The attempt to forge a "national conservatism" looks like another too-clever-by-half attempt to marry the ephemeral to the permanent

For starters, the very label is way too cutesy:

What is National Conservatism? For three days, starting on Sunday and continuing through Tuesday, an impressive group of academics, journalists, and political figures from across the American Right gathered in the ballrooms of a D.C. Ritz-Carlton to ponder that question. They aim to establish institutions guided by the sentiments that led to Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory in 2016. Yoram Hazony, a political philosopher who published a book called The Virtues of Nationalism last year and organized the conference, described the three-day event as “the coming together of diverse bands of conservatives.” Talks that toggled between anti-libertarians and Calvin Coolidge scholars, isolationists and defense hawks, Silicon Valley venture capitalists and long-time social conservatives put that diversity on full display.

Then there is the message sent by having Tucker Carlson emcee it. Granted, his polar opposites were also on the stage:

A lineup that put proponents of a restrained foreign policy such as Carlson and Michael Anton next to national-security adviser John Bolton and Hudson Institute fellow Michael Doran, both hawks, hinted at a sorting and schism that might play out at future conferences. On a panel about foreign policy, another Hudson fellow endorsed Trump’s decision to launch strikes against the Assad regime in response to its use of chemical weapons. (Carlson has previously questioned the intelligence assessments that placed blame on the Syrian government for chemical attacks.)

The Carlson–Bolton split best embodies the National Conservative crack up that potentially awaits. It was widely reported that while Carlson accompanied Trump to his DMZ meeting with Kim Jong-un, Bolton was sent to Mongolia. Asked how he felt about sharing the same stage as Carlson, he deadpanned, “Well, I’m delighted to be here after him,” calling that the “diplomatic” response. Does this nationalist movement have room for both a wing that expresses a strong aversion to the use of force abroad and one with a more expansive view of the national interest?

But nothing else coming out of this conference indicates a tent stout enough to keep both Bolton and Carlson in it. "Crackup" seems more like it.

But the clearest indicator that no historic launching is taking place at this pow-wow is this:

Speaker after speaker called for stronger government intervention in the economy, almost uniformly rejecting libertarian principles. Tucker Carlson, one of the keynote presenters, received a warm reception for his theory of the case, evidently shared by the conference hall. “The main threat to your ability to live your life as you choose does not come from the government anymore, but it comes from the private sector,” the Fox News host said. Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) entranced the crowd with bromides against a “cosmopolitan consensus” boosted by woke progressives and conservatives with too much faith in markets.

Um, economic liberty is at the heart of every articulation of a conservative vision going back to Edmund Burke and John Locke. It is fundamental to all other forms of human freedom.

"Faith in markets" is nothing more than faith in millions of individual human beings to come to agreements in their economic transaction that suit them. Pursuing happiness and all that.

And, of course, the conference has been proceeding coincident with the Very Stable Genius's latest barrage of braggadocio, insult, arrogance and vulgarity, and that has gone unacknowledged for the most part.

No, this was a nice opportunity for a range of right-of-center thinkers, activists and, to be sure, opportunists to network, have some drinks and meals and share their common unease at making the Trump phenomenon fit into the conservative framework.

As is always the case with these things, the problem is that conservatism is about immutability, that which is timeless and transcendent, and shifting trends and the like don't change its essence. It's kind of like when lefties try to act like transgenderism ought to be taken seriously. Bruce Jenner is still Bruce Jenner, and conservatism has three pillars, no matter who tries to get cute with takes to the contrary.