Two analysis in conservative journals that purport to define conservatives, neither of which we abide by —
No conservatives of current mien*
RIP, Movement Conservatism By J.R. Dunn writing at The American Thinker
Dunn offers up examples of people he refers to as “movement” conservatives as if they represented the sine qua non of what it means to be a movement conservative. Read the article and then continue with ours.
Our response:
Bill Kristol, Meg Whitman, George Will, Max Boot have hardly been consistent three legged stool conservatives. And their political judgement, which should be a hallmark of conservatism, as regards the 2016 election exposed them as just stupid or prigs, or worse, none of which we accept as comprising “movement” conservatism. We would never concede that they defined the cause although maybe an association with a faction. Their departure is/ would be no great loss.
We think the people named in the article range between “beltway”, “establishment “(the most complimentary name we would have to offer), GOPe, RINO and traitors to the cause.
We interpret any brand of authentic conservatism, particularly anything that might be interpreted as comprising the term “movement,” as necessarily grounded in political realty.
But the characters Dunn names abandoned political reality. For them to in some cases vote for Hillary and others of them to support impossible candidates as opposed to Trump, a professed and so far proven ally of conservatism and the practical alternative to stop Hillary from finishing off the country, was to elevate their pique about Trump’s style over decent pragmatism and the judgement of many authentic conservatives. They reflect no “movement conservatism” when it comes to general elections and the reality of our two-party system.
Their refusals to at least vote for Trump out of prudence, (it is fine to continue their critiques and advocacy), was not about principle, it had to be something stupid or worse. Did they not vote for Gerald Ford or George “no litmus tests” H W Bush or Richard Nixon? Those characters had more apostasies than you could shake a stick at.
Meg Whitman “Trump is another Hitler” — seriously?!
“American Conservative” . . . intimates that theirs is the conservative position on how to protect our interests, maintain ours and our allies sovereignty in the face of foreign threats and that John Bolton is a willy-nilly interventionist. Bolton is not and their name is a misnomer.
Why John Bolton Isn’t Part of the Trump Administration
There isn’t much in the man’s worldview that rings consonant with President Trump’s
So this Daniel Depetris says. So he must not be aware that:
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton Warns Republicans To Support Trump
John Bolton: Trump Getting It Right on Foreign Policy
Former UN envoy Bolton to ‘Post’: US supporters of Trump should not fret
Oh we agree as Pepetris emphasizes that Trump was plainly critical of our involvement in the Middle East, much of his criticism we think unstudied, Monday-morning quarterbacking, and flawed. But we can blend that reservation about Trump with his support for rebuilding the military.
You know who doesn’t think the invasion of Iraq was a terrible blunder? John Bolton. Indeed, a full ten years after U.S. troops drove Saddam Hussein into a spider-hole and disbanded the Iraqi army—a decade in which much of Washington admitted that the management and assumptions powering the invasion and occupation were beyond hubristic—Bolton told the Washington Examiner that the decision was the right one. “I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct,” Bolton said. “I think decisions made after that decision were wrong, although I think the worst decision made after that was the 2011 decision to withdraw U.S. and coalition forces.” With beliefs like that, is it any wonder why Bolton was passed over for three national-security jobs in the administration?
Hmmm — now consider that Mike Pence supported the war in Iraq; Jeff Sessions supported the war effort in Iraq, James Mattis while of the opinion Iraq was a strategic mistake (later or as a timely asserted opinion?), as a general still in service under Obama called for tough responses toward Iran and was part of war planning to that end. Trump has not chosen to exclude hawks and has been vigorous in voicing support of Israel and building up the military to bring the fight to the enemy including boots on the ground. Ambassador Bolton would be a good choice as an official adviser and we think him someone to be listened to as an “outsider.”
veritaspac.com
*our obscure play on “no country for old men” –if it is so obscure as to need explanation, better to take a pass./ My favorite line from the movie:, “its not the one thing, its the tide, the dismal tide.”
