro shock therapy didn't help); and Mondale carried his own state and that was it. He too really didn't have much to go on. Yes, he was well known as a former VP but seriously. What did he really have to offer, especially since the US economy by '84 was going at full throttle, the Iran Hostages had been returned, etc.

    Again, at the very least, Trump can fairly easily carry the Southern region and that's roughly about 150-180 electoral votes or about the same total as McCain carried. And no one states that John McCain lost in a landslide (which historically is defined as 55% or higher). 180 electoral votes isn't good, but it certainly is not a landslide. Come on. A landslide = a candidate who either has no direct region in the US as a base of support; isn't well known nationally and thus is defined by the opponent; is running vs a fairly popular incumbent; or simply is a dreadful campaigner (or a combination of all the above).

    Romney received 206 electoral votes. He ran a very second rate, lackluster campaign and didn't appear to know where he was headed. I daresay that few here or among rank and file GOP voters can accurately state what the top 3-5 issues that he ran on in '12. But what is remembered, are his "47%" gaffe and his op-ed in WSJ strongly vs the auto bailout. The reason it was easy to define him was because he wasn't as well known/defined by issues nationally when he began his '12 campaign and thus it was easy for Obama to define him and/or wait for him to make some gaffes on his own (which he did) and thus confirm Obama's main point that Romney was an out of touch globalist beholden to the corporate one percent donors. And at that, as bad a mediocre a campaign that Romney ran, he still received 206 electoral votes, though most then and most voters now couldn't name 3-5 things that he ran on.

    By contrast, Trump can carry Romney's 206 electoral votes and has the real potential to add on, to increase the electoral total.

    Ironically it will take someone with the name recognition as Trump to go up vs Hillary. Up to this year, Ted Cruz simply was not well known nationally (after all, he isn't the only GOP Senator and is still in his first term). Before winning the governorship, John Kasich also wasn't well known on a national basis. If either of these two candidates had won the nomination they would then have to spend a great deal of time getting voters across the country more familiar with their campaigns. In this case, it would be extremely easy for Hillary to define both candidates (Cruz as a Rick Santorum/Huckabee extreme conservative born again crazy who is vs. women; and Kasich who sat on the board of Goldman Sachs when the US economy tanked while getting out in time to personally profit while millions of Americans lost their jobs).
    Neither would lose in a landslide but neither candidate, because of their lower national name recognition, would succeed in adding new independent moderate voters since these voters have no idea who they are.

    It's like an update on the old joke "What do you think of Tyrone Power" (before he reached the Hollywood Alist) only this time "What do you think of Cruz or Kasich?" and the reply from the ordinary American is "I don't know, I never tried it." Obviously these candidates don't have that poor name recognition any longer, but most Americans simply have no idea what their stands on the issues are (outside their home states), and it certainly hasn't helped them that after 12 debates and town halls, most ordinary independent voters still have no idea where they stand on the issues.

    Trump, by contrast, has name recognition. Most independent voters can state at least 2-3 things (stands on the issues) of which he's known for [the Wall; halting immigration; vs unfair trade deals] so in this sense he's already rounded third and heading for home. If he chooses a reasonably competent VP to run with him, scoring the winning run could very well be in the cards come this November.

  109. @Mike Sylwester
    I favored Donald Trump for several months, from August through November 2015. During that period he posted what I considered to be good positions about immigration and about gun rights on his website. I expected that he gradually would improve his articulation of those and other positions.

    Instead, his positions have become steadily more incoherent and vulgarly articulated. He is manifesting himself not merely as a non-intellectual, but as an anti-intellectual.

    In the fall of 2015, he raised the issue of birth-right citizenship. When challenged, his responses indicated that he had familiarized himself with some articles written by legal scholars who argued that birth-right citizenship could be eliminated without a Constitutional amendment. When follow-up questions were asked, however, he lacked a sufficient command of that scholarship. Ultimately, he embarrassed himself by his inability to articulate a position that was based on intellectual, scholarly publications.

    He will not spend serious time and effort to master political issues intellectually. He spends practically all his time and effort on television interviews and on mass assemblies, where he spouts his opinions superficially and haphazardly. That never will change, even if he becomes President.

    I think that his personal experience in this campaign has taught him that he ultimately embarrasses himself by trying to justify his positions with intellectual arguments. Since he fails to master intellectual arguments adequately, he looks better when he simply avoids such arguments. Therefore he ignores or even disdains intellectuals who sincerely would like to advise him how to articulate and defend positions that he himself advocates.

    Apparently, Trump has become able to win about half of the Republican electorate with his own methods and arguments.

    I now favor Cruz, whom I consider to be intellectually effective, but he seems to be sinking into defeat. I respect Cruz's religiosity, but I recognize that it repulses many voters. Also, Cruz goes off into some crazy rhetoric about carpet-bombing ISIS and abolishing the IRS, etc.

    Replies: @Perplexed, @Eric Novak

    Cruz is a fraud who supports the legal importation of tens of millions of additional affirmative action beneficiaries, unassimilable hostiles, and government dependents. His wife is an open-borders globalist, as is his choice for VP.

  110. @Svigor

    Hollywood makes tons of money.
     
    They make a lot of it bilking investors. That's one big motive for the "creative accounting."

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Almost Missouri

    We mainly agree here.

    The original comment (#4) said, “liberals don’t do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood)”, which is true except for the exception. Hollywood doesn’t really “make” money in the productive business sense. Most of Hollywood’s affluence stems from oligopolies, abusive accounting, gullible investors and the tragic willingness of so many star-struck dupes to toss their lives, souls and fortunes into the maw of that pitiless machine. Producing a good and valuable product, not so much.

  111. @Svigor

    First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money.
     
    Whiskey, is that you? This is a meaningless statement. You can make a blockbuster for $200m, rake in $400m, then use the $200m profit to make 3 small movies for $10m each that only bring in $7m each; "most movies lose money" would still be true.

    Then there's the fact that "Hollywood Accounting" is infamous for being complete horseshit.

    Hollywood makes tons of money.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Brutusale

    Who is Whiskey and why do you want to meet him?

  112. @AndrewR
    @Pat Casey

    Sailer is good for unorthodox insights and biting sarcasm but I doubt he has it in him to lead some big movement.

    I expect big things from Richard Spencer but he needs to clean Radix up. The comments are a cesspool of angry virgin basement dweller venom.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I can’t shake the feeling that Spencer is a cross between David Duke and the Michael J Fox character from the sitcom Family Ties. Whenever I’ve seen him on panels with people like Brimelow and Derbyshire, he seems comparatively less informed about the world in general, less quick, and more interested in standing in front of a crowd in a suit and tie. Of course, I’ve never met him, so…

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Chrisnonymous

    Well Spencer is 30 years younger than Derb and Brimelow so I wouldn't expect him to know as much as they do, but he is undoubtedly brilliant. I don't respect the intellects of many people but he is one of the ones I do.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  113. Cruz is a fraud who supports the legal importation of tens of millions of additional affirmative action beneficiaries, unassimilable hostiles, and government dependents.

    I suggest that you read his immigration position.

    https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Mike Sylwester

    Uh, yes. It does admittedly a fairly good job of appropriating some of Trump's tough talk. But remember: Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation on building a wall on TX border and reducing number of illegal immigration. He hasn't done so. And one would think he would've during the 12 debates a la "There you go again, trying to take credit for the legislation that I've introduced in the Senate. My bill will build a wall, and send US jobs back home from Asia."--but Cruz hasn't done any of this.

