Goldberg begins his Dear John letter to American conservatives, No Movement That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative, with a touching bit of self-awareness.
Dear Reader (if there are any of you left), Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out.
Goldberg wants “conservatism” to be about tax cuts for the wealthy and red team/blue team grabassery over Hillary’s email server, because he’s Jewish. Goldberg wants “conservatism” to be about battling with IslamoNazism, because he’s Jewish. Goldberg wants “conservatism” to be about ineffable abstract principles instead of faith, family, and folk, because he’s Jewish. He doesn’t share your faith. His family wouldn’t be caught dead around your family, and the single greatest fear his folk harbor is what Trump implicitly represents to the Jewish mind; goyische identity politics.
The late Bill Rusher, longtime publisher of National Review, often counseled young writers to remember, “Politicians will always disappoint you.” […]
But if it’s true that politicians can disappoint, I think one has to say that the people can, too.
For the past couple decades that Goldberg’s neocon movement has been leading the “conservative” movement’s people, it has led them through a frightful death march of cascading failures. Its advice to whiff on immigration has permanently tipped the balance of voters against National Review’s conservative readers. Its support for Israel’s proxy wars has drained our treasury faster than the socialist and populist politicians they were always so vigilant against dreamed of doing. And personally, I would have just rather the trillions wasted in the Middle East had been wasted on Democratic inner-city minority uplift programs.
For Goldberg to be disappointed in his readers for losing interest in his discredited ideas requires staggering chutzpah.
Trump is like a cat trained to piss in a human toilet. It’s amazing! It’s remarkable! Yes, yes, it is: for a cat. But we don’t judge humans by the same standard.
They can’t help but circle back to the scatological, can they?
If I sound dismayed, it’s only because I am. Conservatives have spent more than 60 years arguing that ideas and character matter. That is the conservative movement I joined and dedicated my professional life to.
Yeah, ideas matter, and yours were terrible. You can fall back on your ethnic themes and clinically pathologize Trump’s popularity as some kind of self-referential herd phenomenon, but I think Trump’s popularity has to do with his proposing a better idea than yours, Jonah: Let’s stop giving our citizenship away to foreigners, stop giving our jobs away to foreigners, and stop giving our military power projection away to foreigners.
Every one of their films involving teens reliably features the big dumb jock bully who everybody inexplicably likes. The jock is you, the goyim, the Pharaoh, the Philistine, the Führer, and The Donald, whose very existence unwittingly humiliates him, fueling his ressentiment. Once one becomes aware of the mythic narrative Jews invariably rely upon, one can write their commentary for them.
Of course, Trump’s not the next Hitler, but that’s the only way Jonah can understand a gentile opponent. Trump actually had tremendous negatives before he got specific with his ideas, but Jonah ignores that in favor of his self-pitying framing.
If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare.
Exactly. For the last five years, you and the rest of your neocon cohorts have led conservatives to believe that war with Iran and opposition to free healthcare were the hills to fight on. For year after year, they listened, fighting tooth and nail for Bibi and for ensuring that people in poverty can’t afford to take their children to the doctor. You told them to do that, Jonah. You as a leader of conservative thought told your readers to fight Iran and socialized healthcare.
And they lost. Hard. How many disastrous political failures do you demand that your readers suffer before they become disappointed in you? You people always carry on about ideas. Ideas, ideas, ideas. A survey of the ideas you’ve brought to the conservative movement is especially damning. Immigration restriction is a vote loser? The Iraq War is a good idea? Invest all our political capital in pointlessly filibustering Obamacare? What has National Review brought to the table which hasn’t sucked in living memory, aside from perhaps the Derb?
I’ve written a lot about my problems with populism.
Of course you have, and we both know why. Populism is integrally rooted in a specific people and place, and you’re a rootless cosmopolitan. There’s certainly a need to guard against the excesses and failures of populism, balancing it with solid principles and theories. But those principles and theories must be our own, and we must guard ourselves against the memetic cuckoldry of hostile outsiders like yourself.
Trump’s glass-bottom id lets the whole world see his megalomania.
Freudian psychoanalysis of political opponents.
Karl Marx coined the term lumpenproletariat to describe working-class people who could never relinquish their class consciousness and embrace the idea of a classless socialist society. Hence, they were useless to the revolutionary cause.
Neo-Marxist economic reductionist critique.
Republican party allow themselves to be corrupted by this flim-flammery, then so be it. My job will be harder, my career will suffer, and I’ll be ideologically homeless (though hardly alone).
Jonah Goldberg is a pundit who shall dwell alone.
Conservatism began in the wilderness and maybe, like the Hebrews, it would return from it stronger and ready to rule.
Update: Join the Twitter campaign against Goldberg ‘n Pals: #NRORevolt