Damon Linker on Never-Trumping Neo-Cons

Why do never-trumping neo-con nitwits such as the bootless Max Boot allow Donald Trump to live rent-free in their heads and drive them crazy?  That's my formulation of the question, not Linker's,  but he provides a good answer to it ( emphases added):

More fully than any other faction in the American commentariat, neocon pundits believe axiomatically in the goodness of America — in the nobility of our national aims, and in the capacity of that nobility to sanctify the means we use to achieve them. They believe that all good things go together under the benign rule of the global Pax Americana. What's good for the United States is automatically good for all people of good will everywhere, who with our help get to enjoy ever-greater freedom, democracy, and prosperity. This is the neocons' faith. They believe it as fervently as any adherent of any religion.

But of course not everyone in American politics takes this view, and so there is partisanship, with the neocons working to uphold this pristine, highly idealized, and empirically unfalsifiable vision of the U.S. against various heretics and apostates from the faith. Until the rise of Trump, most of these heretics and apostates were found on the left, with a few (like Pat Buchanan) popping up from time to time on the paleocon right. From their home in the Republican Party, the neocons sometimes won these battles and sometimes lost. But the cause was righteous, so every defeat was admirable in its way and merely temporary — a prelude to the next victory.

Those who described Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 primaries as a hostile takeover of the Republican Party were correct — at least from the standpoint of the party's Washington establishment, which very much included the neocons. But unlike the establishment's other factions — wealthy donors and business interests out for another tax cut; lobbyists hoping to advance the interests of an industry or group of citizens — the neocons couldn't just play along with the changing of the guard. They were much too high-minded to accept the debasement of the presidency and the party. There was thus no place for them in the new order.

The neocons not only lost a policy battle. They also lost their perch, their perks, and their power in the party. That made, and still makes, Trump's victory intensely personal.

When the Trump haters set out to write their umpteenth denunciation of the president, calling him bad for the country, bad for the GOP, and bad for the world, they undoubtedly mean it. But they also have other motives. The rise of Donald Trump has above all been exceedingly bad for them. They're still angry about it, and they're still out for revenge, every single time they sit down to write.

Both leftists and neo-cons are obsessed with Trump the man. If they were really as high-minded as Linker says they are, they wouldn't take it all so personally. Besides being unhealthy, Trump-obsession is vicious and immoral. They should stop slandering him as a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, etc. and stop trying to 'get him' on some trumped-up charges.  The more his enemies vilify him, the more support he will get from the Coalition of the Sane.  What lefties and neo-cons should be discussing are his policy ideas.  See Michael Anton, The Trump Doctrine. 

We who support Trump do not do so because of his lack of class, his braggadoccio, his orange hair, inarticulate  tweets, exaggerations, and other blemishes, but because he is a patriot* with good ideas and the will to implement them.  He has delivered on his campaign promises despite the nasty obstructionism of the Dems, the media, and members of his own party.   We support him because he is willing to punch back hard against the enemies of America foreign and domestic.  We support him because he is not an ever-losing pussy like Jeb! Bush or a milque-toast maverick like John McCain.

____________

*Unlike Obama. No patriot seeks a fundamental transformation of his country.  What you love you do not seek fundamentally to transform.  Trump: MAGA. Obama, Hillary, and the Left: Destroy America as she was founded to be.

ADDENDUM (5/3). Jacques reacts:

A quick unsolicited thought about Linker's statement that the neocons were "too high minded to accept the debasement of the presidency and the party".  It is utterly absurd to describe these people as "high minded".  These are the same people who have supported futile bloody foreign adventures, for transparently phony reasons.  These are the people who always support Israel and its ethnonationalist policies while denouncing even the slightest hint of ethnic consciousness in white Americans.  Linker claims that they believe in the "goodness" of America.  I doubt that most of them really believe in anything.  They're utterly dishonest.  Calling themselves "conservatives" (of any kind) is dishonest.

 

But more importantly, it's absurd to think that the Republican party was "debased" by Trump.  We are talking here about a racket.  The function of the Republican party for many decades has been to fool its pathetic and deluded but fundamentally decent and patriotic base.  The party pretends to care about the well-being and religion and values of these people, but has never done anything for them.  On the contrary, the party represents crony capitalists, oligarchs, Washington insiders and lobbyists.  The policies of the party have always been designed to benefit the wealthy con artists in the party and the wealthier donors and interests who control it.  

 

Just think of George W. Bush, that semi-literate fool, orchestrating war with Iraq on the basis of absurd lies about Hussein's connection to bin Laden.  Millions died.  Ordinary Americans were killed and maimed for nothing.  At the same time, Bush was spouting leftist horseshit about "no child left behind" and getting teachers fired because they couldn't meet his Soviet-style diktats about the test scores that low IQ students were supposed to achieve.  (Of course the teachers cheated.  What were they supposed to do?)  He also gave us such memorable phrases as "the religion of peace" and celebrated Ramadan at the White House.  And all the while the country was being flooded with immigrants whose presence makes life ever more miserable for the Republican base.  