    Now for balance sake:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/02/29/why-sessions-did-not-endorse-ted-cruz-the-latter-favored-amnesty-n2126573

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/03/25/an-antiestablishment-candidate-the-real-ted-cruz-n2139172


    It is very, very telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, the one Senator strongly vs immigration, unfair trade deals, etc. has not endorsed Cruz but has endorsed Trump (and is campaigning with him).

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

  114. Here’s a good place, and a good collection of minds, to start:

    http://www.hoover.org/fellows

  115. @SFG
    @anony-mouse

    Milo Yiannopoulous? (I kid.)

    Honestly: I think conservatives just don't do the intellectual thing very well on average, the same way liberals don't do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood) or the family thing very well. People who are willing to give up money to think about ideas all the time tend to lean to the left. The left-wing control of the universities doesn't help matters either.

    Replies: @Dahlia, @Almost Missouri, @James O'Meara, @guest, @SFG

    I’ll admit I was wrong. Where do you think conservative intellectual thought can thrive? The web?

  116. @Svigor

    First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money.
     
    Whiskey, is that you? This is a meaningless statement. You can make a blockbuster for $200m, rake in $400m, then use the $200m profit to make 3 small movies for $10m each that only bring in $7m each; "most movies lose money" would still be true.

    Then there's the fact that "Hollywood Accounting" is infamous for being complete horseshit.

    Hollywood makes tons of money.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Brutusale

    And after said Hollywood Accounting, even those blockbusters don’t make any money, as Art Buchwald discovered:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount

  117. @Mike Sylwester
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    Trump did not get here via the path you prescribe. Trump is not equipped to be the conventional candidate you seem to want. .... Vote Trump, and stop expecting him to conform to your, or anyone else’s, prescription.
     
    If Trump wins the Republican nomination, then we will see how well he does in the general election.

    I will vote for him, but current opinion polls indicate that he will lose badly.

    He acts un-Presidential, and a lot of people will vote against him for that reason. This includes people who normally might vote for the Republican candidate. They will not vote for anyone of Trump's personal demeanor and intellectual superficiality to be US President.

    Sometimes a major political party's Presidential candidate loses in a landslide. That's what happened when the Democratic Party nominated George McGovern in 1972 and the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Well, a great deal of this will also be counterbalanced by those that respect a strong willed leader type and will turn out to vote for him. Also, how did Mitt Romney do in ’12? He certainly acted and behaved very moderate in tone, appeared reasonable to all, and didn’t alienate hardly anyone on either side. How did he do in the GE?

    Whether landslide or a “respectable” loss, not winning the GE is still a loss.

    But still remain puzzled by this “landslide” idea. At the very least, Trump can expect to carry nearly all the exact same states that Romney carried in ’12 (and Romney didn’t lose in a landslide).

    Keep in mind that Goldwater, McGovern, as well as Mondale (the three candidates who lost in landslides within the last half century) ALL of them ran vs incumbents and quite popular ones at that. Both Goldwater and McGovern it can be argued were not as well known nationally as Presidents LBJ and Nixon when they ran in the GE. When that happens the candidate has to spend a great deal of time has to be spent just to establish who they are. This is the reason why both Dukakis and Romney didn’t win; they were up vs. somewhat popular incumbents (GHWBush was part of the Reagan administration so he was technically an incumbent).

    This year is totally different. There is no incumbent running for President in either party. History doesn’t exist in a vacuum and previous elections while helpful to study can’t really be compared to recent GE’s, especially when it was an entirely different US demographic a half a century ago.

    Also, one of the main reasons that the three candidates lost in landslides were that they didn’t have a base or region of support that was large enough to make their GE’s competitive. Goldwater carried his own state and five southern states (the Southern Strategy had not yet been carried out in GOP politics); McGovern ran on basically a single issue, namely, to end Vietnam. Once Nixon did that, McGovern’s candidacy collapsed like a house of cards (also having his first VP admitting to taking electro shock therapy didn’t help); and Mondale carried his own state and that was it. He too really didn’t have much to go on. Yes, he was well known as a former VP but seriously. What did he really have to offer, especially since the US economy by ’84 was going at full throttle, the Iran Hostages had been returned, etc.

    Again, at the very least, Trump can fairly easily carry the Southern region and that’s roughly about 150-180 electoral votes or about the same total as McCain carried. And no one states that John McCain lost in a landslide (which historically is defined as 55% or higher). 180 electoral votes isn’t good, but it certainly is not a landslide. Come on. A landslide = a candidate who either has no direct region in the US as a base of support; isn’t well known nationally and thus is defined by the opponent; is running vs a fairly popular incumbent; or simply is a dreadful campaigner (or a combination of all the above).

    Romney received 206 electoral votes. He ran a very second rate, lackluster campaign and didn’t appear to know where he was headed. I daresay that few here or among rank and file GOP voters can accurately state what the top 3-5 issues that he ran on in ’12. But what is remembered, are his “47%” gaffe and his op-ed in WSJ strongly vs the auto bailout. The reason it was easy to define him was because he wasn’t as well known/defined by issues nationally when he began his ’12 campaign and thus it was easy for Obama to define him and/or wait for him to make some gaffes on his own (which he did) and thus confirm Obama’s main point that Romney was an out of touch globalist beholden to the corporate one percent donors. And at that, as bad a mediocre a campaign that Romney ran, he still received 206 electoral votes, though most then and most voters now couldn’t name 3-5 things that he ran on.

    By contrast, Trump can carry Romney’s 206 electoral votes and has the real potential to add on, to increase the electoral total.

    Ironically it will take someone with the name recognition as Trump to go up vs Hillary. Up to this year, Ted Cruz simply was not well known nationally (after all, he isn’t the only GOP Senator and is still in his first term). Before winning the governorship, John Kasich also wasn’t well known on a national basis. If either of these two candidates had won the nomination they would then have to spend a great deal of time getting voters across the country more familiar with their campaigns. In this case, it would be extremely easy for Hillary to define both candidates (Cruz as a Rick Santorum/Huckabee extreme conservative born again crazy who is vs. women; and Kasich who sat on the board of Goldman Sachs when the US economy tanked while getting out in time to personally profit while millions of Americans lost their jobs).
    Neither would lose in a landslide but neither candidate, because of their lower national name recognition, would succeed in adding new independent moderate voters since these voters have no idea who they are.

    It’s like an update on the old joke “What do you think of Tyrone Power” (before he reached the Hollywood Alist) only this time “What do you think of Cruz or Kasich?” and the reply from the ordinary American is “I don’t know, I never tried it.” Obviously these candidates don’t have that poor name recognition any longer, but most Americans simply have no idea what their stands on the issues are (outside their home states), and it certainly hasn’t helped them that after 12 debates and town halls, most ordinary independent voters still have no idea where they stand on the issues.

    Trump, by contrast, has name recognition. Most independent voters can state at least 2-3 things (stands on the issues) of which he’s known for [the Wall; halting immigration; vs unfair trade deals] so in this sense he’s already rounded third and heading for home. If he chooses a reasonably competent VP to run with him, scoring the winning run could very well be in the cards come this November.

    • Agree: Mike Sylwester
  118. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Priss Factor

    No he wouldn't. Some of Trump's nationalistic policies have streams in the camps of Buchanan and Samuel Francis. Buckley purged Buchanan from Conservatism back in the day, he seldom ever made mention of Sam Francis, which would suggest either: He never heard of Sam Francis, or, he couldn't stomach such a person (after all, Francis was from "The South". Not in Buckley's conception of the South but the south a la Jesse Helms. While born in LA, Buckley was most at home in NYC and more or less identified as a Northeasterner, though he'd play up his southern roots when it was convenient to do so. Much the way GWB and W have done).

