The Rise of the Republican Echo-System

Obsession with purity caused GOP dysfunction well before Donald Trump came along.

By
372
From left to right: Reps. Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, and John Boehner at the U.S. Capitol on August 1, 2011. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Dear Reader (excluding any of you who make jewelry out of giraffe poop), 

If you don’t mind—or even if you do—I’m going to take a (sadly momentary) break from arguing with people who think it’s cool to celebrate the murder of Jews. 

I have a piece in the new monthly issue of National Review. It’s fun to be back in its pages, if only as a guest. And it’s an honor to be in the first issue of this new chapter for the magazine. Maybe that’s why I’m in a nostalgic mood. It calls to mind a question: What is the conservative intellectual movement for? 

The question is deliberately equivocal, in part because there are two questions that need to be answered. The movement is not an inanimate tool like a hammer or gun. It has no intentionality, no agency. It’s an ill-defined, fractious, group of human beings. But it is, practically speaking, a tool all the same. So when I ask “what is the conservative intellectual movement for?” I am asking two things: What do the people in it want? And what is its purpose? 

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
372
By
Comments (372)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    This publication needs a like button.

    👍

    That will have to do.

    Collapse
  2. BDM

    I guess I should take a share of the blame for the GOP's "obsession with purity." As a young Republican campaign worker and College Republican operative in the late 80s and early 90s, I more than once repeated the line, "The only thing to be found in the middle of the road is long yellow streaks and dead skunks."

    As for McCarthy and McConnell having a working majority if Trumpism hadn't deformed Republican politics, perhaps not McCarthy. Had it not been for the rise of Trumpism, Paul Ryan may have not (figuratively - and probably literally) thrown up his hands in disgust and rather have decided to stick around for a few more years. And even if Ryan no longer were in the House, in a non-Trump world the GOP probably could have found a better Speaker than the ass-kissing McCarthy.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Xsearnold

    What is the "new chapter" Jonah alludes to re National Review?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      It’s launching a new monthly magazine. Basically a slightly new format with more content. More frequent opportunities for print publication.

      Collapse
  4. Dougrhon

    The entire structure of the American Constitutional system was built on the idea that "politics is the art of the possible." The framers, though not anticipating our two party system, deliberately created a system in which one majority faction would be unable to push it's will without compromise. Both parties seem to operate now as if this isn't the case, as if all they should need to do is summon their own members and do whatever they want despite the close division of the major parties. This is a recipe for total dysfunction. In parliamentary systems like Britain or Israel, the inability to maintain a majority in the parliament immediately leads to the dissolution of the government and new elections. The threat of this often (though not always) holds the majority together. In our system this is not possible as Congressional and presidential elections are held at regular intervals with no alternative. So without the willingness to compromise, we get dysfunction. Our current media environment rewards the dysfunction. The nation suffers. How do we get off the merry go round? I don't know.

    Collapse
  5. Mikedialj

    I always thought that what Conservatives were supposed to be conserving was Liberty. I learned a long time ago that "Conservatives" think that they're supposed to be conserving some idealized vision of a past that never existed. Their ideal of course gives them license to do all kinds of illiberal things.

    Collapse
    1. Randall Briggs

      One could flip that and oversimplify what Progressives believe. "They believe in some idealized vision of a future that requires changing human nature, giving them license to do all kinds of illiberal things."

      Collapse
      1. BDM

        Not only does changing human nature give those who want to engage in that project "license to do all kinds of illiberal things," it gives them, in their view, license to do all sorts of inhuman things. And so many of them have proven themselves willing to use that license.

        Collapse
  6. Randall Briggs

    I read Jonah's piece in National Review. It's a good recapitulation of points he has made on The Dispatch. I see some familiar names there at NR. But I think that, except for Jay Nordlinger, most of them are writers who went from "not Trump" to "calling balls and strikes" to "anti-anti-Trump," under the cloak of "Nationalism." I'm not sure that even now they have worked themselves up to call out Trump--and his enablers--as threats to the future of our system of government.

    I canceled my subscription to NR long ago, so I don't know what side--making excuses for Trump or saving constitutional government--folks like Rich Lowry and Dan McGlaughlin are on these days.

    Collapse
    1. John Boland

      Bringing on Noah Rothman was a positive sign that NR hasn't completely abandoned its "Against Trump" line. Also, it should be noted that Charlie Cooke remains staunchly anti-Trump and from what I can tell, still exerts considerable influence on NR's editorial line even though I don't think he's still an editor. Nevertheless, while I still read NR's free stuff (what little is left), Jonah and Steve have clearly built a superior outlet over here. It might have been Kevin Williamson's switch that prompted my own. Seeing Drucker in the bylines here sealed the deal.

