Category Archives: Donald Trump

The Cult Of Megyn Kelly Crumbling Thanks To Trump

Donald Trump, Media, Neoconservatism, Republicans

Just as I thought Donald J. Trump was done taking a wrecking ball to establishment politics, The Donald goes and bifurcates Fox News Channel. CNN’s Don Lemon was the only one among his dumb-as-doornail guests to notice that Trump was destabilization the media organ that shapes Republican politics. Hooray.

My WND column, tomorrow, deconstructing the “Me Myself And I Megyn Kelly Production” (a longer version will be at Unz Review, Thursday night), takes a similar tack to the one taken by Salon writer Sophia Tesfaye, focusing on megalomaniac Megyn Kelly and her enablers as culprits:

… “the network is split between Kelly’s allies like Brit Hume and conservative anchors that are furious that Kelly — who graces the cover of Vanity Fair this month — has become the face of the network.” According to Sherman, one of Kelly’s fellow anchors took her to task for hosting liberal filmmaker Michael Moore as Trump announced his boycott on Tuesday evening. “That would be like Rachel Maddow laughing along with Charles Koch as he trashed Hillary Clinton!” the anchor told Sherman.

MSNBC’s resident Republican Joe Scarborough echoed the unnamed Fox anchor’s disbelief. “Fox are really twisted up at about how this has gone down and how Megyn Kelly, has somehow, with Michael Moore, taken over the network,” Scarborough said on “Morning Joe” Wednesday, applauding Trump’s boycott.

“I would rather set myself on fire in front of the Fox News studio than go on a debate stage with that,” Scarborugh continued, blasting Kelly’s past debate moderation.

Sherman goes on to report that “one producer speculated that Fox could go ‘National Review’ on Trump and start attacking him,” and according to some early responses, Fox seems to be doing just that.

Fox News analyst and outspoken Trump critic Brit Hume immediately lashed out at Trump’s temper tantrum against the network …

On “Fox & Friends” Wednesday morning, co-host Brian Kilmeade pleaded with the Republican National Committee (RNC) to broker a peace deal to bring Trump back to the Fox debate stage:

“This thing could still be saved. Since — there’s a relationship with everybody. You could get somebody to step in or, get this, the RNC could actually do their job and make sure the people of Iowa get a full debate stage and jump in on both sides and get Donald Trump on that stage. It could still be done.”

But others in conservative media are not so quick to seek a resolution, instead applauding Trump’s diss of the media giant. Breitbart has devoted the majority of its coverage Wednesday morning to the feud, with a heavy tilt in favor of the Donald. …

Except that my upcoming column looks at the principles of journalism Kelly flouts.

Missing The Megyn Kelly Production Doesn’t Hurt Trump One Bit

Donald Trump, Journalism, Media, Republicans

I don’t believe the higher-ups at the Fox News Channel are so stupid as to put Megyn Kelly in the moderator’s chair, after the ego-activism and showy exhibitionism of her first prime-time Republican debate, in Cleveland, Ohio. I suspect, Fox’s golden goose must have henpecked the Bosses at FNC for a chance to have at it again. Kelly’s central focus is to be center-stage again. The woman is self-obsessed.


Nevertheless, it’s bloody stupid of FNC to put a snarky Millennial in charge of composing a press release in response—a release that cemented Donald Trump’s decision to do something more useful and foil the Megyn Kelly extravaganza.

“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings …”

Come again?

Either way, the left is going to love Kelly even more for supposedly intimidating Trump. For Kelly to love herself more than she does is impossible, so no change on that front.

STILL, TRUMP SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR that it’s not Kelly’s turgid war-on-women, waste-of-time, sub-intelligent questions he fears. Rather, it’s the posturing and preening that goes with the Kelly Production that he would rather avoid.

National Review Stands Athwart Historic Conservatism Of Burke, Kirk

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Donald Trump, History, Neoconservatism

Most of the National Review recruits who’ve enlisted Against Trump are conservatives in name only, as Jack Kerwick’s learned allusion to conservatism’s founding philosophers concludes. NRO’s promotion of “‘American Exceptionalism,’ the radically ahistorical doctrine that America is not a historically and culturally-specific country but an ‘idea,’ an abstract ‘proposition,'” makes this lot unconservative.

One might say National Review stands athwart historic conservatism (to borrow from founder William F. Buckley’s famous mission statement to stand athwart history).

