Donald Trump

Pity National Review & Conservatives, For Donald Trump Has "Stolen" Their Issues

When he's anti-immigrant, pushing a bellicose foreign policy, and insisting on American "greatness," Trump sure *sounds* conservative.

|

As Matt Welch pointed out in his must-read summary of National Review's full-throated excoriation of Donald Trump's candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, the most important takeaway might be the revelation that the American electorate doesn't really care overly much what journalists and policy wonks think about things, especially when it comes to ideological purity and major-party strategizing. Alas, gatekeepers in all areas of life keep taking in on the chin.

Which isn't to say the editors of National Review, in the house editorial anchoring the mag's "Against Trump" package, don't shy away from condemning Trump on every level. Indeed, they even knock him for inheriting a "fortune" from his father, marking perhaps the first time the magazine has engaged in class warfare or implicitly questioned the wisdom of reducing the estate tax to zero. "Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself," write the editors.

Yeah, not so much. Donald Trump's appeal among Republicans is directly related to issues and attitudes that mainstream conservatives and Republicans have been harping on for virtually all of the 21st century, if not longer. Anyone with even passing familiarity with National Review, which rarely misses an opportunity to tout its central role in the post-war conservative movement, knows that the magazine has long been extremely hostile to immigration, extremely bellicose when it comes to foreign policy and projecting American "strength" abroad, and extremely quick to attack any real and perceived slights to "American exceptionalism" (a term more often invoked than defined with any precision) while excoriating any real and perceived concessions to "political correctness."

These are exactly the grounds upon which Trump has seized the day in the Republican primary season, so if he is in fact "a philosophically unmoored political opportunist"—and I think that's a pretty fair description—National Review's editors might at least acknowledge that they helped to create the opportunity in the first place. After all (and whatever his past affiliation), Trump isn't running in the Democratic primaries, is he? And despite the editors' claim that since Jesse Jackson entered the 1984 Democratic race "both parties have been infested by candidates who have treated the presidency as an entry-level position," the plain fact is that it's the GOP and conservatives who regularly trot out and swoon for the likes of Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Herman Cain.

According to National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, "a hard line" on immigration is not simply one issue among many but is now a "defining" issue for contemporary conservatism. At least going back to the 1990s, the magazine, despite being edited by an immigrant (the Brit John O'Sullivan) inveighed against immigration in article after article. Many of these were penned by another immigrant, Peter Brimelow, who would go on to start the odious racialist site VDare.com (I had trouble finding Brimelow's articles at National Review's site, but to get a sense of the arguments he published for the mag, read this Reason review of his book Alien Nation). In "Against Trump," the editors actually chide Trump—who has said he would even deport fully legal children of illegals!—for being wishy-washy on immigration:

Trump says he will put a big door in his beautiful wall, an implicit endorsement of the dismayingly conventional view that current levels of legal immigration are fine….

Trump piles on the absurdity by saying he would re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they had been deported, which makes his policy a poorly disguised amnesty 

Conservatives typically claim that only limousine liberals and Chamber-of-Commerce elitists are in favor of the sort of immigration that has long defined America. In fact, polls show persistent majorities of Americans favor either "current" or "increased levels" of immigration. Last year, for instance, Gallup found the 40 percent of respondents wanted immigration kept at current levels and 25 percent wanted it to be increased, while just 34 percent wanted to see it reduced. Perhaps more telling, fully 73 percent of respondents said they agreed that "on the whole" they thought immigration was "a good thing" while just 24 percent considered it a "bad thing."

Let's be clear: To the extent that Trump is widely and accurately understood to be openly hostile to immigration and immigrants, especially from Mexico, he is not at odds with National Review, conservatives, or all the other Republican presidential candidates. He is completely in accord with all of them—and they are all at odds with most of the country.

When it comes to overseas interventions and growing the military, National Review again has been extremely supportive for its entire run. Over at The American Conservative, former National Review staffer Rod Dreher reminds readers of "David Frum's infamous 'Unpatriotic Conservatives' cover story for the magazine, published on the brink of the Iraq War in 2003." Frum's article was one of the ideological high-colonics the publication administers on a semi-regular basis, clearing out fellow travelers whose apostasies are deemed no longer worth entertaining (Frum himself would eventually be swept away later in the Aughts). Frum's article concludes:

War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen [to criticize the Iraq invasion] — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them.

Dreher writes that after reading the new attack on Trump, he re-read the piece by Frum.

I agree with a lot of Frum's criticism of the paleocons. But the paleos got one big thing right: the catastrophic foolishness of the Iraq War. It would be have been nice in the ensuing fallout to have observed some humility among the conservative elites, a sense that they may actually have no idea at all what's going on, or what to do about it.

Does anyone seriously dispute that National Review is properly characterized as hawkish and, at least as long as a Republican is running the show, more often in favor of military action than not? And when it comes to increasing defense spending, it doesn't matter who occupies the White House; the answer is always more spending. The editors call Trump "a nationalist at sea" and stress that he obviously doesn't really have any idea of what he's talking about when it comes to international relations. That's true, but their real beef seems to be less with Trump's willingness to take the fight directly to ISIS and his suggestion that he'd happily let Russia do much of the dirty work in the Middle East. Certainly, it's rich for a magazine that has spilled a lot of ink defending any and all of George W. Bush's actions during the War on Terror to fret that Trump "casually suggested a few weeks ago a war crime — killing terrorists' families — as a tactic in the war on terror."

Trump's appeal to Republican primary voters stems in large part from his campaign promise to "make America great again" and his willingness to denounce political correctness, which he led with in the first GOP debate (if memory serves, he identified that as the biggest problem facing America). These gestures too are part and parcel of contemporary conservativism and National Review's identity. When Obama isn't destroying the Constitution via an imperial presidency that calls to mind…George W. Bush, he is a "weak" president and the acceptance of Republican Caitlyn Jenner's transgendered self is not only a sign of "social decay" but an occasion for contributor David A. French to fret that "the response of so many social conservatives has been so timid and uncertain."

Again and again in its pages, National Review writers ascribe an unwillingness to attack "social decay" where you find it to political correctness and fear of media ostracism rather than to an honest disagreement about social issues. There remains, too, an unwillingness among National Review conservatives, who have effectively lost all the culture-war arguments they have entered, to concede that libertarians are truly distinct from conservatives. From government-enforced racial segregation (a big issue for National Review in the 1960s) to embracing pop culture (Buckley famously hated the Beatles) to gay marriage to pot legalization to abortion rights, things have consistently gone libertarian rather than conservative. Jonah Goldberg can joke that libertarians are "a bit like the Canadians you meet abroad who go to almost obsessive lengths to show everyone that they aren't American," but he can't fully let go of the conviction that, deep down, libertarians are a sub-species of conservative.

I understand and appreciate National Review's interest in dissociating itself and conservatism from Donald Trump, who just might become the nominee of the Republican Party, for which NR is an unofficial cheerleader and powerful agent of influence (before the Trump contretemps, it was going to co-host a party debate). Certainly from a libertarian perspective (a perspective which has been mostly attacked and dismissed in the pages of National Review for virtually all of its run), Trump is bad news on virtually all fronts, and especially those elements that are part and parcel of the modern conservative and National Review catechism.

But let's not pretend also that National Review won't actually support Trump should he actually become the Republican candidate. In his 2006 Reason review of a memoir about National Review by longtime contributor Jeffrey Hart, Brian Doherty noted that the magazine's philosophical pragmatism "led the magazine to a bizarre combination of success and impotence" that shines a light on its current pose. In particular, Doherty stresses that the magazine's early lights, especially Bill Buckley's mentor James Burnham, disdained pie-in-the-sky plans in favor of specific here-and-now political commitments to specific politicians. Burnham famously pushed the idea of voting for the "most conservative electable candidate" in any given race, a compromise position that still echoes throughout Republican Party coalitions.

Standing ultimately not for any firm ideological viewpoint but for some version of the "most conservative electable candidate" led the magazine to a bizarre combination of success and impotence….The Bushism that the magazine too often bows down to these days—defending his administration's peccadillos and power grabs, mostly standing by him through some of the biggest expansions of domestic spending in the magazine's history—stands for little recognizable in the magazine's ideological tradition. As Hart acknowledges, that's true even in matters of religion. Bush's modern evangelical Christianity is distinct from the creedal and traditional Christianity-with-authority of NR's Catholic roots.

Back in 1965, James Burnham wrote in NR that it was absurd for the right to try to fight Medicare. Forty budget-busting years later, NR's man Bush has expanded the program to impossible proportions. While NR's editors complain about that on occasion, it won't lead them to abandon their "most conservative electable candidate." What seems more realistic not in short-term political terms but in recognition of mathematical and economic facts: Burnham's respectable centrism or the radical libertarianism that says such programs were illegitimate and disastrous?

Whole thing here.

So, just as it would be sporting if National Review's editors could at least acknowledge in passing the role the magazine has played in setting the stage for a character like Trump to rise to the top of Republican primary polls, it would also be sporting if they would also acknowledge that they will surely vote for him if he ends up being the GOP nominee for president.

