Trumpism's disingenuous mischaracterization of who we are and what we're about

We can't let this kind of thing slide. Guys like this know exactly what they're up to.

I'm speaking of Larry O'Connor's Townhall column today. Its title is about as inartful and blatantly on-the-attack as is conceivably possible: "Failed Never Trump Pundits Don't Speak For You, But MSM Can't Get Enough of Them." Note especially the term "failed." O'Connor has clearly made the Very Stable Genius's construct of the world as being divided into winners and losers his own.

The accompanying photo, of Bill Kristol, is an utterly predictable touch. It's true that Kristol has pretty much joined the ranks of that sector of the spectrum inhabited by those who object to Trump and who have also abandoned conservatism.

Wait; isn't he a featured speaker at the upcoming Principles First summit?

He is. Summit organizer Heath Mayo has already been taken to task over this, and his response is that those gathering all have at least a history of embracing conservatism, and therefore deserve a place at the table for a discussion on what conservatism is, if it is distinct from Trumpism. Mayo says that the variety of figures invited will make for disagreement by design. If Principles First were to establish an exclusionary policy at the outset, it becomes yet another brand or tribe, which puts a lie to its very name.

Recall also that when Kristol posted his infamous tweet about however provisional the status is, we are all Democrats now, his Bulwark cofounder Charlie Sykes responded, "Not me."

Then there's this unsubstantiated lumping-together of Kristol with two figures who are readily distinguishable from him:

The arrogant, hubris required to lecture life-long Democrats as to how wrong they are for not following the advice of Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, and Stephen Hayes was amusing to witness for those of us on the pro-Trump right (that would be pro-conservative, Republican right to most normal observers). We've been living with this pomposity for years.

I've been fairly closely following Goldberg's and Hayes's launching of The Dispatch, and advising Democrats on who to nominate as a presidential candidate has not been anything close to a major theme of the discourse there.  I realize that a Townhall column imposes word-count restraints, but some portion of O'Connor's verbiage really needed to be devoted to backing this claim up.

He then addresses a point that those of us who find Trump objectionable but take pains to be responsible about it (It's a good thing I'm not bound by a word count here. I might have had to consider the Never Trump broad brush.) have been raising of late - namely, that Trumpists seem awfully preoccupied with us, for a group so ostensibly minuscule.

His response begins with playing the victim card and deteriorates into outright slander.

First, the victim card:

You were awful to us. You continue to be awful to us. Many of you actively worked to marginalize us and silence our voices in the media during and after the election.

And when you were proven to be monumentally wrong about everything in the 2016 Election, you never apologized to us or your audience and you never even acknowledged we got it right.

Just what is it you "got right?" What had been the focus of our objection - Trump's bombast, narcissism, pettiness, lack of depth or humanity, his recklessness, inconsistency,  and worldview based on deals and winners and losers - has been demonstrated with pretty much daily regularity since we raised it.

Now, the slander:

You supported the removal of the president twice over the past three years.

First, for being "Putin's stooge." And when your hand-picked Inspector Clouseau Robert Mueller found no evidence supporting your fever dreams, you never acknowledged you were wrong about the entire Russian-collusion hoax. Then, for the Ukraine impeachment fiasco, that was always doomed from the start after President Trump released the actual transcript of his phone call with President Zelensky.

Along the way, Never Trumpers, you revealed who you really are. When you could have supported Republican Devin Nunes, you chose to support Democratic hack Adam Schiff, and you've never acknowledged you were wrong when Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report confirmed Nunes' veracity and Schiff's duplicitousness.

Let's take the above-mentioned Goldberg and Hayes - although we could easily use any number of other figures, such as David French, Kevin Williamson, Mona Charen, Susan Wright, Peter Heck, or Noah Rothman, to name a few. Where is evidence that any of these people obsessed over supposed Russia-China collusion or "supported" Adam Schiff?

Then O'Connor sends an unmistakably thuggish signal:

Even worse, through it all... you've never paid a price.

In Trumpworld, there's a price to be paid for expressing a viewpoint that is non-Trumpism but lays claim to the conservative mantle.

The rest of the piece is an expression of resentment that anyone with this viewpoint gets television exposure.

I have been disinclined lately to take on particular figures in polemical pieces. It's not as if my combativeness flame has gone out; I've just been reexamining the state of my heart in light of an increased focus on prayer. I'ver also been thinking a great deal about how our society has pretty much forgotten how to extend grace.

But something this - well, rotten - can't go unaddressed.

Did you notice something about O'Connor's piece? He makes no attempt to consider that principles might be driving those he characterizes as Never Trump. Has he not thought it through that far, or is he reluctant to provide his readers the opportunity to set aside cynicism and contemplate what might have really prevented these folks from climbing aboard the Trump train?

Do not permit yourself to be falsely portrayed.

I guess I chose this particular piece because it distills the chicanery found in myriad similar pieces. While I'm not going to embark on a crusade of responding to each one, occasionally it's crucial to set the record straight.