      Collapse
      1. Randall Briggs

        Yes, The Dispatch is indeed a superior outlet.

        Collapse
    2. JFradin

      You're thoroughly wrong about the stance of NR. Maybe you should spend a few minutes more reading before you make inaccurate comments. For example, the foremost defender of Trump, Victor Hanson, departed about a year or so ago.

      Collapse
      1. Coyneric

        Glad that VDH is with NR anymore, he's insufferably pretentious and long ago exposed how dramatically his bottomless, psychotic hatred of liberals warped his worldview, and from how he absolutely cannot utter a single critical word about Trump. He also might be the most overwhelming example of a conservative journalist who lost their mind from Obama Derangement Syndrome. Is there any conservative journalist who churned out as many laughable hit pieces about Obama as VDH did? He was still writing one at least once a week halfway into Trump's first term.

        Collapse
        1. JFradin

          Goodness me..."bottomless"..."psychotic hatred"..."lost their mind". I thought part of the thrust of The Dispatch (and its readers, presumably) was to try to curb hyperbole and avoid disparaging all those with whom we disagree. While I think Hanson is very wrong on Trump, he's a very bright fellow and writes well. I don't find him even a little pretentious, much less "insufferably".

          Collapse
          1. Coyneric

            I'll give him kudos for his talents as a writer and command of history. But his frequent analogies and allusions to events or people from Antiquity (pols, generals, poets, etc), come across as pretentious, and assumes the reader knows who/what he's talking about. Or predictable it became for him to start an essay with a grandiloquent retelling of a war or political battle from Antiquity, and then launch into the inevitable tie-in it has with something to the effect of 'how the modern day liberals and Obama are ruining America'. It became such a consistent pattern in his essays in the late '00s and through when I stopped even bothering to read them (two years ago-ish), it was getting laughable. (Okay, I'll concede, not "psychotic", but certainly 'obsessive'.). I don't know his oeuvre, but I don't recall reading anything of his that didn't have that foregone "the liberals and Obama are ruining America" conclusion. Maybe he didn't 'lose his mind', but anyone with that visceral of a hatred and resentment towards 'the other side', and can't bring themselves to utter a single positive word about 'them' isn't exactly balanced or trustworthy, no matter he's a nice farmer with a great command of history and flare for writing.

            Collapse
          2. Mmorrissey001

            Agreed. I've read a couple of his histories and really liked them. Plus, he's a farmer. I thought "Fields and no dreams" was a pretty good personal history. But I've avoided his political stuff for a couple of years. Sort of like John Nolte. I like his movie reviews, but won't go near his political stuff.

            Collapse
      2. Randall Briggs

        My final comment was this: "I don't know what side--making excuses for Trump or saving constitutional government--folks like Rich Lowry and Dan McGlaughlin are on these days." I'm glad to hear that NR's slant has switched yet again--this time in the right direction.

        I'm especially glad to hear that VDH has departed. In the pre-Trump era, I used his Carnage and Culture in the summer assignment I gave to my incoming AP U.S. History students.

        Collapse
      3. Mmorrissey001

        I agree. I can't think of anything pro Trump from NR in quite some time. McCarthy takes flack as pro Trump but I think he is just trying to give a fair assessment of the legal issues. It occurs to me that if I was a prosecutor trying to convict the Donald I would be sure to read McCarthy to look for possible weak points.

        Collapse
        1. BDM

          Michael Brendon Daugherty is probably the most pro-Trump guy left at NR and even he is usually more likely to be defending Trump supporters and their viewpoint than he is Trump himself. He's definitely sympathetic to isolationist and populist tendencies.

          Collapse
          1. Mmorrissey001

            MBD strikes me as a populist. But I so much like the way he writes about Ireland or his children that I enjoy his writing even when I disagree with him. His piece on attending his !local school board meeting to argue against mask mandates was excellent.

            Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        WKDawson

        I see. I noticed that I haven't seen anything from VDH for some time, though neither have I wanted to.

