Do you have fifteen minutes? Listen to this recent interview: This is what it takes to make me speak up for Mr. Jonah Goldberg, until recently a star in the intellectual firmament of recent American conservatism. He lays out his case against talk-radio-at-its-best for its connivance in the rise of Mr. Trump. Mr. Bennett, I believe, makes a fool of himself. Mr. Goldberg is all of respect & consideration–do not judge him by my tone, of course–but he points out what I think is true of all supposedly principled anti-anti-Trump speakers.
They are all trying to have it both ways: Be committed conservatives & support–but only at arm’s length, only polemically, apparently–the man who is proving that conservatism does not matter. As I never tire of saying, the GOP has advanced from losing presidential elections to losing its own nomination. That’s an innovation in political science, I bet! Mr. Goldberg points out that one cannot say anything in favor of private character–the social conservative argument–& be for Mr. Trump, who is promising to turn into festivity what Mr. Clinton felt the need to lie, conceal, deceive about, &c.
One does not get to complain about the GOP establishment & then support Mr. Trump. It’s one thing to say the party is both a failure & rather immoral. It’s another to work effectively to replace it with something that threatens to be worse every time that mouth opens, while never having offered any evidence worth considering.
Mr. Bennett offered a slander of Reagan in defense of Mr. Trump: He was the most ignorant president ever. It’s politics, baby! Then he explains, well, people said it of him, his enemies did, Mrs. Noonan did… Of course, he opens with a nice story & words in praise of Nancy Reagan. This seems entirely decorous to him, apparently. The implication, of course is: Mr. Goldberg is to Mr. Trump what the hostile liberal press was to Reagan. The deceptions wrapped up there are not worth unwrapping, for they are not the result of a master thinker enclosing puzzles in the number of words in a sonnet. They are the excuses of a man who will not talk turkey. What is prinicple, what is character, & what do they require of a man who has a self-sought claim on the attention of millions? It turns out, the answer, beyond equivocations, is to say, I’m a process man: If he wins the delegates, let him have the nomination. The last principle available to this kind of political man is: Anything is better than Mrs. Clinton!
The interview is brief & devastating. Mr. Goldberg is about all I can tolerate of latter-day earnestness, but I suppose most will not feel their patience tried like I did–we can all agree, however, that it is not possible to claim both conservatism as a way of thinking about America or politics or human beings & support Mr. Trump. I am grateful to the man for making it obvious that people like Mr. Bennett are really saying: We have no duty nor can find no principle to move us to stop Mr. Trump.
Of course, Mr. Bennett moved from saying: If he has the delegates, he’s my man!–to saying, if it’s 46%, sure, I’m still with him. & Mr. Goldberg in his earnestness did not think to ask: How about 45%? How about 40%?
Mr. Bennett had the argumentative man’s chance to show more dishonesty when Mr. Goldberg brought up Eisenhower. I do not say all his dishonesty should be held against him. The man has a job to do & his audience are the judges of his satisfying their needs & wants. I suppose all men who speak publicly at length must involve themselves in more than a little dishonesty. But conservatism is being betrayed in small ways & large in these days by the kind of support Mr. Trump has received, even in the form of the many deceptions & sophistries required to cover for him. Mr. Bennett confessed he cannot know whether Mr. Trump is not possibly Eisenhower–one presumes–revivified. That was the epitome of his defense. He was saved by the missus, a gallant lady if ever there was one, to show up in the nick of time.
There is a way to defend the Trump electorate, but not Mr. Trump. There is a way to defend some lack of pugnacity on the part of talk radio–notoriously, a gentle school of manners & consideration–but only if they’d be spending their every waking moment trying to persuade the party to deal with this electorate & the electorate to deal with the party. They would have to take risks & even be a little heroic. They would have to do better than others have done in persuading Americans of the friendship they can have as part of the GOP coalition. Mr. Bennett mounts instead a weak defense of himself when he is indefensible. That is no sign that he will do better.