There was a time when National Review eschewed endorsing presidential candidates (in fact, the magazine didn't officially endorse anyone in '56 or '60). But how dedicated is National Review to seeing a Republican, any Republican, in the White House these days? Recall that just four years ago, it endorsed Mitt Romney, who once supported abortion rights and gay rights and, as governor of Massachusetts took credit for the program that served as the prototype for Obamacare. Conservatives pride themselves that they do not have a systematic and dogmatic vision of governance or politics that demands complete agreement on all issues (though that never stops them from insisting on pro-life candidates). No, leave that sort of crazy thinking to the progressives and the libertarians, still trapped in the constructivist, utopian thinking of the French Revolution. Rather, conservatives compliment themselves on living in the real world, which is but a crude approximation of Eden before the Fall. If he's on the ballot in November, there's a good chance that the "most conservative electable candidate" will be Donald J. Trump. And that means the very magazine that is telling him to take a hike now will be asking you to vote for him over Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Advertisement

NEXT: Breaking: Mizzou Prof Melissa Click Faces Misdemeanor Assault Charges

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Donald Trump sure does sound conservative.

    I’ve been saying this for a while but I believe he’s just trying to destroy the republican party and expose a lot of people for who they really are. I think he’s secretly working for Hilary…or just about anyone that’s not republican.

    That’s what I thought until I saw the Sarah Palin endorsement. There’s no fucking way Donald Trump is serious about this. No fucking way !!!

    1. I can just hear all of you dunderheads about 3 years from now:

      ‘Oh, I knew Mr. Trump was going to turn the country around. I was with him from day one.’

      There’s not one of you willing to tell me who you think is a better candidate of those running than Trump.

      Trump will run this country just like he’s run his successful business’.

      Anyone got the balls to take me on?

      I didn’t think so.

      1. Trump will run this country just like he’s run his successful business’.

        I 100% believe that. He will run this country solely for his own profit.

        1. SausageHead — And exactly how will Trump make a profit running the country?

          Don’t tell me. You aren’t able to answer that.

          How did I know you wouldn’t?

    2. What conservative wants to stop trade with China and slap a 35% tariff on foreign built goods?

      What conservative wants to end NAFTA?

      1. Bodica — Wrong! Trump does not want to stop trade with China. Where the hell did you get that? Is that just something you just pulled out of your ass?

        And do you know why he wants to place a tariff on China? To make China play fair. He will get them to stop devaluing their currency one away or the other. China WILL play by the rules after Trump is finished with them.

        There are probably about 150,000,000 conservatives who want to end NAFTA.

        Anything else you need the answer to?

        I’m here to help.

        1. To make China “pay fair”? Again – what business is it of yours or of Trump’s to make China “play fair”?

          Actually, what you want is to restrict my freedom. If I want to buy from China and they want to sell to me, what the hell business is it of yours to butt in?

          1. No restriction–but as long as China taxes our goods coming into China, taxing China’s goods right back is just tit-for-tat. Without that, it’s declaring ourselves the worlds trade punching bag–and that’s a bad thing for any country to do. You may want to be the world’s punching bag, but other people who’s jobs will be lost don’t. Sorry about that

            1. Congratulations on completely failing to understand economics. The Chinese are currently screwing themselves, to our benefit, and you want to make them stop? Brilliant!

        2. Yeah, your fair trade explanation is bullshit. What business is it of anyone else – you, Trump or those 150,000,000 conservatives, if I want to buy cars or TVs or Apples from China? Huh?

          You can’t mind your own business and get your nose out of mine?

          If China wants to sell me a TV for $1.00 – so what? It’s my money, not yours.

          I really don’t need the likes of you, troll, in telling me what to do.

          1. Bodica — You state to following:

            “What business is it of anyone else – you, Trump or those 150,000,000 conservatives, if I want to buy cars or TVs or Apples from China? Huh?”

            We live in a Representative Democratic Republic as stated in the Constitution. If the majority of the electorate chooses to send representatives who vote for a tariff on China’s products, that’s whose business it is to tell you how much you will pay for that item in taxes.

            This is basic stuff most of us learn in 6th grade Bodica.

            Time for you to go back to school.

            And obviously you do need the likes of me telling you what to do, idiot!

        3. Yeah, right. Trade barriers are stupid, period. Raising trade barriers to mirror others’ barriers doesn’t make things “fair”, it just increases the total stupidity.

          And who cares how many idiots want to “end NAFTA”? NAFTA has been a large net benefit to the US. The only good reason to end it would be to replace it with a simpler deal that would eliminate even more protectionist bullshit.

  2. Donald Trump sure does sound conservative.

    I’ve been saying this for a while but I believe he’s just trying to destroy the republican party and expose a lot of people for who they really are. I think he’s secretly working for Hilary…or just about anyone that’s not republican.

    That’s what I thought until I saw the Sarah Palin endorsement. There’s no fucking way Donald Trump is serious about this. No fucking way !!!

    1. I believe Trump wasn’t really serious about this until he saw that he was continuing to lead by a good margin in the polls, so he said “what the hell, why not?”.

      1. I don’t know. I think there’s still a chance that the goal is to get enough support to launch a third-party run, splitting the Republican vote and guaranteeing a win for Hillary (assuming she doesn’t find herself in an orange jumpsuit before then).

        1. I don’t think Trump would sacrifice a win by himself in the general for a Hillary Presidency. Even if there was a nefarious plot to blow up the Republican nominee with a third-party run, that assumed that Trump wasn’t going to be the Republican nominee, and that assumption is looking pretty shaky right now*.

          *Caveat: no votes have been cast, and the polling is unreliable, so who knows?

          1. I still don’t expect Trump to be the nominee. At this point eight years ago, Clinton was guaranteed to win; in 2004, we all knew it would be Howard Dean. In 2000, John McCain was certain to be the nominee.

    2. Are the server squirrels conservative?

      1. Everyone knows squirrels are anarchists.

    3. David — I bet you think there were at least 4 shooters involved in the death of JFK, don’t you.

      And of course George W Bush had explosives planted in the World Trade Center.

      And FDR allowed the Japanese to enter Pearl harbor in order to give him an excuse to get into the war with Japan.

      And wouldn’t you “be serious about this” [presidential election} if you were the clear front runner?

      I want to know what drugs you’re on. There’s no way anyone can be as fucking stupid as this.

    4. David — I bet you think there were at least 4 shooters involved in the death of JFK, don’t you.

      And of course George W Bush had explosives planted in the World Trade Center.

      And FDR allowed the Japanese to enter Pearl harbor in order to give him an excuse to get into the war with Japan.

      And wouldn’t you “be serious about this” [presidential election} if you were the clear front runner?

      I want to know what drugs you’re on. There’s no way anyone can be as fucking stupid as this.

    5. David — Wanna bet he’s not serious?

  3. Speaking of conservatives, am I the only one who got the distinct subtle jabs at conservatism on The X-Files last night?

    1. Most entertainment media jabs at conservatives are about as subtle as a punch in the face, so not having seen it I would guess you’re being sarcastic?

      1. No, but yes.

        I mean, like, they can’t help themselves.

    2. Ever watch The Blacklist? I like the show, but I find myself cringing at how utterly competent they portray the gubmint and how utterly evil all business people are. They were so subtle about it, that they’ve had a couple of episodes dealing with the moral scourge of insider trading, which of course just an inch away from outright murder. I even got to hear about the “1% versus 99%” trope. Such smart and nuanced people these TV writers are.

      1. I wanted to watch James Spader chew the scenery and I still found the show unbearable because of the amount of people who were killed. I like violence even when it is absurd, but that show went above and beyond with that.

        1. What gets me about the violence is this: James Spader gets shot through the lung with something like a .30 caliber rifle round, in the next episode, it seems as though less than a week has passed and he’s just bit sore, like he pulled a muscle at the gym. The episode after that, he’s good as new. That at Agent Keen gets hit in the head and knocked out cold so many times that she should have severe brain damage by now.

          1. Knockouts are one of the most frustrating hollywood schticks. Any person who is knocked out for more than 5 minutes is probably never going to wake up again. And yet every single action show has people being knocked out constantly.

            1. It’s an unrealistic trope necessary to have spies that don’t kill and heroes put into elaborate death traps without just escaping during set up. Same reason sedatives are instantaneous.

      2. Why do you choose to watch propaganda?

        1. I like James Spader *hands in pocket, kicks dirt*

      3. Ironically, they don’t bother noticing that insider trading laws don’t apply to Congress, who all manage to become millionaires while in Washington…

      4. Propagandizers gotta propagandize…

    3. am I the only one who got the distinct subtle jabs at conservatism on The X-Files last night?

      No, you weren’t. One one hand the references to The Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance and the way the government has used fear since 9/11 to expand its power was right on. But the whole “OMGZ EVUL OIL KKKOCHPORASHUNZPUSS!!1!11!!!!!” crap with the zero point energy bullshit was extremely irritating. I didn’t watch the show expecting to be lectured on the evils of oil corporations and capitalism but oh well.

      1. And the constant pans to Bush. Obama’s role in the expansion of the police state Mulder referred to is, of course, neglected. I mean, Bush started it all so it doesn’t matter Obama expands on it as if it’s Lego Land.

        Methinks the writers of the show are too clever for their own good.