        The latest issue has some articles that seem worth reading. It kind of got weird a few months ago. I get that they are conservative, but I felt like the sky was going to get sucked into a vortex. Maybe it was just a bad visit and I was not in a good mood. Being more of a liberal, NR has at times served as a counterweight when NYT/WaPo goes into their own "The sky is falling!" mode.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      WKDawson

      I only glanced at that NR articles, but it did look a little better than it has for a long time. There are a few names I still recognize; MBD, Jay Nordlinger, Noah Rothman (from Commentary), etc. However, many of the better ones have fled to places like TD. I've been tempted to give up on NR altogether for some time now, but I'm torn about just giving up. For a while, it seemed like even MBD had lost his mind. It doesn't seem to be in much of the spirit of WFB anymore. I don't bother to comment anymore. It increasingly reads like monkeys throwing their pooh at the spectators.

      Jonah's article doesn't even come up on the front page of NR.

      (sarcasm)
      Maybe NR is an example of how evolution without the grace of God doesn't work. [As a Christian, I've long been a strong advocate for accepting evolution but maybe creationists should use NR to make a case that it doesn't work. Indeed, the extremes in the R and D parties. ] (/sarcasm)

      Anyway, I know what you mean.

      Collapse
      1. Mmorrissey001

        As of this morning a link to Jonah's article is the banner headline on the website.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          WKDawson

          OK, thanks. I thought that was very strange. ... but I have to look for Yuval Levin too.

          Collapse
      2. JFradin

        " It increasingly reads like monkeys throwing their pooh at the spectators." Your lovely metaphor gives your comments a vibrancy that couldn't be achieved by any other means, surely.

        Collapse
  7. AJLiberty

    As I watch the chaos in the House, I struggle to see what policy initiatives truly unify the GOP.

    Historically, the GOP was together on opposing communist expansion, favoring a less complicated and flatter tax system, being anti-abortion, a desire to reduce burdensome regulations, a preference for government action at the state and local level, fiscal responsibility, a sound dollar, justices who didn't legislate from the bench, a right of self defense, open trade, law and order, individual responsibility, a belief in a higher power, and confidence that free enterprise, hard work, strong families, and patriotism are the backbone of the country.

    Now, it seems that border security and being against big government solutions are what we have left...with a big mix of grievance-laden cultural anxiety. The GOP is somewhat incoherent because the leader of the party is somewhat (!) incoherent. There is no vision, just personality fascination and tribal BS. Right-wing media has sunk to the least common denominator. Voices that might lead are buried under the noise floor. Paul Ryan, Ben Sasse, Mitch Daniel, and Justin Amash should be prominent voices yet we're stuck with Trump, Gaetz, MTG, and formerly respected politicians made incoherent by obsequious fealty to Trump.

    It's hard for the GOP to be taken serious when the supposed law-and-order party can't honestly come to grips with Trump's abuses of power. It can't be the party of hard truths if it can't tell the truth about the 2020 election. We can't champion democracy if we can't confidently oppose Russian adventurism. We can't solve people's problems if we're caught up in conspiracy theories, bad science, and hyperbolic memes about our opponents.

    I've been outspoken about the problems that the media and social media have created. We need better voices of reason who actually sound conservative....not like carnival huckters trying to please grifter inc. Conservatives must focus on good ideas and realistic assessments. At some point Trumpism will crumble like a big Twinkee mound....and an alternative conservative agenda must be ready to go.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    I could be wrong, but I think you folks are using centri𝘧𝘶𝘨al when you mean centri𝘱𝘦𝘵al. Maybe not always, but a bunch.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      WKDawson

      Jonah isn't a physicist, but that does make a difference for sure. I guess I read the technical usage of this stuff the way I listen to Star Trek.

      Collapse
    2. Randall Briggs

      Well, centrifugal force is the force that pushes objects orbiting about a central object away from the center, while centripetal force pulls those orbiting objects toward the central object. In the case of the Moon orbiting the Earth, the Moon's speed is the centrifugal force and the Earth's gravity is the centripetal force.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Michael Berkowitz

        Yes, and I'm saying that centrifugal is often used when the metaphor is for something pulling towards the center.

        Collapse
        1. Randall Briggs

          OK. I wasn't sure. I can't say I've noticed that misuse on TD, but sometimes I don't read carefully enough.

          Collapse
  9. Mirabelle

    It's really too bad there's no political party for conservatism. It sounds very lofty.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      Okay, this one was actually well done. Touché.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Ray Salemi

    I suggest that if conservatives don’t want to be considered advocates for stasis, they should stop going on about standing athwart history, shouting “stop.”

    Also, they should try promoting solutions to problems rather than going on about how the problem doesn’t exist. For example, there are excellent free-market responses to human-driven climate change, but denying that humans are driving climate change doesn't promote any of them.