“National Review vs. Trump?” by Jack Kerwick (published, surprisingly, by TownHall.com):

… NR’s contributors are indeed correct that Trump is not any sort of conservative in the classical or traditional sense of the word. But neither are Trump’s “conservative” critics conservative in the classical or traditional sense of the word.

Undoubtedly, Trump has never read, if he’s even heard of, Edmund Burke, “the patron saint” of conservatism. I would be surprised if he’s even heard of, let alone read, the work of the 20th century’s American reincarnation of Burke, Russell Kirk. Chances are even slimmer yet that he’s familiar with Michael Oakeshott’s classic essay, “On Being Conservative,” or George Nash’s and Paul Gottfried’s seminal studies of the conservative movement in America.

The one contemporary nationally-renown figure who is more philosophically approximate to Burke and Kirk than anyone else—Pat Buchanan—Trump at one time ridiculed. Nor has Trump been any more generous to either Ron or Rand Paul, both of whom, though widely regarded as “libertarian,” are nevertheless conservative just insofar as they are (or at least seem to be) committed to federalism, our Constitution.

Yet here’s the rub: What’s true of Trump in all of these respects is at least as true of many of his critics in the NR symposium.

Granted, I’m sure that there are many among the latter who have heard of Burke. Since Kirk’s name was at one time on NR’s masthead, some of them have probably heard of him as well. However, Kirk’s name is scarcely ever, if at all, mentioned by any contemporary “conservatives.” And on those rare occasions when Burke’s name is dropped, it is almost always in connection with a single line of his: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

For Buchanan and the Pauls (especially the Elder), many of the Trump critics at NR have reserved nothing but contempt. …

MORE.

RELATED TWEETS:

UPDATE II: NRO Writer’s ‘UnFollow’ Leads To Musing About The Manners-Morals Connection

Conservatism, Donald Trump, Etiquette, Ilana Mercer, Intellectualism, libertarianism, Morality, Neoconservatism

National Review’s Kevin Williamson, aforementioned, once told me he was a libertarian anarchist. Although I never saw evidence for the claim, I took him at his word that he was a friend behind enemy lines. (It’s also true that I don’t study NRO’s output.) In the couple of exchanges we had, Williamson seemed far less uptight about intellectual differences than most Americans. Myself, so long as ad hominem is avoided and respect is shown—I can easily befriend ideological adversaries. And I do. One of the nicest gentlemen, for example, is Benn Steil, director of International Economics Council on Foreign Relations. I can’t imagine Dr. Steil churlishly unFollowing me. We differ. So what? I enjoyed his book, “The Battle of Bretton Woods,” immensely.

The UnFollow/UnFriend churlishness is not the province of neoconservatives and Republicans alone.

From experience, libertarians can be as uncivilized in their interactions. The column “Schooling Beck On Trump’s Nullification Promise” mentions “Ivan Eland’s learned rundown of U.S. presidents,” Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty. I contacted Eland as a courtesy. As did I ask him if he would kindly reciprocate with a Follow on Twitter. Unlike the polite Lawrence W. Reed of the Foundation for Economic Freedom, Eland has simply ignored me. Perhaps he’s on vacation.

Manners are a species of morals. Other than to hate mail or rude mail, I respond to all letters I receive—to each and every one. Many thousands since 1998, which is when I got my first newspaper column, in Canada. Due to time constraints, my replies are laconic. But if a reader has bothered to read my work and comment on what I have to say—then it’s only decent and proper to reciprocate.

I haven’t always been firm in this resolve, but I try my very best. If a colleague writes, I reply, whether I like them and their stuff or not. Ignoring a correspondent demonstrates contempt for that individual—a contempt that reflects on the rude “interlocutor.”

UPDATE (1/24): Facebook readers dispute the characterization of Williamson as remotely intellectual.

Christoph Dollis: Well, I’ve always known Kevin Williamson as a moron. Sorry that it hurts, and I get that (I’ve had similar experiences), but in my long-held opinion about Mr. Williamson, you haven’t lost much. I’m pretty sure Williamson is a staunch friend of arch cuckservative Ed Morrissey of Hot Air. ‘Nuff said.”

UPDATE II (3/5):

Comments Off on UPDATE II: NRO Writer’s ‘UnFollow’ Leads To Musing About The Manners-Morals Connection

Written by on