        1. That too. It’s almost like they think Bush is still in office or something… I suppose they could be forgiven for thinking that.

          1. It’s almost like they think Bush is still in office or something

            Aside from the presidential lectures becoming distinctly more condescending, I can’t really tell the difference, either.

    4. Subtle? No. Jabs? Yes.

    5. They weren’t that subtle.

  4. “Which isn’t to say the editors of National Review, in the house editorial anchoring the mag’s “Against Trump” package, don’t shy away from condemning Trump on every level. Indeed, they even knock him for inheriting a “fortune” from his father, marking perhaps the first time the magazine has engaged in class warfare or implicitly questioned the wisdom of reducing the estate tax to zero.”

    Here’s the full context of the National Review ‘fortune’ quote:

    “Trump’s record as a businessman is hardly a recommendation for the highest office in the land. For all his success, Trump inherited a real-estate fortune from his father. Few of us will ever have the experience, as Trump did, of having Daddy-O bail out our struggling enterprise with an illegal loan in the form of casino chips. Trump’s primary work long ago became less about building anything than about branding himself and tending to his celebrity through a variety of entertainment ventures, from WWE to his reality-TV show, The Apprentice. His business record reflects the often dubious norms of the milieu: using eminent domain to condemn the property of others; buying the good graces of politicians ? including many Democrats ? with donations.”

    Having trouble understanding what in that paragraph Gillespie is criticizing. Seems pretty spot-on to me.

    1. Basically, they’re criticizing the claim that Trump is a brilliant businessman by pointing out that he needed bailouts from his dad to succeed and also inherited a pre-existing fortune. If you’re running on your business acumen, that seems like a pretty reasonable critique and this criticism doesn’t really imply that National Review is supporting jacking up inheritance taxes.

      1. Unconvincing cheap shot. From dad’s 500 million to 10 billion is multiplying by 20. When you increase whatever your dad left you by 20 times, your pooh-pooh of Trump’s success will be more convincing.

        1. I didn’t see this at the time, but this is dumb. If you adjust for inflation, 500 million dollars is like 2 billion dollars today. So he’s actually increased the fortune 5 times. The stock market has gone up more than 5 times since he inherited that money. He really hasn’t increased the fortune as much as you’re claiming and there’s no reason to believe that increasing a 2 billion dollar fortune to 10 billion dollars is a huge accomplishment given that he’s had the best lawyers and accountants helping him all the while.

          You can’t say “he’s increased the fortune 20 times!” without taking into account the existence of inflation over the 40 year period you’re discussing.

    2. Yeah, that complaint from Gillespie was nonsense.

      1. Seems to me that Gillespie is dancing a little too hard on NR’s grave here. I understand (and agree) that NR is mostly hard line conservatives, there are some very intelligent writers there who speak with libertarian leaning convictions (Cooke, Williamson), even if I think they miss the mark from time to time on certain principles. To dump on NR like Gillespie did, seems unfair, and I believe it’s why libertarians never find a home. Rather than argue intelligently with those on that side (who can actually sustain coherent thoughts), Gillespie and certain writers spit on them. I think that’s a losing strategy.

        Ultimately, I think conservatives get a great many things wrong, but many have enough principled understanding about limited government that it’s worth trying to push them away from Statist ideas.

        1. I’m obviously talking about those people with working brains…. the nutjobs on the Trump train are lost causes.

        2. Conservatives care about limited government? When they’re *actually in power*? That doesn’t sound right at all…

          1. Oh, I agree. But, you could replace “conservatives” in that sentence with, “99% of humans” and it would be the same thing. The problem is power generally. I’m talking about getting enough people on board the concept of limiting government and holding leaders accountable for that. Is that a pipe dream? At this point, probably, but a man can dream, no?

        3. Frankly, it is easier to convince Conservatives the error of their big government ways than it is Progressives.

          Conservatives can be guilted into use of government to prevent personal freedom (like gay marriage or drugs). But Progressives always get around to the General Welfare clause of the Constitution and the argument always turns into: its for the Greater Good.

          I found Gillespie’s criticism unfair and unhinged. He seems to have problem with Catholicism after all these years. Nick – word of advice – there comes a time in your life you make peace with the faith your grew up in and shrug it off. Quit carrying a grudge . I did it with Mormonism and you can do it with Catholicism.

          You seem unhinged at the idea that NR has a “Catholic tilt”. As a reader of NR, I haven’t seen it.

    3. And NR has frequently pointed out the source of, for example, John Kerry and Tom Friedman’s wealth.

      But yeah, that quote doesn’t implicitly question anything about estate taxes. You imply, I infer.

  5. TRUMMMMMMP, DAH DUMP, DUMP, DUMMMMMMP!

  6. Nick is correct in that their just angry that the tiger they have been riding has finally decided to bite them.

      1. YOUR A MORAN

        1. The fuck? Are you calling me Irish?

          1. You should of edited, stupid loser.

            1. should of

              Grammar Nazi says “Nein”.

              1. Way to ruin the fun, fun-ruining Nazi.

            2. Doggone it, Crusty, you messed up the joke.

              “You should of edited, stupid looser.”

    1. Nick is trying to enrich himself by being a small minded opportunist.

      There is no “they”. Can you be more ignorant?

      The libertarian moment is upon us, Charles Cooke and Kevin Williamson write for NR and yet – NR will never change.

  7. Let’s be clear: To the extent that Trump is widely and accurately understood to be openly hostile to immigration and immigrants, especially from Mexico, he is not at odds with National Review, conservatives, or all the other Republican presidential candidates. He is completely in accord with all of them?and they are all at odds with most of the country.

    I would not be so confident. This is a poll from 2013 but I doubt the public became more supportive of illegal immigrants who overstay their visas.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the federal government should find these illegal immigrants and make them go home. Only 22% oppose such a policy, while just as many (23%) are not sure.

    1. It’s that intentional or sloppy failure to put the word “illegal” in front of the word “immigrant” or “immigration”. People who do that–like the author of the article–just make the whole discussion incoherent.

  8. I don’t care if Trump sounds conservative. He doesn’t sound libertarian – so he can go fuck himself.

    1. I suppose many will feel the same about you. Me, I care more about what people DO than what they sound like.

  9. I agree Trump is a menace to the conservative movement. As well he should be, after half a century of ineffectiveness it’s clear the movement has outlived any usefulness it might have had, and its high-time the American Right pursues a new direction.

    Another excellent take-down of NR.

    1. Oh look, a website that capitalizes “White” and writes unironically about cuckservatism.

      1. My kind of place. *douses self with Axe before entering*

        1. Axe? The brand that has a product line known as “Urban”?

          Why don’t you just cut to the chase and send over your wife/girlfriend, sister, and mother over so I can impregnate them?

          1. Don’t harsh on my alpha style, bro. *adjusts trilby*

        2. Axe’s newest scent is called “Question.”

    2. I’ve been wondering, why did you change your handle from “Slappy!”? For the past 4 or 5 years, you’ve been poking your head in with a panoply of dr?le handles. Why not just stick to “Slappy!”?

      1. It’s the same reason Tulpa handle-hops; in order to evade filters. People using non-coercive methods to avoid his drivel is unacceptable, so he employs fraud.

        1. It’s all just, so, so sad.

          1. It’s like crashing the same party over and over again. Why do you want to be somewhere you aren’t wanted? I just don’t understand the “evangelical” impulse.

            1. He probably imagines that he’s making us so mad!

    3. Needz moar Joo references!

  10. I, for one, am a libertarian who thinks the Beatles suck balls.

    1. Driving around LA yesterday listening to Breakfast With The Beatles has lead me to the same conclusion. I mean, some stuff from Help, Revolver, and Rubber Soul is salvagable. But from Sgt. Pepper/Magical Mystery Tour on, the band is nearly unlistenable. The push and pull between Lennon and McCartney didn’t have creative tension. It resulted in songs abd whole albums that were schizophrenic, disjointed, and bloated.

      1. I would love to laugh at your list of “good” albums.

    2. I like Norwegian Wood, you’ve got to hide your love away, in my life, within you without you, you know my name look up the number, penny lane…

    3. You say yes, and I say no…

    4. Heh, I’m sacrilegious enough to like McCartney’s post Beatles stuff better than his Beatles stuff. So there 😉

      1. Finally, a fellow Wings fan who thinks that “Jet” is this masterpiece, and The Beatles were just a silly, garage band.

        “Love, take me down, to the streets.”

        1. If you like McCartney, I recommend this:

          http://theartofmccartney.com/promo/

      2. I thought I was the only one.

    5. You’re not the only one.

      1. Maybe someday you can join us, and the world will live as one!
        Oops, sorry–wrong Beatle.

    6. They were pretty good performers, but not outstanding composers. They had some good pieces in the middle of the band’s career, but the beginning was pretty standard fare and the end was not exciting. Viewed over the band’s whole existence, for original compositions they averaged out as about as good as most garage bands would be if you gave them the $ to turn full pro.

  11. Perhaps more telling, fully 73 percent of respondents said they agreed that “on the whole” they thought immigration was “a good thing” while just 24 percent considered it a “bad thing.”

    I glanced at the poll and quickly reading through the questions I saw no qualifiers on legal vs. illegal immigration.

