Distinguishing conservatism from Trumpism becomes more important all the time

Because of the current political climate, leftists have a handy rejoinder to right-of-center arguments on a range of issues. It goes something like this: "So you're okay with this level of White House chaos, this degree of scandal and palace intrigue, and Trump's embarrassing utterances via Twitter and at his rallies?"

And there are plenty of Very Stable Genius supporters who will make the brief concession that it would be better if those aspects of this presidency weren't attendant to the developments that do indeed please conservatives. At the other end of the range of Trumpist reaction is the proclamation that the guy, even his personal style, has grown on them, that it's a bracing antidote to the cultural atmosphere imposed by the Left, and formerly mainstream Republicans' ever-so-polite acquiescence to it. In the middle are those who say policy moves so greatly overshadow matters of style and character that the latter aren't worth discussing.

I say "Formerly mainstream Republican" because there's no denying that Trump, by virtue of his nomination and election victory, has changed the face of the Republican Party.

But, as we know, conservatism and Republicanism have never been anything like synonymous terms. Conservatives have been dismayed at the stuff of which every presidential candidate - whether he won or lost - was made since Ronald Reagan. (The argument that we were spoiled by such a fortuitous turn of events as his two terms has the odor of capitulation, in the name of "a realistic view of history" about it, I think.)

There are a few types of Trumpists with regard to how they articulate their skewed view that Trump's accomplishments - few of which are actually, or at least primarily, his - have rendered what they still derisively refer to as "Never Trumpers" so marginalized as to be irrelevant. You have the attempt at an intellectually coherent view, such as is put forth by Chris Buskirk in his essays at American Greatness. In his latest, he says Trumpism actually constitutes a conservative renaissance emanating from the heartland due to the ineffectuality of "coastal, high-church conservatism." This is basically the position of Brian C. Joondeph, who chimes in frequently at The American Thinker, although he brings a bit more attitude to his articulation of it. Then there are the attitude-besotted Townhall columns of Kurt Schlichter, who has coined an entire lexicon to map out his terrain. For him, "Fredocons" (derived from the name of the Corleone brother who dishonored the family in The Godfather) are to be juxtaposed against "normals." You know, effete little dweebs versus heartland people who use technical skills and their hands to put food on their families' tables.

What no one along the spectrum described above will do is offer more than one or two specific examples of who they're talking about when it comes to conservatives who still find Trump objectionable. They always go for the low-hanging fruit of Bill Kristol, who has indeed had some lapses in judgment since the Trump phenomenon got underway, and who does carry himself in a way that lends itself to macho mocking. They always go for the moderates like Jennifer Rubin and David Brooks, the New York Times's and the Washington Post's ideas of what a conservative is.

But they are never willing to seriously address what the likes of Jonah Goldberg, Erick Erickson, Charlie Sykes, Mona Charen, Susan Wright or Stephen Hayes have to say. One senses that they'd rather not skate too closely to such substance.

I got a kick out of a tweet I saw a few days ago - I forget who posted it - that reposted Trump's utterance from a few years back that National Review was failing so badly it was about to go out of business. It was clearly a blurting more driven by ego than an analysis of the magazine's circulation numbers or financial health.

Speaking of National Review and ego, today, NRO writer Jibran Khan revisits a Donald Trump Playboy interview from 1990 that puts Trump's bluster and winners-and-losers worldview on full display. Khan's point is that that basic trait is the one thing about which Trump has been consistent over the years:

Trump attributes all success — not only in business, but also the charity work of Mother Teresa and the mission of Jesus Christ— to “ego.” By the same token, failure comes from a lack of ego, and the recipe for doing better is “egotizing.” In 1990 Playboy interview he connected this concept directly to economic policy:

I think our country needs more ego, because it is being ripped off so badly by our so-called allies; i.e., Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc. They have literally outegotized this country, because they rule the greatest money machine ever assembled and it’s sitting on our backs. Their products are better because they have so much subsidy. We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing $150 billion year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about 15 minutes if it weren’t for us. Our “allies” are making billions screwing us.

As a younger man, Trump was extremely concerned about Japanese business success. He believed that, when it comes to real estate, “the Japanese will pay more than it’s worth just to screw us.” The fact that Americans would therefore be paid more for those buildings did not change Trump’s calculations: “If I ever wanted to sell any of my properties, I’d have a field day. But it’s an embarrassment!”

The familiar Trumpian theme of “losing” shows up here, but interestingly he seemed to consider American sales to the Japanese just as damaging as the imports from abroad he warns of today: “The Japanese double-screw the US, a real trick: First they take all our money with their consumer goods, then they put it back in buying all of Manhattan. So either way, we lose.” So if Americans are getting products from the Japanese for money, he characterizes that as the Japanese “taking” money rather than the Americans getting goods. But when the Japanese buy American real estate, it is the Japanese getting buildings rather than Americans “taking” money.

He does not limit this thinking to international trade alone, given his animus today toward Amazon, an American company that does billions of dollars of business in the United States. While Trump is likely driven by envy of Jeff Bezos’s fortune and anger at Bezos’s ownership of the “fake” Washington Post, the arguments Trump makes against the company aim to deny it a “win” by attributing its success to cheating the postal service (claims that do not seem to hold up).

In the decades since Trump’s Playboy interview, China’s turn from Marxist-Leninist economics led it to high economic growth and global economic power, whereas the burst of the 1980s bubble economy in Japan brought on an economic stagnation. With this development, China seems to have displaced Japan in Trump’s view of the economic landscape. This suggests that the president’s current focus on China could shift to the next rising power. Should Trump begin railing against Indian trade practices, it would disappoint Peter Navarro but would be in line with the current of his thinking.

Asked in 1990 about the first thing he would do in an imaginary world where he became president, Donald Trump responded, “Many things. A toughness of attitude would prevail. I’d throw a tax on every Mercedes-Benz rolling into this country and on all Japanese products, and we’d have wonderful allies again.” (How did Trump see himself achieving the presidency? As a Democrat, because “the working guy would elect me. He likes me.”) With the substitution of Chinese products for Japanese and Triumph motorcycles for Mercedes-Benz cars, this is what is happening 28 years later. Trade wars show “toughness,” but instead of having “wonderful allies again,” the U.S. is facing retaliation from China and Europe alike.

Trump’s appreciation of “toughness” seems to be linked to his belief in ego. He argues that Soviet negotiators and Chinese crackdowns after the Tiananmen Square protests showed toughness, which the U.S. lacks, allowing it to be “pushed around by everyone.” Fleshing this out, he explained in the same interview that a hypothetical President Trump “would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldn’t trust anyone. He wouldn’t trust the Russians; He wouldn’t trust our allies.” This show of toughness, which would be implemented through businessmen negotiating foreign policy, would ensure “respect around the world.” Again, this seems to be in keeping with the practice of the actual Trump administration, with Rex Tillerson taking the place of the 1980s business figures Trump was speaking of at the time. As with the trade policies, this has backfired in practice.

This is the essence of Trumpism on full display. It may offer momentary exhilaration, but it's not a program, much less a set of core principles.

The more distance the passage of time puts between me and the way I voted the first Tuesday in November 2016, the more I'm pleased with my decision (Evan McMullin). It was not a throwaway vote. It was not an endorsement of Evan McMullin. It allowed me to be able to support the laudable - conservative - developments that have transpired since, without having to own the rest of it.

We haven't gone away, and not only is Kurt Schlichter going to have to come to grips with it, but so is a post-American Left that thought the only force it was going to have to grapple with was a transformed Republican Party that has barely ever been a reliable weapon in the struggle for the nation's soul anyway.