The decision of the editor’s of National Review to dedicate a cover editorial and symposium to the cause of defeating Donald Trump was an important statement and a welcome contribution to the debate about the presidential contest. Coming as it does from the magazine that largely created the modern conservative movement, it’s a must-read for those who call themselves conservatives. But as much as I find myself in complete agreement with its arguments, I’m afraid it’s not exactly a game changer in terms of the race. The contributions of intellectuals — even profoundly important ones like NR’s late, great founder William F. Buckley and those who succeeded him there, as well as the thought leaders at other conservative publications like The Weekly Standard and here at COMMENTARY — are always more about setting the tone and laying the foundation for the debates on issues than they are about changing votes.
Unfortunately, the NR editorial comes a bit late to perform that service for the 2016 election. Even though we are ten days away from the first votes being cast in Iowa, Trump’s hold on the imagination of a critical mass of voters may be too great. His flip, vulgar, and vainglorious style seems to embody the desire of much of the public for a leader who will defy all conventions. His candidacy, like his business career, is largely a matter of smart marketing rather than substance. But that doesn’t matter to his growing body of fans who are, at least for the moment, untroubled by his lack of command of the issues, his inconsistent and often incoherent positions, and his Putinesque argument that America needs a strong man and a dealmaker rather than a belief in constitutional principles or a substantive understanding of American foreign policy objectives. All many seem to care about is attitude — the pleasure of seeing a very rich man, who need kowtow to no one, flip off the “establishment,” even if their idea of who or what might constitute that entity is as hazy as Trump’s knowledge of the nuclear triad.
Since the rise of Trump was so unexpected, it’s unfair to blame conservative thought leaders for failing to write about this problem prior to the start of the election campaign. Nevertheless, the last days before the Iowa caucus is way too late to start a meaningful conversation about the danger of a non-ideological, non-conservative populist seizing control of the Republican Party.
More importantly, in the absence of a clear alternative to Trump that conservatives can rally behind, the notion that any movement can still stop him may be wishful thinking.
Conservatives had a lot of interesting choices in this contest; something that, along with many others, I thought represented the strength of both conservatism and the Republican Party. That did not turn out to be quite true. Some of the candidates, like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, were not ready for the national stage. But the real problem is that the division in conservative ranks has fatally weakened all of them. Marco Rubio’s effort seemed promising, but he has suffered from having to compete against three other candidates — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich — who were all competing for the same voters. Bush’s rage at his former friend’s temerity in not waiting his turn to run for president has also resulted in a campaign that I likened to a kamikaze mission last week. Bush is more determined to destroy Rubio than help his own cause or stop Trump. The same is true of the others, none of whom have the money or the organization to compete nationally after New Hampshire votes. Unless one of them emerges after New Hampshire as the sole standard-bearer of centrist conservatives, the competition will ensure that all will fail.
Ted Cruz seemed to have won the Tea Party/Christian conservative lane and to be in position to be among the final three or even a final two should the so-called moderates all eliminate each other. But even he appears to be faltering in the last two weeks, as it became his turn to suffer a torrent of vicious and misleading attacks from a candidate who is a past master of the art of the insult more than anything else. Cruz is also reaping what he has sown in terms of the hostility of the rest of the party and the Senate. Since, as our Noah Rothman noted yesterday, Washington insiders know they will do better with an unprincipled rogue like Trump than with an actual conservative president, be it Cruz or Rubio, they appear to be making their peace with Trump.
I first wrote here in August, as Trump showed he wasn’t fading or suffering from his gaffes, that it wasn’t too early to start thinking about conservatives banding together to stop Trump. I wrote again in December that simply waiting until after New Hampshire votes for the rest of the party to unify behind a non-Trump or even a non-Cruz was a mistake since by then it might be too late. Right now it looks as if I was right about that. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he may be unstoppable. While there is, at least in theory, time for things to change, his impressive lead in the national polls, as well as most state polls, presents a daunting challenge to any contenders still standing after that point. And since at the moment there seems little chance of the field being winnowed to only two or three candidates before March, it’s hard to see how Trump loses.
A Trump victory will, as NR right states, mark the capture of the GOP by a non-conservative candidate whose positions and beliefs are so far removed from the sort constitutional conservatism that springs from the beliefs of Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, as to represent a turning point in American political history. Given Hillary Clinton’s weakness, it will also mean a crucial missed chance to actually effect conservative change in 2017. Trump’s deal making and his eclectic, fundamentally non-conservative approach to issues of governance ensures that, even if he is elected along with a Republican Congress, there will be no reform of entitlements, no rollback of ObamaCare or even of the Iran nuclear deal. As a man without a party or a set of principles, it’s easy to see him viewing Congressional Democrats as his main allies against Republicans that will seek in vain to hold the line as Trump wanders all over the spectrum on domestic and foreign policy, accomplishing little that will fulfill the goals of conservatives to reduce the size of government or to defend U.S. interests. The only thing that will be “great” will be Trump and his cult of personality.
But as depressing as this prospect ought to be for conservatives, it does not mark the end of conservatism. Buckley stated in the inaugural issue of NR in 1955 that the goal of conservatives was to stand athwart the path of history yelling, “stop.” But that same mission will remain the same, even if the opponent isn’t traditional liberalism but the populist neoliberalism of a Trump. The principles of constitutional government and the defense of American liberty at home and abroad will remain. Liberals crowed after Barry Goldwater’s defeat that conservatism was dead. They said the same thing after Barack Obama’s election. But they were wrong both times. Ideas as powerful as those that animate the cause of American conservatism cannot be defeat by left-wing ideology or a fraudulent self-promoter devoid of ideology. The damage that a Trump nomination or even a Trump presidency would do to the cause of conservatism will be serious and liberals will have good reason to gloat in either case. But it will not be permanent.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. But Trump’s rise is just one more difficult challenge to overcome in the long struggle to defend the principles of freedom. Those who claim to be devoted to those principles should draw the right conclusions from this situation. But whether they do or not, conservative thinkers must redouble their efforts to promote conservative ideas about government and society so as to ensure that America isn’t seduced into abandoning its constitutional heritage by the blandishments of celebrities, no matter what labels they seek to affix to their ambitions.