    To the best of my knowledge, many “conservatives” who grip about immigration are more often than not talking about illegal immigration. I’m wondering if that number would get lower if you phrased the question in a way reflecting open-borders or illegal immigration.

    1. The vast majority of people I know well are conservative, and I don’t think any of them are opposed to legal immigration. My impression is that the only places that the two (legal and illegal) are conflated, are non-conservative.

      1. This is where the conservative/GOP just gets royally fucked by the media tending liberal/progressive/Democrat. There is a huge difference between wanting to restrict illegal immigration and wanting to restrict legal immigration. However the past decade or so has, I believe, seen the media stop referring to the former and instead lump it all into “immigration”.

        1. But, in this case, NR generally wants legal immigration further restricted as well. That’s Nick’s point.

          1. No, sir. When the author (MIS) states Trump’s position

            “Let’s be clear: To the extent that Trump is widely and accurately understood to be openly hostile
            to immigration and immigrants..” (rather than correctly saying Trump is hostile to “ILLEGAL immigration”–

            and says that his position is “at odds with the rest of the country”, he get’s the whole thing backwards–as do many others who fail to make the distinction–intentionally or not–confound the entire national debate on this topic.

    2. The question, as apparently phrased (“on the whole”, “good or bad”) yields no useful information.

  12. I heard something this morning about Bloomberg running for President as a counterweight to a Sanders/Trump ticket. This was immediately followed by a glowing report about how Bloomberg is a real outsider with managerial experience, not a natural politician- a problem solver.

    1. Michael Bloomberg for President – Because the current crop of candidates just aren’t authoritarian enough!

      1. Bb would be the least bad of the current front-runners Cruz excepted.

        1. How? He’s just bad as Clinton or Sanders. He’s a crony capitalist that has little use for free markets and like Sanders he wants to raise taxes across the board. His nanny-statism on domestic policy along with his full throat endorsement of gun control and most police actions makes him almost worse than Clinton on civil liberties.

    2. Huh, I guess Sanders freaks them out. If he gets the primary nod its impossible not to argue they are socialist anymore. I’m not sure that is quite the same negative as it used to be, but it would still kill their independent appeal.

  13. Nick says

    ” To the extent that Trump is widely and accurately understood to be openly hostile to immigration and immigrants, especially from Mexico, he is not at odds with National Review, conservatives… and they are all at odds with most of the country.”

    Last summer, Gallup commented on Trump’s posture, noting =

    “Last year we found that 77% of Americans said it was “extremely” or “very important” than the government take steps to control U.S. borders to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S., with 43% saying it was extremely important. ….eight in 10 favored new laws that would tighten security at U.S. borders. So Trump’s general focus on taking more actions to curtail the flow of people coming into this country across the southern border certainly,… fits with American public opinion.”

    They also note that, depending on how the question is framed you can get extremely different results. while ‘border security’ was very popular, so was the idea of “path to citizenship”

    “And, 87% say they favor new laws that would allow immigrants already in the country to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements including paying taxes, having a criminal background check and learning English.”

    The point is that the POV of the public is by no means one-dimensional

    1. What’s public polling like on “total shutdown of Muslims”?

      1. Obviously no one polls stupid vague policy impossibilities.

        But if you actually had an honest interest in your question, Pew has a few surveys on “US opinion re: teh moozies” in 2015 you could peruse to make your own determination. From my recollection, there was some consensus that, “Republicans Don’t Like Them

        1. I just don’t know why the “evidence” that the public is with Trump should be based at all on public opinions about illegal immigration, when Trump talks about far more than just that.

          1. ” Trump talks about far more than just that.”

            Nick specifically said Trump (& his conservative-ish ilk) were running contrary to public opinion on immigrants (“especially from mexico”).

            I pointed out that’s not really correct. I wasn’t trying to address “far more than that” in that particular point.

            Did you have something specific in mind? Muslims? because as far as i can tell, he’s not ‘off the plantation’ of public-opinion there either.

            1. I also think whatever existing polling you might find on “Public attitudes re: Muslims” would probably fail to capture the vehemence of some people’s opposition to the most-recent policy idea of “Importing lots of syrian refugees”

              Particularly in the wake of the Paris Attacks & San Berdoo shootings which both happened late last year.

              WaPo/ABC did a poll shortly after Paris which provides some insight into why Trump’s “Ban Teh Muslim” wasn’t really so far-off-base

              ” Seventy-three percent support increased U.S. air strikes against the Islamic State, or ISIS, and 60 percent back more ground forces, double the level of support for ground forces from summer 2014. One reason: Eighty-one percent see a major terrorist attack in the United States in the near future as likely, a level of anxiety that has been higher just once since 9/11.

              Fifty-four percent oppose admitting refugees from Syria and other Mideast countries, while 43 percent are in favor. Opposition in part reflects skepticism about the U.S. government’s ability to screen out terrorists; 52 percent are dubious, and they’re especially likely to oppose entry. “

              Again – this was before San Berdoo, which could only move opinion further in the same direction. And these aggregate figures don’t really reflect “Republican” opinion, which is more likely to be strongly negative.

              1. most-recent policy idea of “Importing lots of syrian refugees”

                Obama is not going to do anything on that front, because at this point in time, he can’t. The Refugee Act of 1980 allows the President, under emergency conditions, to raise the annual cap from 50,000 to any number deemed necessary for a period of 12 months. When DHS was not facing a flood of refugees, the process of security screening took two to three years (and as you can see, Syrians currently go through an extra screening). If Obama, raised the cap, there is no way these Syrians would be able to go through their screening before he would have to lower the cap by law.

                1. Obama is not going to do anything on that front, because at this point in time, he can’t.

                  Its just so cute when people think this President is ever going to say “I don’t have black-letter legal authority to do what I want, so I’m not going to do it.”

                  1. Its just so cute when people think this President is ever going to say “I don’t have black-letter legal authority to do what I want, so I’m not going to do it.”

                    Heh, that’s true. However, I believe (hope) he wouldn’t have enough political capital to spend to get away with that if he tried. I think he knows that would be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

                2. “Obama is not going to do anything on that front,”

                  Of course, but as a political-signaling issue, it went far beyond policy-reality almost immediately, and became a matter of “LOOK ISLAMOPHOBIC RETHUGLICANS” and “Why do you hate children!?!”…. and “THE KENYAN IS IMPORTING ISIS TO BRING SHARIA LAWS!!” on the other side.

                  forget the ‘reality’. it was just a freaking ideological-beach-ball. And the only one who seemed to score points with it as far as i could tell was Trump. His ‘ban the moozies’ actually gained him something, while i don’t really think it helped anyone else.

                  1. Correction from Trump common-sense translator: “In the absence of–a sound vetting process to separate killers from nice folks, shut the door so nobody get’s killed–until a sound vetting process is put in place”. Hell–stop ANYONE coming in until a valid system is in place.

                    That’s what ” until we figure out what’s going on” means– for the plainspeak-challenged.

            2. Yeah…and not all immigrants are illegal. “Especially from Mexico” doesn’t seem to be “exclusively from Mexico.”

              There are any number of immigration issues. What’s Trump’s opinion on H1-B visas? His website and his remarks seem to contradict each other. What’s Trump’s position on how many people will get into the country, and how, after his proposed do-over of Operation Wetback? He seems to be advocating that they can all come back, as long as we’ve sent them home first. What does he propose to do about “sanctuary cities,” and precisely how un-Constitutional will his effort to force local officials to carry out federal law be? What’s public opinion on the percentage of Mexican immigrants who are rapists?

              1. I’m not sure what your point is.

                Do you think most voters really care about the little details, or just the tenor of how candidates “sound” on a given issue?

                I think you’d likely discover most people think H1B is a steak sauce.

                1. I pointed out that nick is wrong to claim that NR or Trump are “swimming against the tide” of public attitudes re: immigration.

                  Trump’s sales pitch about the subject is “BIG WALLS AND SHIT”

                  which is a summary-view that polls show most people support. “Improve border security”, “prevent terrorists coming here”, etc.

                  Of course they might have more nuance on things like, “h1b visas” or “laws re: how to deal with residents already here”…. but that’s not what Trump pitches. He pitches “Close the door until we sort shit out”. And as far as that idea goes, it resonates strongly with what a lot of people seem to think.

                2. Do you think most voters really care about the little details, or just the tenor of how candidates “sound” on a given issue?

                  The latter. And Trump sounds like a fucking racist maniac, which is not captured by “but lots of people think you should have better border security.”

                  1. ” Trump sounds like a fucking racist maniac,”

                    You hear racism, to other people “build a wall” and “ban muslim entry” sounds like “common sense immigrant control”

                    Seeing things from other people’s POV isn’t quite so hard for everyone.

                    1. I am quite sure that most people are going to see it the way Nikki does and I guarantee the overwhelming majority of millenials do. The border nazis are alone.

                    2. You hear racism, to other people “build a wall” and “ban muslim entry” sounds like “common sense immigrant control”

                      Seeing things from other people’s POV isn’t quite so hard for everyone.

                      The entire question is whether most people who hear Trump hear what I hear, or what you think his supporters hear. This isn’t about me not being able to see someone else’s point of view; it’s about people like you who don’t seem to think my point of view is legitimate just because you think Trumpets don’t think quite what I think they think.

