An article penned by an anonymous conservative writer has caused a sensation by questioning the thinking of "Never Trumpers" and attacking some conservative leaders.
The Claremont Institute website that posted the piece got so many hits Thursday that it went down for an hour or more. Rush Limbaugh talked about it for most of his three-hour show.
The writer, who calls himself Publius Decius Mus, declares:
"2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances."
His basic argument is that "Never Trumpers" think the conservative movement and the nation will survive under a President Hillary Clinton, and therefore will not vote for Trump on principle (because he's vulgar, not a conservative, consorted with mobsters--pick a reason true or not, there are many).
The writer, however, does not think America will survive another President Clinton:
"A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most 'advanced' Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie's (reference to the annual gathering of world leaders in Davos, Switzerland) social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama's flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else."
He accuses the conservative establishment, what he calls "Conservatism, Inc," of making an industry out of losing, and compares conservative candidates and their supporters to the hapless "Washington Generals," the team that played to lose against the Harlem Globetrotters:
"If you haven't noticed, our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them…If you're among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you've accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it's as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.
"Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo.
"The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation."
Then, he makes a kind of strange pitch for Trump, writing, "Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what?"
These snippets don't do the article justice. And let me say that there are good people are both sides of the Trump debate, and good reasons for both positions. However, I have written in the past about my extreme disdain for the conservative establishment as a business that's not really interested in ruling, and I offer this Claremont piece as a must-read article for political junkies.