    Or rather, what did Buckley ever think of Donald Trump personally before passing in '08? Also, what does his son Christopher think of Donald Trump's candidacy? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

    Anyone know what Christopher Buckley thinks of Donald Trump?

    If anything, it's probably a snobbish class thing. To the Buckley's of the US, Trump, Buchanan, and Francis are the proles, the bumpkins, the "wrong sort" of folks to emulate, to aspire to, and are best ignored or dismissed altogether.

    Another conservative intellectual, though admittedly a bit risky, would be Jared Taylor, who, in the ideal world would be a counterpart of Buckley's in the Conservative Movement at large.

    Replies: @Priss Factor

    I disagree.

    I think, deep down inside, Buckley had more in common with Brimelow than with neocons.

    The NR had some racy stuff in the 90s, even publishing Sailer once.
    And the Derb was part of the crowd.

    I think Buckley’s move was strategic. He had to consider the big money and big media.

    And Buchanan wasn’t booted by Buckley. Buckley’s piece on ‘antisemitism’ finally concluded that Buchanan isn’t one even if Buchanan did say stuff that could be construed as ‘antisemitic’.
    It was fair enough since Buchanan’s ideological roots do have some very close ties to classic antisemitism.
    Lindbergh’s shilling for Germany and playing fellow-traveler was disgraceful.

    Buchanan fell out of favor cuz of his anti-free trade stance and because big media trashed him for the culture speech in 92. Big media made him persona non grata, and there was nothing the Conservatism could do about it. Ironically however, Buchanan’s economic nationalism and anti-war stance won some grudging respect from the Left. (Same with Paul Craigster.)

    In the end, big media decide who will be the face of conservatism. Buckley was made by the media that gave him a show on PBS and put him often on TV. Had big media favored someone else, the face of conservatism would have been different.

    Now, the new ‘golden boy’ of conservatism favored by big media is… Milo Yiannopoulos, the greek-jewish interracial homo!!

    He’s getting favored coverage all over.

    He is the new Buckley or Butt*uckley.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Priss Factor

    Hold hold hold it, hold it.

    "I think, deep down inside, Buckley had more in common with Brimelow than with neocons."
    The NR had some racy stuff in the 90s, even publishing Sailer once.
    And the Derb was part of the crowd."

    There's no evidence that Buckley had much in common with any paleo or traditional conservative. If he had anything in common, it was with fellow jet setting plutocrats such as John Kenneth Galbraith. Buckley often would make mention of his close and lengthy yr friendships with men on the Left. He seldom made mention of his close deep friendships on the paleo/traditional/old right. He never really was one of them, he certainly didn't feel close cultural affinity with them, and as time went on, he became less and less identified with them. Steve, as I recall, was published fairly often in NR in the middle nineties. It still boggles the mind as to why he dumped his long time editor John O'Sullivan and chose to make Rich Lowry the boss of NR. Brimelow speculates, rather fairly, that Buckley's ego simply didn't like to be upstaged in public, especially on these NR boat cruises where O'Sullivan appeared to grab most of the limelight, attention, etc. and Buckley's ego simply couldn't handle that.



    "I think Buckley’s move was strategic. He had to consider the big money and big media."

    NR has never made a major profit. For the first 40 some yrs of its existence, depending on who's version you read, it not only lost money but never had even 10% of The New Republic's total readership. Suddenly in the mid 90's its total readership spiked dramatically. Part of the reason that's usually stated is that Rush Limbaugh started to hawk NR on his show and elsewhere, big time. Rush in particular irked Christopher Buckely, who wrote an article "Rush, you're no William F Buckley." Indirectly, the article actually jibes with Brimelow's contention as to why O'Sullivan was later fired. Brimelow himself wrote how he was talking with Buckley at a NY party at his apt. and Buckley while cordial was more interested in talking with Rush instead. Brimelow was going thru a difficult personal time in his life, and didn't appreciate the treatment he received from Buckley. But it was largely due to Rush's efforts of promoting NR in the mid 90s virtually any chance he could that helped increase NR's profile and total readership.




    "Buchanan fell out of favor cuz of his anti-free trade stance and because big media trashed him for the culture speech in 92. Big media made him persona non grata, and there was nothing the Conservatism could do about it. Ironically however, Buchanan’s economic nationalism and anti-war stance won some grudging respect from the Left. (Same with Paul Craigster.)"


    Buchanan was not a nobody in 1992. He had risen thru the ranks of conservatism and had worked in two GOP administrations as well as having his own show on CNN "Crossfire" (which drawfed any ratings that Buckley's puny show had on PBS). Buchanan couldn't be simply dismissed the way that others could.

    I strongly disagree that there was little that conserativism could do....they could've fought back. They could have continued to have Pat's articles in their magazine, conservative radio could have given him a radio show,etc. Also, Pat's books continued to make money and notice, NR was not adverse so much as to willingly promote them in their pages for a slice of the profits. But the idea that big media totally banned him is bogus. Pat made numerous appearances on big media outlets throughout the 90s (it helped that he ran in 96 and 00 for president) and even to this day, he is welcomed on FOX, CNN etc. Pat's a special case because he's such a DC insider. Much like Roger Stone. He's not entirely ignored 'cause he's simply too big and brings not only added cache but cred, experience on which he writes about, and is a mini brand all his own. It was far easier for Conservative Inc. to ignore and banish such luminaries as Sam Francis and Joseph Sobran since both members totally depended on Conservative Inc. for their livelihood and unfortunately weren't very big names apart from their work tied to Conservative Inc.'s outlets.

    Thats probably one reason Conservative Inc hates Trump. He doesn't need them and never did to be famous. His victories in the primaries proves that in spades and bunches. How did NR's hissy fit issue "Vs. Trump" go down? Uh, Trump has cleaned up in all US regions and is poised to take the GOP nomination.







    "In the end, big media decide who will be the face of conservatism."

    Not anymore. The world has changed. The internet will largely decide which face has a significant following. As that happens, big media, ever losing more and more ratings and profits with each passing yr due to simply can't compete vs the internet, will have no choice but to promote some of these folks. Remember, this Milo was originally an Internet, or conservative internet sensation. Big Media isn't the only kingmaker that they used to be.


    "Had big media favored someone else, the face of conservatism would have been different."

    This is no longer 1967 or even 1993. The world has changed. With the internet, just about anyone can become a face of conservatism (as there is no longer one universal face of which all factions can agree upon).

    FACT: Andrew Breitbart's success was made 100% possible due to the internet and not big media. If he had tried to do many of the things he did thirty yrs earlier, no one would have heard of him.

  119. @Mike Sylwester

    Cruz is a fraud who supports the legal importation of tens of millions of additional affirmative action beneficiaries, unassimilable hostiles, and government dependents.
     
    I suggest that you read his immigration position.

    https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Uh, yes. It does admittedly a fairly good job of appropriating some of Trump’s tough talk. But remember: Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation on building a wall on TX border and reducing number of illegal immigration. He hasn’t done so. And one would think he would’ve during the 12 debates a la “There you go again, trying to take credit for the legislation that I’ve introduced in the Senate. My bill will build a wall, and send US jobs back home from Asia.”–but Cruz hasn’t done any of this.