                    3. ” it’s about people like you who don’t seem to think my point of view is legitimate’

                      who said that? Your opinion is your opinion.

                      But you’re not a trump supporter so i’m not sure why it matters.

                      My point was to clarify that what The Donald says about immigration is actually very consistent with specific polling on public opinion re: “how open our border policy should be”.

                      A lot of people – even those who have fairly nuanced ideas about all the things you mentioned, like H1b’s, path-to-citizenship, etc. – think “stronger barriers” are a good-policy in the near term. the way its often been characterized is, “Close the door until we fix the system”

                      The idea that he’s spitting racism is just your personal reaction to that. It doesn’t mean all his supporters are motivated by racism. Some certainly are, but i think its implausible to ascribe that view to everyone.

                    4. Your opinion is your opinion.

                      But you’re not a trump supporter so i’m not sure why it matters.

                      Uh…because this is a conversation about what non-Trump-supporters think about Trump’s proposals.

                      A lot of people – even those who have fairly nuanced ideas about all the things you mentioned, like H1b’s, path-to-citizenship, etc. – think “stronger barriers” are a good-policy in the near term. the way its often been characterized is, “Close the door until we fix the system”

                      The idea that he’s spitting racism is just your personal reaction to that. It doesn’t mean all his supporters are motivated by racism. Some certainly are, but i think its implausible to ascribe that view to everyone.

                      I’m not. I’m saying, “This is my personal reaction to hearing what his rallies actually sound like, and I don’t think it’s valid to say that most Americans want border security therefore they agree with Trump, when he sounds like that.”

                      You can’t look at polling about questions like that and say “oh, so they do agree with Trump” because the point isn’t about the specifics of Trump’s proposals. It’s about what he sounds like when he plays to his crowd. And I think there are probably a lot of people who want more-secure borders who still think he sounds like a fucking crazy racist pandering to racists.

                    5. “I don’t think it’s valid to say that most Americans want border security therefore they agree with Trump, when he sounds like that”

                      But most americans DO want better border security (as noted above) and he’s the candidate who’s taken the strongest stance on that issue.

                      Which is the opposite of nick’s claim, that somehow trump and NR were on the wrong side of the issue.

                      Your thing?…. i don’t really understand your point other than you want to seem to insist that these polls dont really matter and that trump’s rhetoric is actually all racist-code-language or something.

                      Which may have some truth to it…. but its sort of a shitty argument because its essentially throwing all the basic facts about the polls & policy views aside in favor of a shallow-culture-war view.

                    6. As a comparison =

                      I think this idea that “Trump is spitting racism” – and how that’s the basis for his popularity – is about as dishonest and unrealistic as the claim that “Libertarians are all Anti-American gun nuts who want to overthrow the government”

                      ie. anyone who says, “Gun control laws are generall bad” is de facto a Bundy-Rancher/NWO/Miltiia member…

                      …just as anyone who thinks “Build a wall/Ban the mooslims” is a racist

                      Both characterizations are stupid, oversimplified and inaccurate.

                    7. No they’re not. Trump has said Mexican immigrants are rapists with no basis in fact. He’s using minorities as a scape goat it is not remotely inaccurate to call this racist or at least xenophobia.

                    8. C. – your ability to follow the conversation is noted.

                    9. Well, G., Cyto is on record that anyone who opposes open borders is a racist, so its no wonder that he doesn’t think it is stupid, oversimplified, and inaccurate.

                    10. This has to be elaborated–

                      Cytotoxic is on record that anyone who opposes open borders is a racist–but you can bomb them into chunks if they’re not here or on their way here.

                      Because that second half is what REALLY illustrates the crazy.

                    11. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    12. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    13. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    14. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    15. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    16. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    17. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    18. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    19. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

                    20. And yet, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard and contributor of NRs Against Trump issue) has been a conservative voice in granting citizenship to those very people. No just legal status. But citizenship.

                      You just can’t get passed your own bias against conservatives that they could EVER be pro-immigrant.

      2. Or “figure out what’s going on.” Are Americans for or against figuring things out?

        1. Definitely against.

    2. Unfortunately, we are drowning in sloppy language–a lot of it intentional..

  14. Gillespie is invoking an interesting variation on “if you are not with us, you are against us”, i.e. if you are not for open borders you are against immigation and immigrants.

    1. Good o’le Nick is perfectly happy to be a mendacious fuck if it serves his ends. In fact, it’s what he does best.

      1. I wish someone had told me he was a mendacious fuck before I contributed big bucks to the 2015 webathon.

        Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, my money is going to NR.

        1. You likely won’t see this but don’t feel too bad. On balance, this is a good publication that addresses a lot of issues that the more mainstream press refuses to acknowledge. Unfortunately, they have several authors, as most politically oriented sites do, that are often completely full of shit and will flat out lie if it benefits them. Gillespie is one of these which is a shame because when he’s even-handed and upfront he makes a lot of sense and is a pretty good writer.

          1. I always thought Dr. Gillespie was hired to correct Matt Welch’s typos

    2. Sounds more like he’s arguing that “the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.”

      1. Well, that’s probably correct. We’re Libertarians, everyone hate us.

        1. Libertarians hate libertarians, for Rand’s sake.

          1. See that! Everyone see that!

            He invoked the name an Ayn Rand! What more proof do we need of his guilt?

            Clearly an Objectivist heretic has infiltrated our pure and harmonious Libertarian commune. He must be expunged for the good of the community!

    3. I’ve read Nick’s article three times and end up, scratching my head in shock and sorrow. The bias oozes.

    4. I have a number of friends and colleagues who are legal immigrants. It always kills me how much hassle they have to go through renewing work permits and visas or figuring out whether they’re in one of those periods where you have to leave the country for six months while renewing your visa or whether you’re not allowed to leave until the paperwork comes through. And the immigration service loves to keep track of them because they file all their paperwork and keep their records updated.

      When I see what some people go through to be here legally, it really irks me to see it suggested others ought to have an easier time of it in America because they’ve been violating our laws so long it seems unseemly to ask them to stop now.

      1. Supposedly, it’s “who we are as a nation”–irrationally (and suicidally) unfair to those who do right, and “kind” to those who do wrong–or even kill us.

  15. “American exceptionalism” (a term more often invoked than defined with any precision)

    I agree that it is a very overused and undefined term, but I think ”American exceptionalism” is to Reagan as “make America great again” is to Trump. Reagan’s slogan was a response to the gas lines and “wear a sweater” comment and general depression post-Vietnam and Carter, and Trump’s is a response to where many people think this country has become under Bush and Obama. There are too many people getting free shit, there are fewer “middle class” jobs than their used to be, etc. Trump tapped into that mindset.

    1. American Exceptionalism has been altered recently to mean or imply “America, ’cause we’re better than you”.

      Whereas back in my day *shakes cane* it meant that American shores were a place where people could find opportunity, freedom and rights– you know, give us your tired and poor kind of thing.

      1. The way I 1st heard it, “American exceptionalism” was a neutral term which could indicate something good or bad, depending on whether you thought the rest of the world was better or worse in the regard being regarded. One example was how the US labor movement wasn’t primarily socialist or communist, the way just about every other country’s labor unions were. Another example was sticking to English units of measure. It was “-ism” in the sense of pattern or tendency, not necessarily of belief or intention.

    2. There are too many people getting free shit

      Too many “undeserving” people getting free shit, you mean. Remember, Trump is going to “save” Medicare, Social Security, etc.. What they are concerned about is that the “wrong people” are getting the funds they are “entitled” to.

      1. Yes. I don’t know if they should receive that much credit for their thought process, though.

        1. It’s an important distinction to make, and one that should be stated again and again this year as our resident Hit ‘n Runpublicans will attempt to rally us to the banner of Trump by saying “You’re against free shit; they’re against free shit…you all should be friends.” The fact is, no, they are unequivocally not against free shit; they are specifically backing Trump because they are trying to protect their free shit. Again, they are just against the diverting of funds from their free shit programs to free shit programs that target the “wrong” demographics.

          1. I have no disagreement with any of that.

          2. Yep. I am willing to write off all of my “deserved” social security payments in the future to save the country, because that is what will be necessary.

            Wanting others to not get there free stuff, while you still get yours. Solves nothing. There is not enough money printed for anyone to continue to get free stuff in the future. Or rather, that which cannot go on will no go on.

            Trump’s not really planning to fix anything.

          3. Made clear above by Nativist’s (Slappy’s?) comment. The “conservative movement” has failed “the American Right.” These people are not conservative in the way we wish they were, so they do not hold those conservative positions that libertarians might find attractive.

            1. That ‘this’ goes to both MJ and HM. Remember when liberals claimed many or even most conservatives are stupid and racist? They were both lying and right.

          4. The fact is, no, they are unequivocally not against free shit

            How many here send their children to public schools? How many collect SS? Work for the government? Fucking self proclaimed “Libertarians” rationalize their acceptance of wealth transfers because they “paid in” but Trump supporters are somehow unique?

            From my experience on this site, “Libertarians” talk endlessly about “free shit” and when it comes to “actions” they take it. Few even bother to claim, like JWW below, that they won’t take what they can. In this instance, at least, they sound exactly like…..Trump supporters.