    Climate change denial is a fingers-in-the-ears stasis-conservative response to climate change that has not only defeated our chances of getting ahead of the problem but has also taught a generation of conservatives that it is appropriate to lie about obvious truths when conservatives want to stop change.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      I don’t stand athwart history yelling ”Stop!” I stand athwart history yelling “Gosh, fellas, this doesn’t seem like such a great idea to me. Does it seem like a great idea to you? Could we maybe slow down and think about it for a sec… nope, you’re just going to dive right in, huh? Well, hopefully it turns out better than the last ten times.”

      I can appreciate that doesn’t fit quite so well on a bumper sticker.

      Lots of conservatives are 100% on board with the concept of anthropogenic climate change, but I’d be a fool not to recognize that it is a shibboleth for a broad segment of the right. I’ve never quite understood how this happened, but I’m betting it’s just another “if libs are for it, then I’m agin’ it.”

      Of course, it probably didn’t help that a lot of famous folks jumped on the ACC bandwagon way back when the science was still far less settled and shouted down any questions. (Looking at you, Hollywood. Again.) And it doesn’t help that a lot of the strongest ACC activists are also anti-nuclear, which they wouldn’t be if they were actually serious about the end of the world being nigh. And it doesn’t help when politicians tack other priorities onto bills intended to address ACC, which again, makes it look like they don’t think ACC is quite the existential threat they claim.

      But yeah, anyone who is still denying ACC in 2023 is not doing so for scientific or even policy reasons. It’s just another tribal marker, and a very unfortunate one indeed. I wish my side would drop it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ray Salemi

        There is also my “Hmm…I don’t think that’s going to work.” brand of . . . what . . . centralism?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          DougCLE

          Works for me.

          Collapse
    2. Goatprairie

      "Climate change denial is a fingers-in-the-ears stasis-conservative response"

      Tell that to the Chinese and the Indians. They're far and away the leaders in carbon emissions. The U.S. has done more than just about anybody in the area.
      Not that it would do much good anyway.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ray Salemi

        I have no problem with that argument. It leads to next steps.

        I’m talking about 20 years of conservatives denying that the problem exists at all.

        Collapse
        1. Goatprairie

          The problem is probably not as great as the warmists would have us believe.

          Collapse
          1. Hikingguy

            Right. I have certainly enjoyed the recent phenomenon of huge wildfires across the West and smoky weeks instead of smoky days. That has nothing to do with climate, of course.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Ray Salemi

            Yes. It is probably worse.

            Collapse
    3. Mirabelle

      Conservatives understanding human nature seemed a bit of a stretch too. They are usually completely wrong about that stuff.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        No, human nature is one of the things we get right and progressives regularly get wrong. Probably because our beliefs are based on many thousands of years of actual human experience, rather than the oh-so-bright ideas of the present.

        1920s: “Gosh, if everybody gets the same stuff regardless of what job they do, don’t you think nobody will want to work?”

        1960s: “Gee, if you devalue marriage to promote ‘Free Love’ and no-stakes sex, then it just seems to me that there’s going to be a lot of fatherless children, and overall people are actually going to be less happy.”

        2020s: “So it kinda feels like - just hear me out - if you let men dressed as women compete in women’s sports, the women in those sports are going to be unhappy when they always lose.”

        That isn’t to say we can’t be wrong, but not generally about human nature.

        Collapse
        1. Randall Briggs

          Exactly. Conservatives believe that human nature is fixed, and that human institutions should account for that fact. Progressives believe that changing social institutions can change human nature. So far, the evidence that we can change human nature is slim.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Ray Salemi

        They are wrong about a lot of stuff. For example, they're now wrong about Democrats turning America into a wasteland, just as many of them were wrong about women being forced to wear burqas if Obama were elected.

        Collapse
        1. BDM

          "... just as many of them were wrong about women being forced to wear burqas if Obama were elected."

          That's a new one for me. I have literally never heard or read a conservative say that, even in jest. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but "many of them"? I think not.

          Collapse
          1. JFradin

            Come now, Mr. Salemi. Is it time to start looking up the definition of many? Several? A few? Of what value is it to find something outrageous said by a member of the opposing tribe and pump it up to make a general point? A cheap way to argue.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Ray Salemi

            "Many" doesn't need to be a majority. But yes. There were many.

            Collapse
        2. Goatprairie

          Yeah, tell us about the wonderful efforts of progressives who've turned many American cities into lawless, chaotic sewers.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Ray Salemi

            What’s that got to do with the topic? #whataboutism

            Collapse
Load More