    Now for balance sake:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/02/29/why-sessions-did-not-endorse-ted-cruz-the-latter-favored-amnesty-n2126573

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/03/25/an-antiestablishment-candidate-the-real-ted-cruz-n2139172

    It is very, very telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, the one Senator strongly vs immigration, unfair trade deals, etc. has not endorsed Cruz but has endorsed Trump (and is campaigning with him).

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation on building a wall on TX border and reducing number of illegal immigration. He hasn’t done so. ....

    It is very, very telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, the one Senator strongly vs immigration, unfair trade deals, etc. has not endorsed Cruz but has endorsed Trump
     

    You offered no criticisms to Cruz's current position on immigration.

    Rather, you find fault only with Cruz's previous positions. You declare that Cruz's lack of legislation on immigration proves that he is soft on illegal immigration.

    I myself find fault with Trump's previous immigration positions. For example, Trump criticized Romney for being "mean-spirited" in expecting many illegal aliens to self-deport. I am not impressed by Trump's efforts in past years to advocate strong measures regarding immigration.

    I am happy that both Cruz and Trump have improved their immigration positions, and I determine my vote based on their current positions, not their past positions. Cruz's current immigration position is excellent.

    (I agree with practically all the points you made in your previous, long comment.)

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  120. @Chrisnonymous
    @AndrewR

    I can't shake the feeling that Spencer is a cross between David Duke and the Michael J Fox character from the sitcom Family Ties. Whenever I've seen him on panels with people like Brimelow and Derbyshire, he seems comparatively less informed about the world in general, less quick, and more interested in standing in front of a crowd in a suit and tie. Of course, I've never met him, so...

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Well Spencer is 30 years younger than Derb and Brimelow so I wouldn’t expect him to know as much as they do, but he is undoubtedly brilliant. I don’t respect the intellects of many people but he is one of the ones I do.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @AndrewR

    A very good point. And its best to keep in mind not to always make comparisons across generations. A better comparison would be to compare Richard Spencer with his contemporary peers in say, Conservative Inc. How does Richard Spencer stack up vs. Rich Lowry? Or this new guy Ian Tuttle? That would be a more accurate comparison. Could anyone see Richard Spencer as a guest host on FOX talking about the various issues of the day? Would he do well in the superficial soundbite formula of conservative television?

  121. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Mike Sylwester

    Uh, yes. It does admittedly a fairly good job of appropriating some of Trump's tough talk. But remember: Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation on building a wall on TX border and reducing number of illegal immigration. He hasn't done so. And one would think he would've during the 12 debates a la "There you go again, trying to take credit for the legislation that I've introduced in the Senate. My bill will build a wall, and send US jobs back home from Asia."--but Cruz hasn't done any of this.

    Now for balance sake:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/02/29/why-sessions-did-not-endorse-ted-cruz-the-latter-favored-amnesty-n2126573

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/03/25/an-antiestablishment-candidate-the-real-ted-cruz-n2139172


    It is very, very telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, the one Senator strongly vs immigration, unfair trade deals, etc. has not endorsed Cruz but has endorsed Trump (and is campaigning with him).

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation on building a wall on TX border and reducing number of illegal immigration. He hasn’t done so. ….

    It is very, very telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, the one Senator strongly vs immigration, unfair trade deals, etc. has not endorsed Cruz but has endorsed Trump

    You offered no criticisms to Cruz’s current position on immigration.

    Rather, you find fault only with Cruz’s previous positions. You declare that Cruz’s lack of legislation on immigration proves that he is soft on illegal immigration.

    I myself find fault with Trump’s previous immigration positions. For example, Trump criticized Romney for being “mean-spirited” in expecting many illegal aliens to self-deport. I am not impressed by Trump’s efforts in past years to advocate strong measures regarding immigration.

    I am happy that both Cruz and Trump have improved their immigration positions, and I determine my vote based on their current positions, not their past positions. Cruz’s current immigration position is excellent.

    (I agree with practically all the points you made in your previous, long comment.)

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Mike Sylwester

    I would expect you too, even though you support a candidate who has been mathematically eliminated from the first ballot GOP nomination and who's only recourse left is to steal delegates in an attempt to receive the nomination despite the fact that he has not received the most number of total votes cast during the primary season.

    See, people here at times must learn to finish the sentence.

    Unlike Trump, a complete outsider when it comes to elected office (he has never been elected to public office), Cruz has a public record of which the voters can look at and examine in order to better determine whether or not his recent past actions would best follow his future plans. It is always a good idea to examine a presidential candidate's (recent) past voting record as well as the various bills he has introduced as well as any co-sponsorship of major legislation to best determine what his future actions will tend to be. I don't mean that one has to go through every single year (if the candidate has a long and lengthy record of public service) but a general overview of his major bills he has introduced will more than suffice because it gives a voter a fairly reliable guide as to his future intentions for the office of president.

    For example: conservatives of all stripes (paleo, neocon, etc) have universally condemned the likes of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and for good reason. By why is this? Is it soley because of Chappaquiddik or his checkered personal life? Not at all. Kennedy served nearly 47 yrs in the US Senate and had a major impact on US domestic policy at large. He had both a voting record as well as major legislation that directly impacted various domestic policies over the decades. If he had chosen to run for a second time for president, say, in 2004, do you really think that conservatives wouldn't make political hay out of his lengthy voting record/sponsorship of bills during his senate career? Of course they would.

    Granted, Ted Kennedy made a lasting impact on the US Senate and Cruz simply isn't anywhere near that level but the point remains the same. It is always perfectly legitimate to examine a presidential candidates (recent) past voting record as well as the legislation he has introduced.

    The fact remains: IF Trump had not entered this race, it is very foolish to believe that Ted Cruz would have directly taken the lead on the immigration issue. He has had six yrs to make an impact of some kind and he has failed to do so. The blame is stronger with him than say, with Trump because Cruz is currently in public service and has had more opportunities than most to introduce the legislation and he has not done so. I daresay that Cruz simply would've followed the lead of Rubio and Jeb! and simply ignored the immigration entirely were it not for Trump's presence in the primary season. Of all the public servants in this race over the last yr, Ted Cruz has very little direct accomplishments of which he can boast about, especially on the most relevant issues in this primary season. Again, it is telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, who is very much well known on both national and GOP circles as being strong on the immigration issue as well as vs. perceived unfairness of trade agreements, it is revealing that Sessions, rather than wholeheartedly endorse his colleague (a Senator from roughly the same region as himself, btw), Sessions came out and publicly endorsed Trump instead. There is a reason for that.

    In the article I cited, among Cruz's first positions while working in W's administration was to serve as a type of liason among Hispanic Americans for GOP or something. In other words, Cruz wanted to help the GOP big tent more Hispanics into the GOP.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/02/29/why-sessions-did-not-endorse-ted-cruz-the-latter-favored-amnesty-n2126573

    To quote from some of it:


    "...Sessions’ endorsement of Trump also deals a huge blow to Ted Cruz, Sessions’ colleague in the senate who has been styling himself as the Gang of Eight’s chief nemesis. After all, if the latter was true, then why would a stalwart immigration patriot like Sessions not endorse Cruz?

    The answer is that Cruz was not amnesty’s chief nemesis.

    It is true that Cruz did not support making America’s 12 million or so illegal immigrants citizens. At the very least, he didn’t support doing so immediately. He did, however, advocate on behalf of granting them legal status—the first step to citizenship.

    Cruz now denies that he ever promoted this position. While he concedes that he did indeed argue for legalization while reckoning with the Gang of Eight, he now claims that this was just a maneuver designed to doom the amnesty bill to defeat.

