printQuestion: Where is Chucky Krauthammer in the “Conservatives Against Trump” production? He is one self-important, neoconservative, who’s not mad about Trump. Why is Chucky nowhere to be found among the NRO Peanut Gallery standing “bravely” against the Republican base rising?
My working hypothesis: Chucky Krauthammer is smarter than the mediocrities on the “Conservatives against Trump” list.
It’s a super-duper dumb thing to come out as a collective against a candidate—Trump—who’s so wildly popular with the Republican base and beyond, and who could very well be the GOP’s nominee.
Dumbness—overall G-factor deficit—might explain the National Review mediocrities’ missteps.
Have you checked the names on the National Review list Against Trump? They’ve been anointed “prominent conservatives,” or “leading conservatives” in the Moron Media. But most are conservatives in name only—as Jack Kerwick has argued, with reference to the absence in their “work” of a hint of Edmund Burke, “the patron saint” of conservatism,” his “20th century’s American reincarnation, Russell Kirk,” or Michael Oakeshott.
And they constantly yack it up for a global, ideological American Manifest Destiny.
One might say these National Reviewnicks stand athwart historic, Old Right conservatism.
As to “thinkers. Kenneth Minogue was a “thinker.” Roger Scruton is a thinker. John O’Sullivan, boy, can he think (which is probably why he was nudged out as editor of NR, in favor of intellectual pygmy, Rich Lowery).
But these people?
Mona Charen (mediocre scribbler), Dana Loesch (gorgeous gun-toting broadcaster), Katey Pavlich (youthful nullity), Glenn Beck (irrational mystic), Michael Mukasey (government functionary/attorney and Jeb Bush cheer leader), on and on. (Thomas Sowell is an economist, that’s about it. He’s nothing like Murray Rothbard or other Austrian-school thinkers.) As for Rich Lowery; he needs your pity.