 

That was the neocon Republican party.  The party of pointless killing and "regime change" with no plan beyond "elections".  The party of leftist lies about race and IQ.  The party of multicultural inclusion and corporate capitalism.  Could that party be "debased"? 

 

From my perspective, Trump's tone is crude but--during his campaign at least--his message was infinitely more noble and high minded than anything these party insiders had ever said.  True, they don't use swear words and they (maybe?) don't bang call girls.  But their "ideas" were never anything more than a thin veneer meant to distract from their psychopathic greed and narcissism.

 

Comments now enabled.

 

Comments

[DBW]

Could it be argued that the Republican party was founded to seek fundamental transformation of the country? (No support of Obama's statements implied.)

Also, while I'm here, for mercy's sake man desist your (eminently civil) spanking of Feser. You might leave permanent marks.

[Baceseras]

Samuel Butler:

I grant that some men will find happiness in having what we all feel to be a higher moral standard than others. If they go in for this, they must be content with virtue as her own reward, and not grumble if they find lofty Quixotism an expensive luxury, whose rewards belong to a kingdom that is not of this world. They must not wonder if they cut a poor figure in trying to make the most of both worlds.

—from The Way of All flesh

[BV]

DBW,

Take the presumption of innocence. Repubs have never tried to do away with it. But Dems, recently, have called it into question, e.g. Gillibrand during the Kavanaugh hearings.

I am glad you appreciate my civility with respect to Ed Feser. He is a serious philosopher, and philosophy ought always to be conducted in a civil and respectful way, and that includes political philosophy. Practical politics, however, is another story: there, polemic and invective have their place.

[BV]

Baceseras,

Excellent and appropriate quotation!

[BV]

Jacques writes, >>These are the people who always support Israel and its ethnonationalist policies while denouncing even the slightest hint of ethnic consciousness in white Americans.<<

A comment and a question.

I am inclined to agree with you re: denunciation of ethinic cs. in white Americans -- subject to various qualifications that I cannot go into now.

But I don't understand the hostility on the reactionary right to Israel and to Jews. Could you explain that to me? That's a sincere question.

As I see it, the two main threats to civilization are radical Islam and leftism. What exactly bugs you guys about the Jews?

Suppose you were forced to live in a world controlled by Jews or a world controlled by radical Muslims. Would you consider that a wash?

[Jacques]

Hi Bill,
The hostility toward Jews--or more charitably, the organized Jewish community--seems easy to understand. Wealthy Jews and Jewish organizations are a main factor in the things we rightly despise and fear. Jews (no, not all, of course) promote mass immigration and multiculturalism, transgenderism and homosexuality. As a group, they tend to use their great wealth and power to demonize whites and Christianity and European civilization. They have played a major role in leftism and the Islamification of Europe. If you don't like leftism and Islam in the west, you won't like the people who have manipulated society for decades in order to implant these things. Jews have played a very disproportionate role in both leftism and Islamification--and the consequent dissolution of traditonal Christian cultures in the west.

Some prominent Jews are conservative; but when they are conservative, e.g., the neocons, their conservatism always seems to be useful to Jews and harmful to gentiles. There are some exceptions. Lawrence Auster, Paul Gottfried, a handful of others. But the general trend has been for Jewish thinkers and activists and officials to push policies and ideas lethal to white Christians and Europeans--even when these are likely to be very harmful to ordinary Jews, as in the case of mass Islamic migrations to Europe.

The toxic pseudo-culture that we hate comes from Jewish-run Hollywood and television and the equally Jewish music business. The banks and corporations that exploit ordinary people and increasingly censor and surveil us are run at the top largely by Jews. The lying leftist mainstream media is largely run by Jews. Pretty much every institution pushing anti-white anti-Christian anti-male poison on the public is disproportionately Jewish.

Then, of course, there is the hypocrisy of attacking gentiles for wishing to preserve their own people and culture while demanding that Jewish people-hood and culture be respected in Israel and also everywhere else that Jews live. When they slander (or "critique") us that's just rational discourse; when we criticize their behavior even in the mildest terms it's "anti-semitism", a vile sin for which all gentiles must feel guilt--and which can apparently never be expunged.

I am speaking of some striking Jewish tendencies here. Particularly the behavior of self appointed leaders of their community--including basically all American Jewish organizationa. I know that many individual Jews are not like this. But the tendencies are real (and we aren't supposed to mention them, on pain of serious retaliation from this vulnerable minority). But anyway, these are some of the obvious reasons why some rightists are hostile to the Jewish community.