    Hispanic Republicans who have known and worked closely with Cruz for years insist that they know better.

    Robert De Posada, a former Director of Hispanic Affairs for the RNC and the founder of the “Latino Coalition,” a “conservative” organization, is adamant: “It’s just a flat out lie. Period.” He continued: “There’s just no truth behind it.”


    Robert De Posada, a former Director of Hispanic Affairs for the RNC and the founder of the “Latino Coalition,” a “conservative” organization, is adamant: “It’s just a flat out lie. Period.” He continued: “There’s just no truth behind it.”

    De Posada, who worked (unsuccessfully) with George W. Bush’s administration to pass “comprehensive immigration reform,” conceded that while Cruz may have changed his mind on this issue over the years, it is simply not true that he never favored legalization. “But don’t sit here and flat out lie that you have never been for legalization when the facts are very clear.”

    And what are the facts? The facts are that Cruz distinguished himself as among the most talented and aggressive of lawyers in the army of attorneys that Bush had assembled to craft his pro-immigration policies. All such policies included, at the very least, legalization—the first step on the path to citizenship."

    So the point remains that Cruz is doing a John Kerry "I was for it before I knew I was really against it" or some such foolishness. Yeah, right as the primaries are kicking off full swing, Cruz would have us all believe that he is a huge illegal immigration restrictionist. Whatever. This is common practice among the ordinary polticians. See, people say lots of things to get elected. Cruz has a stronger responsibility to produce and back up his big bold talk since he's had all this time in the Senate to do so. He can't, because he didnt deliver on the issue. Now we're supposed to believe that two months before the GOP convention, he's the most reliable on the issue. What flapdoodle, balderdash, etc.

    Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation vs. illegal immigration. He has had all this time to introduce a bill that calls for building a wall at least on the TEXAS border, TX shares its southern border with Mexico so Cruz of all people would have this leeway to at least attempt to introduce the bill in Congress. I mean, honestly now. The reason Trump is winning is because h made the issue of immigration his own. No one else brought it up til he did. If Cruz was all that on the issue all he had to do during the dozen debates was "There you go again, Donald. Folks, here's a copy of my bill. It calls for building a wall on TX border. If elected, I'll extend that wall to include the entire southern border. The wall will get built. And we will get a firm control on illegal immigration. Here's the bill, and you can read it on the website."

    But Cruz never did that. Because he isn't all that reliable on the issue of immigration.

    Also, this more recent move of his, choosing Carly Fiorina, the pro-immigration candidate during her 2010 senatorial election vs Barabara Boxer (fully supporting the DREAM act). Come on. Cruz isn't doing well with various segments of the electorate and the best he can come up with is to chose someone who didn't even get past 3% in the race and was mostly relegated to the second tier debates? Seriously? This is an example of leadership? Guaranteed that Trump won't make that kind of rookie mistake.

    It's one thing to choose a woman as VP. It's another to blatantly pander for votes when one has been mathematically eliminated from the nomination. Its desperation, much in the same way as McCain's selection of Palin to be his running mate. If he had to choose a woman VP, at least choose one who is well qualified like say Kay Bailey Hutchinson? [I'm referring to McCain on this last point, not Cruz].

    It has been said that choosing a VP running mate is a very important step in showing a candidate's true colors. If pro-immigration total novice Carly Fiorina is the best that Cruz could come up with (and it won't help him carry CA in November anyway), than that demonstrates that Cruz isn't just a truth-stretching politician; he's also a total incompetent. The fact remains that it is very telling that Senator Sessions the one person consistent on the issue has not endorsed Cruz but Trump. All we have to do is ask, if Trump wasn't in the race, who really seriously believes that Ted Cruz would take the lead on reducing illegal immigration and building a wall? I have never heard any GOP candidate ever suggest even remotely that he wants to build a wall. That idea, the wall, would never have come from Ted Cruz's brain much less from out of his mouth in a public debate or campaign stump.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

  122. @Priss Factor
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I disagree.

    I think, deep down inside, Buckley had more in common with Brimelow than with neocons.

    The NR had some racy stuff in the 90s, even publishing Sailer once.
    And the Derb was part of the crowd.

    I think Buckley's move was strategic. He had to consider the big money and big media.

    And Buchanan wasn't booted by Buckley. Buckley's piece on 'antisemitism' finally concluded that Buchanan isn't one even if Buchanan did say stuff that could be construed as 'antisemitic'.
    It was fair enough since Buchanan's ideological roots do have some very close ties to classic antisemitism.
    Lindbergh's shilling for Germany and playing fellow-traveler was disgraceful.

    Buchanan fell out of favor cuz of his anti-free trade stance and because big media trashed him for the culture speech in 92. Big media made him persona non grata, and there was nothing the Conservatism could do about it. Ironically however, Buchanan's economic nationalism and anti-war stance won some grudging respect from the Left. (Same with Paul Craigster.)

    In the end, big media decide who will be the face of conservatism. Buckley was made by the media that gave him a show on PBS and put him often on TV. Had big media favored someone else, the face of conservatism would have been different.

    Now, the new 'golden boy' of conservatism favored by big media is... Milo Yiannopoulos, the greek-jewish interracial homo!!

    He's getting favored coverage all over.

    He is the new Buckley or Butt*uckley.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATAdhcq3S-k

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Hold hold hold it, hold it.

    “I think, deep down inside, Buckley had more in common with Brimelow than with neocons.”
    The NR had some racy stuff in the 90s, even publishing Sailer once.
    And the Derb was part of the crowd.”

    There’s no evidence that Buckley had much in common with any paleo or traditional conservative. If he had anything in common, it was with fellow jet setting plutocrats such as John Kenneth Galbraith. Buckley often would make mention of his close and lengthy yr friendships with men on the Left. He seldom made mention of his close deep friendships on the paleo/traditional/old right. He never really was one of them, he certainly didn’t feel close cultural affinity with them, and as time went on, he became less and less identified with them. Steve, as I recall, was published fairly often in NR in the middle nineties. It still boggles the mind as to why he dumped his long time editor John O’Sullivan and chose to make Rich Lowry the boss of NR. Brimelow speculates, rather fairly, that Buckley’s ego simply didn’t like to be upstaged in public, especially on these NR boat cruises where O’Sullivan appeared to grab most of the limelight, attention, etc. and Buckley’s ego simply couldn’t handle that.

    “I think Buckley’s move was strategic. He had to consider the big money and big media.”

    NR has never made a major profit. For the first 40 some yrs of its existence, depending on who’s version you read, it not only lost money but never had even 10% of The New Republic’s total readership. Suddenly in the mid 90’s its total readership spiked dramatically. Part of the reason that’s usually stated is that Rush Limbaugh started to hawk NR on his show and elsewhere, big time. Rush in particular irked Christopher Buckely, who wrote an article “Rush, you’re no William F Buckley.” Indirectly, the article actually jibes with Brimelow’s contention as to why O’Sullivan was later fired. Brimelow himself wrote how he was talking with Buckley at a NY party at his apt. and Buckley while cordial was more interested in talking with Rush instead. Brimelow was going thru a difficult personal time in his life, and didn’t appreciate the treatment he received from Buckley. But it was largely due to Rush’s efforts of promoting NR in the mid 90s virtually any chance he could that helped increase NR’s profile and total readership.

    “Buchanan fell out of favor cuz of his anti-free trade stance and because big media trashed him for the culture speech in 92. Big media made him persona non grata, and there was nothing the Conservatism could do about it. Ironically however, Buchanan’s economic nationalism and anti-war stance won some grudging respect from the Left. (Same with Paul Craigster.)”