            1. Nah, I take the wealth transfers because it doesn’t make a difference if I do or not. The only one that would be harmed by me not doing so would be myself. I see it in the same vein as Ron Paul add riders to bills that he then votes against. Object loudly and do what you can to stop it, but don’t fuck yourself over waiting for something that will never come.

          5. People tend to draw a distinction between transfers based on dessert, such as unemployment, retirement, or veterans’ benefits (where those who receive are likely to have previously paid in), or for those in need because of circumstances they couldn’t control (such as disabilities or illness) on one hand, and on the other those wherein it seems the taking is from one class of society & the giving to another. This is why xfer payments aren’t so controversial in racially & ethnically homogeneous countries, where those paying in are likely to see themselves or others in their circumstances as likely beneficiaries at other times of life.

          6. Free shit is never really free. When the smoke clears, somebody has to pay the piper–and it always seems the wrong people get stuck with the bill.

      2. At the very least you should give the productive credit for supporting those programs. If there are going to be government programs, then those funds ought go to the more deserving.

        1. At the very least you should give the productive credit for supporting those programs. If there are going to be government programs, then those funds ought go to the more deserving.

          No, I am not a Producerist, as there is no true metric to determine “productivity” or “deserving-ness”. That shit is just the Country Mouse version of the City Mouse’s “Occupy [x]” movement; “Those Wall Street fat cats sit around all day in an office; what have they done to ‘deserve’ their wealth?”

      3. They do not want to hear that money that was taken away from them all their lives may not be recoverable and that their parents and grandparents locked them into a huge scam by the government.

        1. The truth hurts, but we’ll have to recon with it someday.

          1. Definitely, but it is understandable that they do not be things left holding the bag. The problem is, someone is going to be left holding the bag. Probably their kids, if they care about that.

        2. My in laws complain that we used to have plenty of money for the national parks, but now they are cutting park funds at the same time social security is drying up.

          Go figure.

      4. Well that includes Nick and Reason. They certainly don’t have any major heartburn when it comes to entitlements given how little they ever talk about it. But fighter jetz, now there’s a crisis.

        NR has regular postings from Tanner about the welfare spending. Reason has Sheldon and Chapman.

  16. I make $82h while I’m traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris?This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out,

    —————– http://www.richi8.com

  17. So when is Hillary going to be indicted again?

    1. Again? We haven’t got her indicted the one time yet.

  18. ‘And despite the editors’ claim that since Jesse Jackson entered the 1984 Democratic race “both parties have been infested by candidates who have treated the presidency as an entry-level position,” the plain fact is that it’s the GOP and conservatives who regularly trot out and swoon for the likes of Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Herman Cain.’
    Pfft. Look how well Obama worked out and who supported him in 2008.

    1. Holy crap, I missed that.

      If there was ever an entry-level President (or even candidate) in modern times, its Obama. Unless, of course, you throw away any experience other than pubsec experience.

      The notion, for example, that Carly Fiorina had less applicable experience for the job of President than Obama did when he took office is ludicrous.

      1. Were there any other entry-level presidents? Even W served two terms as governor of one of the biggest states in the country.

        1. Many in the latter 20th cent. were former governors. JFK was at least in congress and the Senate for many years.

        2. Eisenhower did not hold elective office, but honed his political skills balancing the demands of FDR, Churchill, Montgomery and Patton while simultaneously defeating Hitler and the Nazis. That should count as qualifying experience.

  19. ‘ At least going back to the 1990s, the magazine, despite being edited by an immigrant (the Brit John O’Sullivan) inveighed against immigration in article after article.’
    There is a significant difference between legal and illegal immigration. It’s unfortunate that Nick does not understand this.

    1. It is to the rhetorical advantage of the open borders crowd to elide the distinction. Probably because they believe there should be no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

      1. Unless they are a very likely spy or terrorist or criminal or dangerously infectious person then no there should not be.

    2. “There is a significant difference between legal and illegal immigration.”

      That being arbitrary government dictat.

      1. You mean like election day?

        1. …what?

      2. There is nothing arbitrary about have a functioning nation with borders and laws.

        1. The laws are arbitrary and senseless.

          1. As are borders, by definition, unless McK can provide a mathematical proof for their existence.

      3. So, all law is arbitrary government diktat? If not, how is immigration law less legitimate?

        I agree that our immigration law sucks, but that doesn’t necessarily make it arbitrary, or illegitimate.

        1. “So, all law is arbitrary government diktat?”

          Never said that. It’s amazing how fast you people come up with strawmen.

          “how is immigration law less legitimate?”

          If it isn’t about protecting individual rights-and the vast majority of it isn’t-then it’s illegitimate.

          1. It’s not a strawman if you don’t define your statement well enough for the interpretation to be reasonable.

            While I agree that law should protect individual rights, I can’t jump to: any law that in my personal opinion doesn’t protect individual rights, is therefore illegitimate.

            One, I’m not so self assured to be able to define for everyone else what law is or isn’t legitimate. Two, those laws were mostly put in place by legitimate means, by representatives elected by the people.

            So while I likely agree with your sentiment on immigration, I can’t just dismiss others opinions without good reason.

            Whether you approve or not (cause that’s really what your argument comes down to), there is a legitimate distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

          2. It’s not a strawman if you don’t define your statement well enough for the interpretation to be reasonable.

            While I agree that law should protect individual rights, I can’t jump to: any law that in my personal opinion doesn’t protect individual rights, is therefore illegitimate.

            One, I’m not so self assured to be able to define for everyone else what law is or isn’t legitimate. Two, those laws were mostly put in place by legitimate means, by representatives elected by the people.

            So while I likely agree with your sentiment on immigration, I can’t just dismiss others opinions without good reason.

            Whether you approve or not (cause that’s really what your argument comes down to), there is a legitimate distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

          3. Aren’t you Canadian? Then, why do you care about American immigration issues?

          4. If it isn’t about protecting individual rights-and the vast majority of it isn’t-then it’s illegitimate.

            I’m not sure that even the most minimal immigration restrictions pass this test.

            Whose individual rights are violated when somebody sick, convicted of a crime by a foreign government, or tagged as a terrorist risk comes into the country?

      4. That being at the very least, the politeness of knocking and asking permission before entering.

  20. It is a strange and topsy-turvy world we live in when the only candidate that anybody dedicated to reason and logic and critical thinking can envision voting for is the iconic tower of 1980’s greed!
    CONSIDER:
    The China tariff — preposterous! — until you realize that it forces all those American companies who subcontract all their manufacturing back home — and with a tax rate that makes a move back absolutely impossible to make a business case against! And then to actually take steps to make China be held to account for ITS contribution to Climate Change (yes, that is part of Trump’s plan).
    The temporary banning of Muslims — preposterous! — until you realize that it will force the long overdue national conversation on Islam and the true nature of it and its history and what exactly its texts say about dominating the world. You really CAN win the “war on terror” by reading their playbook(s). I have.
    The deporting of ten million illegals and building a wall and making Mexico pay for it — preposterous! — until you do some simple math and realize that even if $5,000 was allocated to deporting each one, the plan would pay for itself in a year — health care, policing, lost income tax, and incarceration et al — not to mention the billions shipped out of America, never to be seen again.
    Any thinking person not married to a political ideology HAS to vote for Trump if they place their own future and that of their children first. Learn to laugh along with him. I have.

    1. The China tariff — preposterous! — until you realize that it forces all those American companies who subcontract all their manufacturing back home — and with a tax rate that makes a move back absolutely impossible to make a business case against! And then to actually take steps to make China be held to account for ITS contribution to Climate Change (yes, that is part of Trump’s plan).

      So, what you’re saying is that both you and Trump are against free-market capitalism; that was precisely my point above. I’m not sure what your point about holding China accountable to a myth is, though.

      1. Allowing China to tax our goods coming into their country while not retaliating and taxing their goods coming into our country = “free market” capitalism? I think not. I think that’s telling the world you’re a sucker and a punching bag.

  21. I don’t have the link but Zogby has Clinton well over Sanders.

    1. This is the latest I have seen:

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..-3824.html

      Hillary has a 13 point lead now (following a little bounce), which is half of her lead from December.

  22. Trump hasn’t stolen the “conservative’s” issues. They had already tossed them in the garbage, where they are free for the taking.

  23. Naturally, the media’s casting of the rather tame conservatism of NR and mainstream conservatism into the outer courts of Stormfront-style racism’s level of respectability has absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s popularity — no sir. I take it Nick’s never heard the phrase “living down to type” before. I take it that he’s also unaware that, as far as the rest of the opinion-makers and respectable society are concerned, libertarianism is even more deserving of sharing space in the racist cesspit than mainstream conservatism.

    Were I Nick, I would be far less interested in getting on David Brooks’ good side and far more interested in making sure he’s not the last to be eaten by the crocodile.

    1. (By the way, NR can consider for itself how well its role as propaganda arm for GWB and other big government conservatives services it, now that its influence among conservatives is at an all-time low.)

      1. You do know there are a veritable plethora of columnists at NR – just like Reason? Would you say Sheldon Richmond speaks for all of Reason?

