Daily Beast (Opinion)
By Michael Tomasky
September 9, 2015
Whom
to root for when the Dallas Cowboys play the New England Patriots? The
most obnoxious franchise in all of American professional sports versus
the most rancidly cheatingest
(and I mean really—read this; if this is all true, they should have
their franchise license revoked and Belichick should be thrown out of
the game). As the old joke has it, you root for a plane crash (relax,
it’s a joke).
This
is kind of where I am as I watch this blood feud erupt between the
National Review Online and the Trump loyalists who started the
#NRORevolt hashtag over the weekend.
If you missed it, here’s the sitch. Last Friday, subscribers to Jonah
Goldberg’s NR newsletter, the G-file, found his latest in their
in-boxes, a protracted jeremiad that ran under the title “No Movement
That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative.”
“If this is the conservative movement now,” he wrote, “I guess you’re going to have to count me out.”
So
Trump partisans started doing exactly that, and in droves. Commenters
on the article were venomous: Go ahead, you RINO-quisling-sellout (or,
occasionally, you dastardly
Jew), who needs you anyway? This comment was representative, and even a
little quasi-poetic: “So Blow and Rage, Jonah, Blow into the winter
night, strut and fret your rabid slobber onto the stage, idiot-like
until you are flattened by the Trump steamroller—of
course we will be forced to hear more of your shout and flabberting,
but it won’t mean a thing. I hope the Republican Party collapses so we
can get on with partnering with something that is not so diseased that
its internal organs are melting into a pus-fulled
[sic] syrup that is oozing out of every…whatever.”
What
better entertainment could there possibly be than watching American
conservatism being wrecked by a bunch of white nationalists?
In
short order, the now-famous hashtag arose as a venue for kindred
sentiments. It seems safe to say that not many National Review
subscribers are probably involved in
this effort. As near as these things can be determined, it may have
been launched by a guy named Ricky Vaughn, who describes himself on
Twitter as a “right-wing nativist.” You see the word “cuckservative”
tossed around a lot in these tweets, a word that the
Southern Poverty Law Center says has roots in white nationalist and
anti-Semitic circles. And of course the word sounds the way it sounds
for a reason, evoking both “cock” and “suck” in a way that is definitely
not intended as a compliment.
Well,
for people like me, this is definitely pass-the-popcorn time. What
better entertainment could there possibly be than watching American
conservatism being wrecked
by a bunch of white nationalists?
American
conservatism has spent decades winking at these kinds of groups and
voters—denouncing them very occasionally when caught red-handed playing
in the same sandbox,
as when a white Southern Republican is forced to explain that gosh, he
didn’t know the local citizens’ council was a white supremacist group;
but for the most part courting these voters and stoking their anxieties
through means sometimes subtle, sometimes
not. So, let them tear each other apart.
The
amusing thing is, Goldberg actually makes some good points in his
newsletter piece, mainly that Trump isn’t much of a conservative on a
number of issues. About that,
he is correct.
But
if he can’t instantly grasp how modern conservatism made Trump—and not
only Trump, but even more important, the people who are now his rabid
supporters—then I doubt
it can be explained at a level of remediation that will sink in. But
it’s pretty simple. When Steve King jokes about people crossing the
border with their cantaloupe-sized calves full of bags of weed, he’s
creating Trump and Trump’s backers. And multiply that
times 300 for every crazy-borderline racist comment in recent years by
Michele Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of them, and you get
a party and a movement whose nudges at that kind of thing have done far
more to create Trump and his supporters
than the occasional faux-solemn and perfunctory denunciations have done
to thwart them. So this problem of white nationalism bubbling
uncomfortably close to the surface is one the Republican Party and the
conservative movement have deserved to have for a long
time now.
Mind
you I don’t think liberals should be gloating too much about this yet.
It’s way too hard to predict what all this will mean for the election.
In all likelihood, Trump
won’t have the votes to win the nomination, John Kasich or Marco Rubio
or Jeb Bush will, and the Trump voters will mostly start getting
themselves worked up about the looming menace of President Hillary and
come out and vote for the sellout RINOs they’re now
repudiating at #NRORevolt.
But
let’s say that at some point, we do see a real civil war in the
Republican Party over all this, and the time comes when GOP leaders need
to own up to a Joe McCarthy
kind of moment—that is, a moment when they are finally forced to step
forward and say, Donald, we don’t want you or your more extreme
supporters. The National Review itself did a version of this, of course,
back in the old days under Bill Buckley, when it
said much the same to John Birch Society types.
But
the Review was just a magazine. It lost some subscribers, I’m sure, but
not the White House. For a political party the stakes are a little
higher, and I don’t think
today’s GOP would have the stones to do it. The party is stuck with
Trump and his backers. It created them.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com



No comments:
Post a Comment