    Buchanan was not a nobody in 1992. He had risen thru the ranks of conservatism and had worked in two GOP administrations as well as having his own show on CNN “Crossfire” (which drawfed any ratings that Buckley’s puny show had on PBS). Buchanan couldn’t be simply dismissed the way that others could.

    I strongly disagree that there was little that conserativism could do….they could’ve fought back. They could have continued to have Pat’s articles in their magazine, conservative radio could have given him a radio show,etc. Also, Pat’s books continued to make money and notice, NR was not adverse so much as to willingly promote them in their pages for a slice of the profits. But the idea that big media totally banned him is bogus. Pat made numerous appearances on big media outlets throughout the 90s (it helped that he ran in 96 and 00 for president) and even to this day, he is welcomed on FOX, CNN etc. Pat’s a special case because he’s such a DC insider. Much like Roger Stone. He’s not entirely ignored ’cause he’s simply too big and brings not only added cache but cred, experience on which he writes about, and is a mini brand all his own. It was far easier for Conservative Inc. to ignore and banish such luminaries as Sam Francis and Joseph Sobran since both members totally depended on Conservative Inc. for their livelihood and unfortunately weren’t very big names apart from their work tied to Conservative Inc.’s outlets.

    Thats probably one reason Conservative Inc hates Trump. He doesn’t need them and never did to be famous. His victories in the primaries proves that in spades and bunches. How did NR’s hissy fit issue “Vs. Trump” go down? Uh, Trump has cleaned up in all US regions and is poised to take the GOP nomination.

    “In the end, big media decide who will be the face of conservatism.”

    Not anymore. The world has changed. The internet will largely decide which face has a significant following. As that happens, big media, ever losing more and more ratings and profits with each passing yr due to simply can’t compete vs the internet, will have no choice but to promote some of these folks. Remember, this Milo was originally an Internet, or conservative internet sensation. Big Media isn’t the only kingmaker that they used to be.

    “Had big media favored someone else, the face of conservatism would have been different.”

    This is no longer 1967 or even 1993. The world has changed. With the internet, just about anyone can become a face of conservatism (as there is no longer one universal face of which all factions can agree upon).

    FACT: Andrew Breitbart’s success was made 100% possible due to the internet and not big media. If he had tried to do many of the things he did thirty yrs earlier, no one would have heard of him.

  123. @AndrewR
    @Chrisnonymous

    Well Spencer is 30 years younger than Derb and Brimelow so I wouldn't expect him to know as much as they do, but he is undoubtedly brilliant. I don't respect the intellects of many people but he is one of the ones I do.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    A very good point. And its best to keep in mind not to always make comparisons across generations. A better comparison would be to compare Richard Spencer with his contemporary peers in say, Conservative Inc. How does Richard Spencer stack up vs. Rich Lowry? Or this new guy Ian Tuttle? That would be a more accurate comparison. Could anyone see Richard Spencer as a guest host on FOX talking about the various issues of the day? Would he do well in the superficial soundbite formula of conservative television?

  124. @Mike Sylwester
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation on building a wall on TX border and reducing number of illegal immigration. He hasn’t done so. ....

    It is very, very telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, the one Senator strongly vs immigration, unfair trade deals, etc. has not endorsed Cruz but has endorsed Trump
     

    You offered no criticisms to Cruz's current position on immigration.

    Rather, you find fault only with Cruz's previous positions. You declare that Cruz's lack of legislation on immigration proves that he is soft on illegal immigration.

    I myself find fault with Trump's previous immigration positions. For example, Trump criticized Romney for being "mean-spirited" in expecting many illegal aliens to self-deport. I am not impressed by Trump's efforts in past years to advocate strong measures regarding immigration.

    I am happy that both Cruz and Trump have improved their immigration positions, and I determine my vote based on their current positions, not their past positions. Cruz's current immigration position is excellent.

    (I agree with practically all the points you made in your previous, long comment.)

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I would expect you too, even though you support a candidate who has been mathematically eliminated from the first ballot GOP nomination and who’s only recourse left is to steal delegates in an attempt to receive the nomination despite the fact that he has not received the most number of total votes cast during the primary season.

    See, people here at times must learn to finish the sentence.

    Unlike Trump, a complete outsider when it comes to elected office (he has never been elected to public office), Cruz has a public record of which the voters can look at and examine in order to better determine whether or not his recent past actions would best follow his future plans. It is always a good idea to examine a presidential candidate’s (recent) past voting record as well as the various bills he has introduced as well as any co-sponsorship of major legislation to best determine what his future actions will tend to be. I don’t mean that one has to go through every single year (if the candidate has a long and lengthy record of public service) but a general overview of his major bills he has introduced will more than suffice because it gives a voter a fairly reliable guide as to his future intentions for the office of president.

    For example: conservatives of all stripes (paleo, neocon, etc) have universally condemned the likes of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and for good reason. By why is this? Is it soley because of Chappaquiddik or his checkered personal life? Not at all. Kennedy served nearly 47 yrs in the US Senate and had a major impact on US domestic policy at large. He had both a voting record as well as major legislation that directly impacted various domestic policies over the decades. If he had chosen to run for a second time for president, say, in 2004, do you really think that conservatives wouldn’t make political hay out of his lengthy voting record/sponsorship of bills during his senate career? Of course they would.

    Granted, Ted Kennedy made a lasting impact on the US Senate and Cruz simply isn’t anywhere near that level but the point remains the same. It is always perfectly legitimate to examine a presidential candidates (recent) past voting record as well as the legislation he has introduced.

    The fact remains: IF Trump had not entered this race, it is very foolish to believe that Ted Cruz would have directly taken the lead on the immigration issue. He has had six yrs to make an impact of some kind and he has failed to do so. The blame is stronger with him than say, with Trump because Cruz is currently in public service and has had more opportunities than most to introduce the legislation and he has not done so. I daresay that Cruz simply would’ve followed the lead of Rubio and Jeb! and simply ignored the immigration entirely were it not for Trump’s presence in the primary season. Of all the public servants in this race over the last yr, Ted Cruz has very little direct accomplishments of which he can boast about, especially on the most relevant issues in this primary season. Again, it is telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, who is very much well known on both national and GOP circles as being strong on the immigration issue as well as vs. perceived unfairness of trade agreements, it is revealing that Sessions, rather than wholeheartedly endorse his colleague (a Senator from roughly the same region as himself, btw), Sessions came out and publicly endorsed Trump instead. There is a reason for that.

    In the article I cited, among Cruz’s first positions while working in W’s administration was to serve as a type of liason among Hispanic Americans for GOP or something. In other words, Cruz wanted to help the GOP big tent more Hispanics into the GOP.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/02/29/why-sessions-did-not-endorse-ted-cruz-the-latter-favored-amnesty-n2126573

    To quote from some of it:

    “…Sessions’ endorsement of Trump also deals a huge blow to Ted Cruz, Sessions’ colleague in the senate who has been styling himself as the Gang of Eight’s chief nemesis. After all, if the latter was true, then why would a stalwart immigration patriot like Sessions not endorse Cruz?

    The answer is that Cruz was not amnesty’s chief nemesis.

    It is true that Cruz did not support making America’s 12 million or so illegal immigrants citizens. At the very least, he didn’t support doing so immediately. He did, however, advocate on behalf of granting them legal status—the first step to citizenship.

    Cruz now denies that he ever promoted this position. While he concedes that he did indeed argue for legalization while reckoning with the Gang of Eight, he now claims that this was just a maneuver designed to doom the amnesty bill to defeat.