        What I can’t get over is why “SOME” libertarians swear the libertarian moment is upon us and yet DRAG OUT the past 16 years to prove just how small minded and petty they are.

    2. You forgot to mention cocktails.

      “Naturally, the media’s casting of the rather tame conservatism of NR and mainstream conservatism into the outer courts of Stormfront-style racism’s level of respectability has absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s popularity — no sir. ”
      Maybe. I’m going to stick with the more powerful explanation that a lot of ‘conservatives’ are racist imbeciles.

      And NR deserves some of that casting. They ran Derbyshire and some other creeps for a long time. Conservatives are their own worst enemies.

      1. the more powerful explanation that a lot of ‘conservatives’ are racist imbeciles

        Why, you little SJW, you.

        1. The truth is the truth.

          And if you thought the SJW types are bad now wait until GOP voters go out of their way to seemingly vindicate so much of what they are saying by nominating Trump.

          1. The truth is the truth.

            Just what an SJW would say. 😉

      2. …right, and along comes CytoToxic to confirm my point.

        You didn’t have to do that — thanks.

      3. Jeez, Canuck – no one gives a royal fuck what you have to say.

        1. Nobody cares what Cytonumnutz has to say on Canadian comment threads, either.
          He’s an asshole in at least two countries.

      4. Most of us are our own worst enemies.

        The best case for libertarianism is not that smart, self-actualized beings should rule themselves but that idiots should be constrained in their ability to use state power to wreak havoc.

  24. I heard a theory today that the reason that some in the establishment were backing Trump right now was to defeat Cruz. Then wait till the South Carolina and Florida Primaries when most of the establishment candidates have dropped out by then (Christie, JEB!, and Kasich) and throw all their backing backing behind Rubio. They’re assuming that Cruz stays in long enough to be an impediment to Trump consolidating conservative support in the later states. Meanwhile Rubio being the only one left in the establishment lane will win enough of the later big primary states to either defeat Trump or make it close enough that he can win at the Convention.

    1. I would believe that. It’s pretty well known that everyone in the Senate hates Cruz. Probably because he’s a smarmy dickbag.

      1. I doubt being a smarmy dickbag makes you stand out from the herd in the Senate. Gotta be something else.

        1. I’m not a fan of Cruz, but from a libertarian perspective on spending, some civil liberty and foreign policy issues he’s not terrible. Which makes him awful in the eyes of the Republican Establishment.

          1. I feel the same way about Trump and Cruz. I take little comfort in what I’ve seen of them. But the hatred of the Republican establishment for them suggests there might be some good to be found.

    1. You forgot to change handles.

  25. Brian Doherty noted that the magazine’s philosophical pragmatism “led the magazine to a bizarre combination of success and impotence” that shines a light on its current pose.

    You know what other magazine’s philosophical pragmatism led to a bizarre combination of success and impotence?

    1. Hitler Quarterly?

  26. Yet more dishonest propagandizing by reason on immigration, refusing to distinguish between illegal and legal immigration.

    At least they are admitting the Trump is popular because of his views on immigration, and not in spite of them.

  27. Nick, Nick, Nick – obviously, you haven’t read Kevin D. Williamson or Charles Cooke. Cherry-pick much?

  28. And yet, David Boaz chose to join those big, bad conservatives at the NR . . . What a collaborator!

  29. “polls show persistent majorities of Americans favor either “current” or “increased levels” of immigration. Last year, for instance, Gallup found the 40 percent of respondents wanted immigration kept at current levels and 25 percent wanted it to be increased, while just 34 percent wanted to see it reduced.”

    “Just 34?” 34 is more than 25.

    By your own numbers the majority of Americans favor either current or decreased immigration. Not increased. Decreased. Is this an honest mistake or are you trying to tell people what they want? Pretty lame from a publications called “reason.”

  30. Wait for it – Nick Gillespie is endorsing Bernie Sanders for President. We all know there’s a bromance. And we all know Nick is more sympatico with Bernie than he is with Charles Cooke.

    Reason has gone over to the dark side.

  31. You missed the discussion on the corner as to which of them are willing to vote for Trump and which are not.

    1. You mean, like Kevin Williamson who said he’d rather have testicular cancer than a President Trump? That corner?

      1. Nobody takes down Trump better than Kevin. From “witless ape” to “Herr Applestrudelfuhrer”, he gets the Trumpkins panties in a bunch every time. The rest of the staff and others joining in on the fun was counterproductive however. Nobody dogs in like a Trumpkin when dear leader is insulted. Only Trump is allowed to dispense insults.

  32. I suppose I’m insulted and feeling betrayed, Nick. You and Matt promise that any minute now, the Libertarian Moment is upon us.

    And yet, when with the new NR writers who are unabashedly libertarian (Kevin Williamson and Katherine Timpf) and libertarian-leaning (Charles Cooke), you fail to acknowledge that libertarian philosophy is making inroads – even into the hallowed halls of the National Review!

    You bring up the past Like 20 years ago. To get on your moral high horse and gloat – hey, National Review – you created this Trump monster! Because of 2006.

    Really, Nick – I’m disappointed.

    1. Nick Gil*LIES*pie. I see this all the time in other publications but from “reason?” Terrible. You should be ashamed, Nick.

      1. Maybe I should go through 30 years of Reason’s articles and find something to flog Nick with. I do believe there was a racist cover from Ayn Rand that took 29 years of hiding by the Reason “archives”. Some liberal pain-in-the-butt dragged it out last year, finally forcing Matt to acknowledge his publications past sins.

        More of the story to Nick – before you start throwing stones, you’d better be sinless yourself.

        1. There was that time some prog pointed out that Reason once published a holocaust denier a while back. Nick Gillespie acknowledged it and called the denier terrible but overlooked that Reason actually published an obituary for the guy that glossed over his holocaust denial.

          1. As long as the holocaust denier was a libertarian and not a conservative, I guess it’s kosher.

          2. https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..locaust-de

            https://reason.com/blog/2004/04…..martin-rip
            Written by Brian Doherty, natch.

          3. Video Game Nation and Jared Polis (D). So enlightened, so rich, so young. Gay guy, married, has son. Nick and Matt were drooling over their new recruit to team L.

            And then – BAM!!! Polis turned out to be just another fascist Democrat, supporting spectral evidence in order to make college campuses “rape free zones”.

            When questioned by Robby Soave, Polis didn’t back off – he double downed! “If my son is wrongfully accused, I would recommend he take courses online”, says the “libertarian” Polis.

            Nick – you think you’re the only one who has a memory like an Elephant? You want me to bring up all the crap you supported as proof that the libertarian era is upon us (like Polis) only to have that libertarian era example be nothing more than a fantasy?

      2. Nick is moving on to Salon. There can be no other explanation for such a biased column.

        He seems to have selective amnesia for the NR columnists who defended Reason during the in the “woodchipper” incident.

        Pity.

        1. In reference to the “woodchipper” incident, I’m often baffled that libertarians and conservatives don’t find common ground on the issue of limited government. I understand that libertarians find social conservatives overbearing and that conservatives are for limited government except when it comes to military intervention, but as the left brazenly attempts to limit speech as in “woodchippergate”, gun rights and other fundamental civil liberties, can’t we just agree to disagree on abortion and SSM? Of course, immigration policy is the *wedge issue* of 2016 and appears to be turning conservatives and libertarians against each other, never mind the left. Alas, Trump vs. Sanders will clear the air in November…

          1. You haven’t read NR lately, dude. Pity. Jonah Goldberg brought up that point.

  33. Trump’s appeal is not the ends (reduce immigration, disband ISIS, discredit PC), but the means: “ship ’em home”, “bomb their families”, “she’s such a pig”, “shoot someone on fifth avenue”. His followers are not interested in more moderate approaches – “Half measures availed us nothing”. They love him for his methods – he’s a strong man. And NR’s criticism will only confirm that view. If you are trying to understand why these polls are so volatile, it’s because the public is just sticking it to the know-it-alls. In fact it would be more effective if NR had praised Trump for his conservative values. Then people wouldn’t take such pleasure in backing him. So I wouldn’t say that NR created the monster, but they are in a good position to endorse him when the time comes.

    1. Why would they endorse him? They don’t endorse. They didn’t endorse Romney in 2012 and they didn’t endorse McCain in 2008.

      1. Burnham’s rule – because he’s electable – unlike Romney and McCain.

  34. things have consistently gone libertarian rather than conservative.

    Citation needed.

    1. I skimmed over that comment on the first pass, but now that you bring it up again…

      It always weirds me out when libertarians/Libertarians try to claim *anything* in regards to liberal victories on these issues. The end result may have aligned with libertarians/Libertarians, but that’s incidental. Those were all liberal wins.

  35. Conservatives pride themselves that they do not have a systematic and dogmatic vision of governance or politics that demands complete agreement on all issues (though that never stops them from insisting on pro-life candidates). No, leave that sort of crazy thinking to the progressives and the libertarians, still trapped in the constructivist, utopian thinking of the French Revolution. Rather, conservatives compliment themselves on living in the real world, which is but a crude approximation of Eden before the Fall.

    Incredibly disingenuous coming from Gillespie who claims that libertarians aren’t dogmatists, is willing to be pragmatic on issues like the welfare state and claims that the Libertarian Moment is upon us.

