Well said, Jonathan.
The other Jon wrote about Old Hickory Clinton, “What should we call her “Objectivist” advocates who have been so quiet for two years?”
I can’t remember any of “us guys” advocating cave bat Hillary. What? With her dung, her fascism, her scary demeanor, her screech, and horrible fangs, no objectivist could ever support her. Unless it was some hybrid “left libertarian animal groupies.” Get thee to an underground nunnery you ghoulish, foolish troglodyte wieners!
No . . . not even Tracinski could emotionally blunder down that bat hole during the nominating season in 2016. He didn’t even mention her in the following fearful article, though he does bring up Hill Billy Clinton.
Donald Trump Is the Man the Founders Warned Us Against by Robert Tracinski. Take the news that John Kasich is being funded by George Soros, a billionaire notorious for bankrolling far-left institutions, and combine that with the fact that it was Bill Clinton who encouraged Donald Trump to run for president, plus the way Trump has dominated the race with billions of dollars of free media donated by the press corps. It's looking like this is the year when the left--sensing that Republicans had a dangerously strong roster of candidates--decided they were going to take over the Republican nominating process. . . . . How did we make this possible? One of the lessons to be learned is about the perils of conservative populism. Over the past fifty years, the political right has invested heavily in a kind of anti-elitist populism. We see ourselves as representing the "silent majority" and the salt-of-the-earth regular folks out in the heartland, as opposed to those corrupt coastal elites in New York, Hollywood, and DC.
But now a lot of us are experiencing the whiplash of discovering that this sort of populism can be used against us--coupled with disappointment that the salt-of-the-earth heartland types, whom we counted on to be our allies, can sometimes be talked into voting on the basis of their fears and resentment instead of heeding the better angels of their nature. If part of the story is that the right's intellectuals became disconnected from the concerns of some of the blue-collar Reagan Democrat types who supported the Republican agenda in recent decades, the flipside is that some of the rank-and-file of the right has begun to ignore the basic ideas they supposedly stood for. They've stopped listening to the intellectuals, even when we're right, and they've suspended their powers of critical examination just as they are confronted with a politician who deserves more than the normal dose of skepticism.
Trumpism is a warning about what happens when you make a big show of being the party of the regular guy against the eggheads. We need the eggheads, too. The right needs to start depending a bit less on rabble-rousing populism and a bit more on the strength and influence of its thinkers and intellectual institutions. The left has a vast intellectual base in the universities and in generations of students indoctrinated in the universities. (Which does not prevent them from falling for a great deal of flim-flam and nonsense; more about that in a moment.) The right needs a similar base . . . . end quote
Oh come on Robert. The Founders would be cheering by now! Peter