Friday, May 27, 2016

- The NRO Trump Tantrum

Liberals see themselves as the eternal good guys fighting against the forces of injustice and hate. This is technically called ‘ego investment’. And it distorts their vision in just the right way so that when things change they lack the ability to see that they have actually become the forces of injustice and hate.

As examples, Liberals advocate for those with certain politically preferred identities to receive blatant preference in University admission (providing injustice to the more deserving taken exclusively on merit) or rage with anger and violence at those that disagree with them ( advancing the promotion of hate).

But Ego investment is not the exclusive domain of Liberals. Conservatives we have discovered, are capable of the same kind of investment in their political beliefs. And it makes it just as impossible for them to see when they’re making a mistake too.

I believe we’re seeing this ‘ego investment’ at National Review.

There are principled reasons to dislike Trump the candidate, and I agree with most of them. But I’ve read them all in the pages of NR along with many other unprincipled reasons as well. They HATE the man. They hate how he sounds. They hate the way he presents himself.

But judged in the single dimension terms that politicians are usually assessed, Trumps actual positions simply aren’t challenging enough to justify the rampant and deeply personal hostility I read there. They are not ideal perhaps, but they aren’t that far outside the lines. He’s not proposing camps and ovens, like the folks at NR seem to envision. He may not be within the acceptable bounds of the chattering classes, but as has been demonstrated by the voters, he's well within the bounds of most of the American public.

So what’s setting them off this way? Why have they become so shrill and so emotional? I believe they aren’t thinking rationally because they are emotionally invested in their idea of what a candidate should look and sound like, and Trump just ain’t it.

They are blue pill men, accustomed to blue pill communications. That is to say that as Feminism has redefined the way we communicate with one another and made it much more feminine, they have boiled along with the rest of the frogs. This is no sin mind you. The vast majority of American men have done the same. But Trump is changing that dynamic, and the shock to their system from that change seems very jarring to them.

Nothing brings this to light for me as much as this extremely thoughtful piece from John O’Sullivan. He’s in his 70’s, lives in eastern Europe, and can remember when this is how men sounded. To him, the Nationalism of the Alt-right doesn’t seem quite as out of place as it seems to for the rest of the much younger NRO crowd:

Another group of alleged invaders are so-called nationalists. It’s been a surprise to me to discover that nationalists are not conservatives in good standing, since they used to be the third leg of the conservative tripod, alongside social and economic conservatives. Some years ago when no one was looking, however, this tripod underwent a transplant, and national conservatives were quietly replaced by “defense conservatives.” That is an absurdly thin and tepid concept (unless you happen to be a defense contractor, in which case the concept becomes a fat and passionate one.) It probably reflects the nervousness of mainstream parties and moderate politicians about the full range of national conservative issues that include, as well as foreign policy and defense, crime, multiculturalism, Ferguson-like social disorder, and immigration. National conservatism has a domestic concern for the social fabric as well as an outward-looking one for the national interest. (Indeed, I once suggested “social-fabric conservatives” as an alternative to national conservatives.) But because it takes a critical or skeptical view of leftist positions on crime, multiculturalism, etc., it is likely to invite accusations of racism, xenophobia, and much else from the very same leftists. These accusations apparently paralyze thought. For very few conservative politicians have shown enough nous to reply that an accusation of white racism requires more evidence than that the person accused is white. Instead they remain more or less quiescent, avoiding controversy, in the face of mob violence to shut down political opponents and openly racist campaigns to delegitimize the police.

That does not sound like a man raging emotionally against Trump or Trump’s supporters. It doesn’t sound like a temper tantrum, or a refusal to play with the other children because they don’t like how the game is going. That sounds like a thoughtful man. A man. A man who isn’t threatened or challenged emotionally, and is ready to engage in worthy debate. If the Nationalists of the Alt-Right can’t make their case, then so be it. But unlike most at NRO with their focus on the worst of Trump's supporters, he strikes me as a man who is willing to listen.

We on the right need NR to be more engaged in this debate. But for them to do so persuasively, they need to quit acting like angry spoiled children, and quit thinking like women. They need to realize what specifically is driving their animosity, and face that with a clear eye like O'Sullivan is.

Back in the day, the older wiser members of the tribe were much admired for their perspective. I hope the kids at NR can do the same because O’Sullivan is pointing the way. There is a legitimate debate to be had here about policy. And it’s time for NR to stand up to the left’s idiotic accusations of racism and misogyny, and start engaging in it. We'd all be better off if they did.

4 comments:

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

The tantrums have also spread to people like P.J. O'Rouke.


From Reason.com:

"humorist P.J. O'Rourke—usually classified as either a conservative-leaning libertarian or a libertarian-leaning conservative—announced that he's voting for Hillary Clinton. Clinton, he declared, was "the second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she's way behind in second place, you know? She's wrong about absolutely everything. But she's wrong within normal parameters!"

I really don't get that last line. Being an (allegedly) incompetent, vengeful, coke-head, dyke-sociopath is within "normal parameters"? WTF does that even mean?

The old guard (including NRO) has gone full retard when it comes to Trump.

Tom said...

I'm a fan of "The Peej" but he's not changing anyone's mind in this election or writing anything that's going to make a candidate Trump reconsider a policy. The folks at NRO will, for better or worse.

When they ditched the Derb (maybe actually before that) it was the beginning of a long slow capitulation to the left on their cultural issues of choice. And I think it's about time they man up and quit running away to some kind of rhetorical 'safe space' where they get to disagree with liberals but don't have to hear the liberals complain about it. They need to get in their and be accused of being racists and misogynists just like the rest of us.

The last time I checked, the vast majority of them were white males after all. They can either fight on our side, or 'check their privilege' and fight on the left.

chess said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNkpIDBtC2c

The libtards think of Trump and think the country just needs to get a hold of itself.. If Trump wins I am going to create the same line for Rachael Maddow.

MikeCLT said...

I'm paraphrasing but there is an old line that goes "It's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding." That may be the issue with Conservatism Inc. The donors who finance these magazines and think tanks might reconsider the value of their investments if Trump wins.