    1. It is, without doubt, the most dishonest column Nick has ever written.

      Don’t come begging for money from me during the next Webathon, Nick. I’m sending it to NR. In fact, I’m sending them twice the amount, just to rub it in.

      I have a long memory, Nick. Your calls won’t be answered and your pitiful “please, send us $” pleas will be ignored.

  36. Well, maybe someday, Nick will be replaced by Kevin D, Williamson and Charles Cooke and we’ll really have the Conservatarian fusion I’ve heard so much about.

    They’re better writers than Nick is anyway.

    1. I would love to see Williamson at Reason. May I beseech the Koch brothers oligarchy to make that happen?

      1. Me too, me too!

  37. Well, he confirms your bias as to what constitutes a “conservative”, which is your problem, not The Donald’s.

  38. Nick, have a little sense of humor. I have subscribed to NR and Reason (and I am a Reason contributor) for a long time. One finds wisdom in many places, one doesn’t have to agree with it all. I feel like we are the French in the French Revolution. Devolving into these little cliques and arguing with our friends, while our real enemies (Bernie Sanders is a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination) are about to overwhelm us.

    1. Yep. It’s another circular firing squad, a favorite conservative strategy. I refuse to belong to any political party that would have me as a member.

    2. I’m with flash. I take both Reason and NR on dead tree. NR has a broad range of writers, from paleo-cons to more-or-less libertarian, so there’s not a single voice, but there’s a lot agreement with Reason and NR on economic and rule-of-law issues.

      Most of the NR anti-Trump pieces are consistent with many of the libertarian objections to him — objections to his strong-man, cronyist, above-the-law ways. It’s weird how Gillespie seems more concerned with dumping on NR for its history than on dealing with the content of its anti-trumpery. That content is actually pretty Reason-friendly.

      Regardless of what they might prefer as a matter of mood affiliation, Reason’s writers will always have a reasonable amount of overlap with the opinions expressed on NR’s pages. There’s a lot more to work with there than with the always-statist approach the left now has.

      1. NR hasn’t been punished sufficiently for its past sins, according to Father Gillespie. Therefore, they have no moral leg to stand on in daring to criticize Trump today.

        If I were paranoid, I’d say Gillespie is a double agent and working for Trump.

  39. On a conservative/liberal axis, it’s hard to pin Trump. He’s certainly an authoritarian (not surprising for someone that’s spent most of their life in business), and has recently discovered a nativist streak, but those allign directly on the liberal/conservative scale.

    So I’m not sure Trump would be the most “conservative” candidate, unless you’re strictly talking “social” conservative. If you mean the term more broadly, then I think Clinton might be the most “conservative” candidate between the two of them.

    1. d’oh.

      “those *don’t* align directly on the liberal/conservative scale”

    2. He is a small fingered vulgarian.

  40. Recall that just four years ago, it endorsed Mitt Romney

    No, they didn’t. They endorsed Romney over McCain in the Republican primary in 2008, but made no endorsement in 2012 (though several of their contributors were big Romney fans.)

    The reaction here seems kind of similar to the reaction by others about Reason‘s article about Ron Paul’s newsletters, as everyone was quick to explain that libertarianism was somehow giving cover to racism. It’s certainly true that Rand’s polling is due at least in part to a lot of Ron Paul’s support being the same sort who would support Trump (just look at Dondero, Raimondo, or how the Internet crazies have moved on from Ron Paul to Trump and Bernie.) How much blame by association to give to that as always depends on where you’re standing.

    1. You will find all over the Internet liberals (and some conservatives) explaining that libertarians are all actually secret racists, that the only reason to oppose government intervention is that you hate the poor, and that therefore it was hypocritical of Reason to attack Ron Paul’s newsletters when the magazine had only set the stage for it. At the same time you found “paleolibertarians” attacking the “cosmotarians” here– much like is happening to National Review.

      1. I’m sure there are many racists who find libertarianism appealing, for the simple reason that libertarianism doesn’t want government interference in people’s political or cultural views.

        Of course, progressives have a much bigger problem with racists in their midst: progressivism is a movement that promotes racism and had historically been responsible for everything from Jim Crow to forced sterilization, all in the name of science and progress.

  41. I pity anyone who isn’t willing to make america great again.

  42. “Certainly from a libertarian perspective (a perspective which has been mostly attacked and dismissed in the pages of National Review for virtually all its run) . . .” Nick Gillespie, this is why I call bullshit on you. This is an absolute lie. Have you not read Kevin Williamson or Charles Cooke?

    What is your fucking problem? You don’t read? Stuck in your own partisan bubble?

    Whatever your gripes are in your NR critique (immigration), libertarians have disagreements about it themselves. Do you not even read your own magazine?

    I’m sorry I contributed to the 2015 Reason webathon. I won’t make that mistake in 2016.

  43. The response of so many social conservatives has been timid and uncertain. – David A. French

    I thought we were all on board that Caitlyn Jenner is an amazing, beautiful woman who had the exquisite bravery of a beautiful butterfly, flying against the wind. And THIS shit flies out of people’s mouths! – Nick Gillespie

  44. The word “conservative” has taken on so many meanings it is meaningless now.

    What would be the best terms to describe Trump with precision?

    For instance, there’s his “us-against-them” talk pitting people who have been in the US longer against people who have recently arrived (or would like to arrive soon). Is the best term “nativist?” I’m not sure, since the true natives were the first that migrated here, whatever race they may have been.

    I don’t think “conservative” describes this position. You can easily find recent Vietnamese or Cuban immigrants that describe themselves as conservative–they would hate themselves for having arrived recently.

    I don’t think “nationalist” is the right term either, since the “angry silent majority” Trump claims to represent seems to be more interested in helping their own tribes (be it economic tribes, religious tribes, racial tribes, class tribes, etc.) than unifying the nation. (The term “nationalist” was somewhat distorted by Nazism’s racism– “According to him [George Orwell], nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life.

    http://www.differencebetween.n…..z3yKCHKSNR )

    We’ll probably all have to become much more precise in describing liberal and conservative thought soon. Even the term “leftist” is losing meaning as the French Revolution keeps fading into the past.

  45. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  46. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  47. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  48. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  49. You go, Nick–you’re READY, you’re really berning up.

  50. This is a disappointingly shallow analysis Nick. Trump does embellish certain conservative causes, but most mainstream conservative intellectuals have never argued for a massive deportation or advocated for that killing civilian wives of terrorists.

    The resident trolls here insist that libertarians are essentially anarchists. They apparently hate ANY regulation by philosophy, and oppose paying taxes for police, education, and roads, etc. So when some militia “anti government” nut jobs make headlines for any reason, they might snidely declare them to be “libertarians” or “right wingers”. Hardly fair, is it?

    NRO is no more “hostile” to immigration than Reason is “hostile” to the lives of senior citizens and children for opposing Obamacare. I read NRO as much as I read this site and it’s a virtual certainty that 90% of the commenters here would agree with their central position – national sovereignty, preventing welfare fraud by illegals, reserving college spots an jobs for legal citizens, etc.

    There’s a logical fallacy for exaggerating someone’s position to associate it with a certain cause. The term eludes me.

  51. mainstream republicans have been in favor of increasing immigration since the 80s

    the 1986 amnesty bill was one obvious example….followed by the 1990 immigration bill which started the green card lottery and H1b visa program thanks to George H Bush. The National review purged the anti immigrant crowd in the 90s and they have been pro-immigration ever since. This article was not honest. If Trump has copied anyone it was the Perot campaign which was anti NAFTA

  52. America’s “exceptionalism” is the unavoidable issuance of its abused and neglected constitutional strictures.
    It is still the elevated standard of the world, and crappy as its current state may be, so is our resulting practice.

  53. “Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot”

    When you put it like that, I’m actually warming up to the guy. American conservatives are as statist and anti liberty as progressives. Anything that tramples their work can’t be all bad.

  54. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  55. The author chides
    “American exceptionalism” (a term more often invoked than defined with any precision)”

    then goes on to use the term “immigration” without preceding it with the crucial clarifier “illegal” vs. “legal”. So much for precision.

    Sloppy terminology like this leads to sloppy thinking, and an utterly incoherent national debate stemming from false statements like:

    “Let’s be clear: To the extent that Trump is widely and accurately understood to be openly hostile
    to immigration and immigrants… at odds with most of the country”

    Once CORRECTLY quote Trump by putting the qualifier “illegal” in front of the words “immigration” and “immigrants”, the entire point the author is making there is exposed as wrong–since “most of the country” is actually AGAINST ILLEGAL immigration.

    For the sake of national coherence on this topic, let’s make it illegal to use the term “immigration” without the qualifier “legal” or “illegal” in front of it.

    In a similar vein, “Amnesty” only refers to forgiveness that is given for free–without paying a price: When a criminal pays his debt to society and is released, we say he has paid his debt to society–we don’t call his release “amnesty”. So if illegal immigrants are required to exit and re-enter AND say do a year of national service of some kind as part of the deal, that cannot be called “amnesty”.

    1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ??????? http://www.netjoin10.com

    2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ??????? http://www.netjoin10.com

  56. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ??????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.