Intellectual Push Back Against A Tyrant



In recent months many members of the Republican Party establishment have virulently been pushing back against what could politely be described as the populist conservative candidate, Donald Trump. Recently, the renowned magazine, The National Review came out against Trump, publishing a group of articles which talk about the dangers that Trump poses to conservatism as a movement and the Republican Party.

Against Trump’ an article compiled by the National Review’s editorial board made bold claims against the candidate. The article condemned Trump’s immigration stance as making no sense and as an immigration plan that “can’t be relied upon.” The thought that Mexico would pay for a wall is regarded as “silly bluster,” while the proposal to “re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they have been deported” is little more than a “poorly disguised amnesty” plan.

When it comes to foreign affairs, the editorial board was quick to point out what it saw as numerous flaws in Donald Trump’s approach. In regards to ISIS, it was established that Trump has often gone back and forth on American involvement, with the only constant being outlandish claims on the seizure of Iraqi and Syrian oil reserves. Additionally, the editors were quick to mention Trump’s “astonishing weakness for flattery,” which Russian President Vladimir Putin has been able to manipulate in return for favorable words from Trump. Concern was also raised due to Trump’s comments in reference to “killing terrorists’ families”, pointing out that such an act is a “war crime.”

To Trump’s overall viability as a true conservative, the article is skeptical. Condemnation of Trump for showing, “no interest in limiting government, in reforming entitlements, or in the Constitution.” The editors laud the Tea Party as a stark contrast to the bombast of the Trump movement, explaining that while both were antiestablishment, the Tea Party tried to enforce the three preceding points that the Trump movement lacked. Branching off from the comparison, it is made clear that much of this has to do with Trump’s status as an outsider to politics. To extrapolate, the private sector which Trump is familiar with lacks many of the features which are important and inherent to holding public office. As President of the United States, one must uphold civil liberties while maintaining the security of the nation, sacrificing neither for efficiency.

Intelligently the editors denoted that the scourge of Trump was a “valuable warning for the Republican Party,” an inevitable result of “ if responsible men irresponsibly ignore an issue” which is important to the voting base. The importance of recognizing the “working class agenda” as well as “the legitimate anxieties and discontents of the blue collar voters” is considered to be critical for Republican candidates in the future. Finally, the article issues a strong warning to those conservatives who would support Trump, stating that, “some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him.”

The editors at the National Review have refused to be amongst those conservatives who would watch as Donald Trump shreds the “work of generations” in creating a strong ideology of American conservatism.