    Hispanic Republicans who have known and worked closely with Cruz for years insist that they know better.

    Robert De Posada, a former Director of Hispanic Affairs for the RNC and the founder of the “Latino Coalition,” a “conservative” organization, is adamant: “It’s just a flat out lie. Period.” He continued: “There’s just no truth behind it.”

    Robert De Posada, a former Director of Hispanic Affairs for the RNC and the founder of the “Latino Coalition,” a “conservative” organization, is adamant: “It’s just a flat out lie. Period.” He continued: “There’s just no truth behind it.”

    De Posada, who worked (unsuccessfully) with George W. Bush’s administration to pass “comprehensive immigration reform,” conceded that while Cruz may have changed his mind on this issue over the years, it is simply not true that he never favored legalization. “But don’t sit here and flat out lie that you have never been for legalization when the facts are very clear.”

    And what are the facts? The facts are that Cruz distinguished himself as among the most talented and aggressive of lawyers in the army of attorneys that Bush had assembled to craft his pro-immigration policies. All such policies included, at the very least, legalization—the first step on the path to citizenship.”

    So the point remains that Cruz is doing a John Kerry “I was for it before I knew I was really against it” or some such foolishness. Yeah, right as the primaries are kicking off full swing, Cruz would have us all believe that he is a huge illegal immigration restrictionist. Whatever. This is common practice among the ordinary polticians. See, people say lots of things to get elected. Cruz has a stronger responsibility to produce and back up his big bold talk since he’s had all this time in the Senate to do so. He can’t, because he didnt deliver on the issue. Now we’re supposed to believe that two months before the GOP convention, he’s the most reliable on the issue. What flapdoodle, balderdash, etc.

    Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation vs. illegal immigration. He has had all this time to introduce a bill that calls for building a wall at least on the TEXAS border, TX shares its southern border with Mexico so Cruz of all people would have this leeway to at least attempt to introduce the bill in Congress. I mean, honestly now. The reason Trump is winning is because h made the issue of immigration his own. No one else brought it up til he did. If Cruz was all that on the issue all he had to do during the dozen debates was “There you go again, Donald. Folks, here’s a copy of my bill. It calls for building a wall on TX border. If elected, I’ll extend that wall to include the entire southern border. The wall will get built. And we will get a firm control on illegal immigration. Here’s the bill, and you can read it on the website.”

    But Cruz never did that. Because he isn’t all that reliable on the issue of immigration.

    Also, this more recent move of his, choosing Carly Fiorina, the pro-immigration candidate during her 2010 senatorial election vs Barabara Boxer (fully supporting the DREAM act). Come on. Cruz isn’t doing well with various segments of the electorate and the best he can come up with is to chose someone who didn’t even get past 3% in the race and was mostly relegated to the second tier debates? Seriously? This is an example of leadership? Guaranteed that Trump won’t make that kind of rookie mistake.

    It’s one thing to choose a woman as VP. It’s another to blatantly pander for votes when one has been mathematically eliminated from the nomination. Its desperation, much in the same way as McCain’s selection of Palin to be his running mate. If he had to choose a woman VP, at least choose one who is well qualified like say Kay Bailey Hutchinson? [I’m referring to McCain on this last point, not Cruz].

    It has been said that choosing a VP running mate is a very important step in showing a candidate’s true colors. If pro-immigration total novice Carly Fiorina is the best that Cruz could come up with (and it won’t help him carry CA in November anyway), than that demonstrates that Cruz isn’t just a truth-stretching politician; he’s also a total incompetent. The fact remains that it is very telling that Senator Sessions the one person consistent on the issue has not endorsed Cruz but Trump. All we have to do is ask, if Trump wasn’t in the race, who really seriously believes that Ted Cruz would take the lead on reducing illegal immigration and building a wall? I have never heard any GOP candidate ever suggest even remotely that he wants to build a wall. That idea, the wall, would never have come from Ted Cruz’s brain much less from out of his mouth in a public debate or campaign stump.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I read and appreciate your long comments at the end of this thread.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  125. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Mike Sylwester

    I would expect you too, even though you support a candidate who has been mathematically eliminated from the first ballot GOP nomination and who's only recourse left is to steal delegates in an attempt to receive the nomination despite the fact that he has not received the most number of total votes cast during the primary season.

    See, people here at times must learn to finish the sentence.

    Unlike Trump, a complete outsider when it comes to elected office (he has never been elected to public office), Cruz has a public record of which the voters can look at and examine in order to better determine whether or not his recent past actions would best follow his future plans. It is always a good idea to examine a presidential candidate's (recent) past voting record as well as the various bills he has introduced as well as any co-sponsorship of major legislation to best determine what his future actions will tend to be. I don't mean that one has to go through every single year (if the candidate has a long and lengthy record of public service) but a general overview of his major bills he has introduced will more than suffice because it gives a voter a fairly reliable guide as to his future intentions for the office of president.

    For example: conservatives of all stripes (paleo, neocon, etc) have universally condemned the likes of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and for good reason. By why is this? Is it soley because of Chappaquiddik or his checkered personal life? Not at all. Kennedy served nearly 47 yrs in the US Senate and had a major impact on US domestic policy at large. He had both a voting record as well as major legislation that directly impacted various domestic policies over the decades. If he had chosen to run for a second time for president, say, in 2004, do you really think that conservatives wouldn't make political hay out of his lengthy voting record/sponsorship of bills during his senate career? Of course they would.

    Granted, Ted Kennedy made a lasting impact on the US Senate and Cruz simply isn't anywhere near that level but the point remains the same. It is always perfectly legitimate to examine a presidential candidates (recent) past voting record as well as the legislation he has introduced.

    The fact remains: IF Trump had not entered this race, it is very foolish to believe that Ted Cruz would have directly taken the lead on the immigration issue. He has had six yrs to make an impact of some kind and he has failed to do so. The blame is stronger with him than say, with Trump because Cruz is currently in public service and has had more opportunities than most to introduce the legislation and he has not done so. I daresay that Cruz simply would've followed the lead of Rubio and Jeb! and simply ignored the immigration entirely were it not for Trump's presence in the primary season. Of all the public servants in this race over the last yr, Ted Cruz has very little direct accomplishments of which he can boast about, especially on the most relevant issues in this primary season. Again, it is telling that Senator Jeff Sessions, who is very much well known on both national and GOP circles as being strong on the immigration issue as well as vs. perceived unfairness of trade agreements, it is revealing that Sessions, rather than wholeheartedly endorse his colleague (a Senator from roughly the same region as himself, btw), Sessions came out and publicly endorsed Trump instead. There is a reason for that.

    In the article I cited, among Cruz's first positions while working in W's administration was to serve as a type of liason among Hispanic Americans for GOP or something. In other words, Cruz wanted to help the GOP big tent more Hispanics into the GOP.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/02/29/why-sessions-did-not-endorse-ted-cruz-the-latter-favored-amnesty-n2126573

    To quote from some of it:


    "...Sessions’ endorsement of Trump also deals a huge blow to Ted Cruz, Sessions’ colleague in the senate who has been styling himself as the Gang of Eight’s chief nemesis. After all, if the latter was true, then why would a stalwart immigration patriot like Sessions not endorse Cruz?

    The answer is that Cruz was not amnesty’s chief nemesis.

    It is true that Cruz did not support making America’s 12 million or so illegal immigrants citizens. At the very least, he didn’t support doing so immediately. He did, however, advocate on behalf of granting them legal status—the first step to citizenship.

    Cruz now denies that he ever promoted this position. While he concedes that he did indeed argue for legalization while reckoning with the Gang of Eight, he now claims that this was just a maneuver designed to doom the amnesty bill to defeat.

    Hispanic Republicans who have known and worked closely with Cruz for years insist that they know better.

    Robert De Posada, a former Director of Hispanic Affairs for the RNC and the founder of the “Latino Coalition,” a “conservative” organization, is adamant: “It’s just a flat out lie. Period.” He continued: “There’s just no truth behind it.”


    Robert De Posada, a former Director of Hispanic Affairs for the RNC and the founder of the “Latino Coalition,” a “conservative” organization, is adamant: “It’s just a flat out lie. Period.” He continued: “There’s just no truth behind it.”

    De Posada, who worked (unsuccessfully) with George W. Bush’s administration to pass “comprehensive immigration reform,” conceded that while Cruz may have changed his mind on this issue over the years, it is simply not true that he never favored legalization. “But don’t sit here and flat out lie that you have never been for legalization when the facts are very clear.”

    And what are the facts? The facts are that Cruz distinguished himself as among the most talented and aggressive of lawyers in the army of attorneys that Bush had assembled to craft his pro-immigration policies. All such policies included, at the very least, legalization—the first step on the path to citizenship."

    So the point remains that Cruz is doing a John Kerry "I was for it before I knew I was really against it" or some such foolishness. Yeah, right as the primaries are kicking off full swing, Cruz would have us all believe that he is a huge illegal immigration restrictionist. Whatever. This is common practice among the ordinary polticians. See, people say lots of things to get elected. Cruz has a stronger responsibility to produce and back up his big bold talk since he's had all this time in the Senate to do so. He can't, because he didnt deliver on the issue. Now we're supposed to believe that two months before the GOP convention, he's the most reliable on the issue. What flapdoodle, balderdash, etc.

    Cruz has had about six yrs to introduce legislation vs. illegal immigration. He has had all this time to introduce a bill that calls for building a wall at least on the TEXAS border, TX shares its southern border with Mexico so Cruz of all people would have this leeway to at least attempt to introduce the bill in Congress. I mean, honestly now. The reason Trump is winning is because h made the issue of immigration his own. No one else brought it up til he did. If Cruz was all that on the issue all he had to do during the dozen debates was "There you go again, Donald. Folks, here's a copy of my bill. It calls for building a wall on TX border. If elected, I'll extend that wall to include the entire southern border. The wall will get built. And we will get a firm control on illegal immigration. Here's the bill, and you can read it on the website."

    But Cruz never did that. Because he isn't all that reliable on the issue of immigration.

    Also, this more recent move of his, choosing Carly Fiorina, the pro-immigration candidate during her 2010 senatorial election vs Barabara Boxer (fully supporting the DREAM act). Come on. Cruz isn't doing well with various segments of the electorate and the best he can come up with is to chose someone who didn't even get past 3% in the race and was mostly relegated to the second tier debates? Seriously? This is an example of leadership? Guaranteed that Trump won't make that kind of rookie mistake.

    It's one thing to choose a woman as VP. It's another to blatantly pander for votes when one has been mathematically eliminated from the nomination. Its desperation, much in the same way as McCain's selection of Palin to be his running mate. If he had to choose a woman VP, at least choose one who is well qualified like say Kay Bailey Hutchinson? [I'm referring to McCain on this last point, not Cruz].

    It has been said that choosing a VP running mate is a very important step in showing a candidate's true colors. If pro-immigration total novice Carly Fiorina is the best that Cruz could come up with (and it won't help him carry CA in November anyway), than that demonstrates that Cruz isn't just a truth-stretching politician; he's also a total incompetent. The fact remains that it is very telling that Senator Sessions the one person consistent on the issue has not endorsed Cruz but Trump. All we have to do is ask, if Trump wasn't in the race, who really seriously believes that Ted Cruz would take the lead on reducing illegal immigration and building a wall? I have never heard any GOP candidate ever suggest even remotely that he wants to build a wall. That idea, the wall, would never have come from Ted Cruz's brain much less from out of his mouth in a public debate or campaign stump.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    I read and appreciate your long comments at the end of this thread.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Mike Sylwester

    And I thanked you. At the same time, in the interest of fairness, accuracy, etc whatever you want to call it, it is not really part of the democratic process to uh, actually attempt to "steal" delegates who are supposed to represent the candidate that the voters voted for. In other words, if Trump has the most delegates, normally that would mean that he should be right of receiving the most votes, then he should be the GOP nominee. Imagine how the MSM would behave if Democratic delegates decided 'Nah, know what? We're not gonna vote for Hillary, we're going for Bernie instead." Imagine the furor that would occur among the far leftist groups as well as the nightly news, the NYT, DC Post, etc. All kinds of accusations of sexism, and possible racism since millions of blacks in the primaries would have had their votes cancelled out, would be leveled at the delegates. Wouldn't be surprised if the DNC would step in to prevent the delegates to actually attempt to do such a thing (most likely they'd do it in private behind the scenes).

    Just as it wouldn't be cricket to do such a thing to Hillary, to rob her of the Democratic nomination, nor so is it right to attempt to rob Trump of the nomination. It is his, he has won the most voters in the US's GOP primaries, the season is nearly over and he is clearly the one candidate who should receive the nomination. In staging this childish, semi-imbecilic, idiotic foot stamping hissy fit, the GOP leadership looks like, to be frank, they look like total a'holes. In other words, it was perfectly acceptable when "their" nominee in the past won the nomination but when actual majority of the voters speak and choose a candidate, rather than concede that Trump has won, they want to stage a fight and for no obvious apparent reason.

    Except perhaps, because they don't like his policies. Can't imagine which specific policies the globalist one percent donor class aren't comfortable with?

  126. @Mike Sylwester
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I read and appreciate your long comments at the end of this thread.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    And I thanked you. At the same time, in the interest of fairness, accuracy, etc whatever you want to call it, it is not really part of the democratic process to uh, actually attempt to “steal” delegates who are supposed to represent the candidate that the voters voted for. In other words, if Trump has the most delegates, normally that would mean that he should be right of receiving the most votes, then he should be the GOP nominee. Imagine how the MSM would behave if Democratic delegates decided ‘Nah, know what? We’re not gonna vote for Hillary, we’re going for Bernie instead.” Imagine the furor that would occur among the far leftist groups as well as the nightly news, the NYT, DC Post, etc. All kinds of accusations of sexism, and possible racism since millions of blacks in the primaries would have had their votes cancelled out, would be leveled at the delegates. Wouldn’t be surprised if the DNC would step in to prevent the delegates to actually attempt to do such a thing (most likely they’d do it in private behind the scenes).

    Just as it wouldn’t be cricket to do such a thing to Hillary, to rob her of the Democratic nomination, nor so is it right to attempt to rob Trump of the nomination. It is his, he has won the most voters in the US’s GOP primaries, the season is nearly over and he is clearly the one candidate who should receive the nomination. In staging this childish, semi-imbecilic, idiotic foot stamping hissy fit, the GOP leadership looks like, to be frank, they look like total a’holes. In other words, it was perfectly acceptable when “their” nominee in the past won the nomination but when actual majority of the voters speak and choose a candidate, rather than concede that Trump has won, they want to stage a fight and for no obvious apparent reason.

    Except perhaps, because they don’t like his policies. Can’t imagine which specific policies the globalist one percent donor class aren’t comfortable with?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS