Time to John Birch the Alt-Right ....by Jonah Goldberg

[mystery-ak]

 Time to John Birch the Alt-Right
In denouncing the fringe movement, Hillary treads where the GOP will not
By Jonah Goldberg — August 31, 2016

Last week saw one of the most remarkable moments of this most remarkable political season. A major politician defended the conservative movement and the Republican party from guilt-by-association with a fringe group of racists, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists who have jumped enthusiastically on the Donald Trump train: the so-called alt-right.

“This is not conservatism as we have known it,” the politician said. “This is not Republicanism as we have known it.”

The politician was Hillary Clinton, and that’s what’s astonishing. Clinton is normally comfortable unjustly condemning conservatism and the GOP for the sins of bigotry and prejudice, not exonerating it. After all, she coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Her husband’s administration tried – unfairly – to pin the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative critics, specifically radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. Less than a decade later, she revived the charge in her book Living History, tying the bombing to “right-wing radio talk shows and websites,” which “intensified the atmosphere of hostility with their rhetoric of intolerance, anger and anti-government paranoia.” Just last year, Clinton was comparing the entire GOP presidential field to “terrorist groups” for their views on abortion.

more
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/439522/print

[EasyAce]

From the original essay:

The alt-righters are a politically insignificant band. Why claim that a group dedicated to overthrowing conservatism
for a white-nationalist fantasy is in fact a member of the conservative coalition? Why muddy a distinction the alt-righters are
eager to keep clear?

In the 1960s, the fledgling conservative movement was faced with a similar dilemma. The John Birch Society was a paranoid
outfit dedicated to the theory that the U.S. government was controlled by communists. It said even Dwight Eisenhower was
a Red (to which the conservative political theorist Russell Kirk replied, “Ike’s not a Communist, he’s a golfer”).

William F. Buckley recognized that the Birchers were being used by the liberal media to “anathematize the entire American right
wing.” At first, his magazine, National Review (where I often hang my hat), tried to argue that the problem was just a narrow
“lunatic fringe” of Birchers, and not the rank and file. But very quickly, the editors recognized that the broader movement
needed to be denounced and defenestrated.

Buckley grasped something Hewitt and countless lesser pro-Trump pundits do not: Some lines must not be blurred, but illuminated
for all to see. Amazingly, Clinton is doing that when actual conservatives have not.

[HonestJohn]

From the original essay:

Yep.

I've been saying this since Buchanon returned to the conservative commentator class.

[EasyAce]

Yep.

I've been saying this since Buchanon returned to the conservative commentator class.

I found this from Mr. Buckley, written originally in a magazine symposium and republished in The
Jeweler's Eye: A Book of Irresistible Political Reflections. The full essay was "Notes toward an
empirical definition of conservatism," in which among other things he reviews a few skirmishes
between National Review and certain rightward fringes, including the John Birch Society and
(especially) its founder Robert Welch:

The defenders of Mr. Welch who are also severe critics of National Review are not by any means
all of them addicts of the conspiracy school. They do belong, however inconsistently, to the school that says we
must all work together---as a general proposition, sound advice. Lenin distinguished between the sin of sectarianism,
from which suffer all those who refuse to cooperate with anyone who does not share their entire position, right
down to the dependent clauses, and the sin of opportunism, the weakness of those who are completely indiscriminate
about their political associates.

The majority of those who broke with National Review as the result of our criticisms of Mr.Welch believe themselves
to have done so in protest against National Review's sectarianism. In fact, I believe their resentment was primarily
personal. They were distressed by an attack on a man who had ingratiated himself with them and toward whom their
loyalty hardened in proportion as he was attacked. So their bitterness ran over, and now it is widely whispered that
National Review has been "infiltrated" . . .

. . . National Review was widely criticised for "throwing mud" at Mr. Welch (a curious way to refer to the act of throwing
at Mr. Welch his own statements!), and some battle lines (and some necks) were broken.

Emphases added. I think it's quite fair to suggest that much of what Mr. Buckley observed regarding the response to
National Review writing the Birch Society and its founder out of the conservative camps is very applicable toward
much of the criticism the magazine received earlier this year, when the primaries were still early, and the magazine uncorked
a symposium-volume critique of a certain Republican presidential aspirant who now holds the party nomination for the
White House, more is the pity.

[TomSea]

According to one of the recent articles on the Alt-Right, Robert Richard Spencer of Jihad Watch is considered Alt-Right; so I think what the below article by Gottfried is correct,  this is just more left-wing name-calling, Gottfried even says it's a Democratic trick.

[endicom]

According to one of the recent articles on the Alt-Right, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is considered Alt-Right; so I think what the below article by Greenfield is correct,  this is just more left-wing name-calling, Greenfield even says it's a Democratic trick.

They could disassociate from the JBS because there was something to disassociate from. From what or from whom do you disassociate in the alt-right? If people like Goldberg can't be more specific then they are just blowing smoke.

[Wingnut]

I'm a faithful follower of Brother John Birch
And I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church.

[TomSea]

Goldberg's wife worked for the Bush administration via John Ashcroft, Attorney General. Though Ashcroft is a fine man, this might indicate where Goldberg's loyalties lie and that is with the GOP establishment. Maybe he was for Jeb or something.

[EasyAce]

Goldberg's wife worked for the Bush administration via John Ashcroft, Attorney General. Though Ashcroft is a fine man, this might indicate where Goldberg's loyalties lie and that is with the GOP establishment. Maybe he was for Jeb or something.

Actually, he was a somewhat reluctant supporter of Ted Cruz, giving him a lukewarm
endorsement in March . . .

Saving the GOP Might Mean Backing the Guy You Don’t Love (and I’m Not Talking about Kasich)

. . . but applauding Cruz's GOP convention speech in due course:

I Choose Ted

Goldberg respected Jeb Bush but saw him as too weak a candidate.

[Jazzhead]

This week's GOP primary elections give me hope that Trumpism will die with Trump.   Both McCain and Rubio faced opponents who attacked them from the alt-right perspective and were cheer-led by Breitbart,  and both cruised to victory.   Same with Paul Ryan whose Trump-clone opponent was kicked firmly in the ass.   

The Republican electorate is still, I believe,  mostly composed of decent, thinking folks.   Trumpism is more and more looking like an aberration, a cult of personality, an appeal to the weak-minded seeking easy answers.   

That's why I'm so adamant in opposing Trump.   As sink has put it,  a stake needs to be driven through the heart of the beast, SO CONSERVATISM CAN SURVIVE.   I wish there were another way, but I'll take four years of Clinton to the death of conservatism.   

[Jazzhead]

There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.

If you read the writings of leading alt-righters, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. Some are avowed white supremacists. Some eschew talk of supremacy and instead focus on the need for racial separation to protect “white identity.” But one can’t talk about the alt-right knowledgeably without recognizing their racism.

And yet that is exactly what some conservatives seem intent on doing. For example, my friend Hugh Hewitt, the influential talk-radio host, has been arguing that there is a “narrow” alt-right made up of a “execrable anti-Semitic, white supremacist fringe” but also a “broad alt-right” made up of frustrated tea partiers and others who are simply hostile to the GOP establishment and any form of immigration reform that falls short of mass deportation.

This isn’t just wrong, it’s madness. The alt-righters are a politically insignificant band. Why claim that a group dedicated to overthrowing conservatism for a white-nationalist fantasy is in fact a member of the conservative coalition? Why muddy a distinction the alt-righters are eager to keep clear?

The alt-right must be clearly and firmly disavowed as not representing any past, present or future strand of conservatism.   I agree with Goldberg that Trump himself may not be racist,  but he knows how to appeal to racists and exploit them - and they in turn are exploiting Trump to raise the profile and legitimacy of their "cause".

What's a conservative to do?  Before we pull the lever for Trump, out of "solidarity" or fear of Clinton,  we'd better count the cost.   A vote for Trump is a vote in alliance with cockroaches who belong back under their rocks.  We'll never live it down - the hole in our souls will never heal.  A vote against Trump is a vote to endure short term pain in exchange for saving the conservative movement so it can fight another day.   

[Cripplecreek]

The alt-right must be clearly and firmly disavowed as not representing any past, present or future strand of conservatism.   I agree with Goldberg that Trump himself may not be racist,  but he knows how to appeal to racists and exploit them - and they in turn are exploiting Trump to raise the profile and legitimacy of their "cause".
 

Trump supporters should want a clear distinction from the alt right not denials and a blurring of the line.

Good discussion between Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt about the alt right and Trump supporters.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/08/31/anyone-doesnt-understand-alt-right-needs-see/

[massadvj]

There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.

I heard this interview the other day on my way to work.  I did consider Taylor to be racist.  However, I also agreed with him that liberals have no problem with people promoting their own race so long as it is not white.  Personally, I think the best alternative to racial identity politics is to focus on the American values that unite us.  Politically, that seems to be a losing strategy these days.

Having said this,and having heard Jared Taylor, I don't believe his views are any more racist than those of Black Lives Matter.  Perhaps the GOP can disavow the alt-right when the Democrats disavow Black Lives Matter, or even the Black Panthers.  Why is it that we are always pushed by pop culture and the media to clean our house while their house has been a festering cesspool of racial animosity and divisiveness for generations?

With Stephen Bannon at the right hand of Trump, I would say the alt-right is more plugged in to the GOP at this moment than the neocons, and that may be why Jonah Goldberg feels so left out in the cold.  Goldberg is very quick to point out the flaws in others' political philosophies, but is he willing to admit to the erroneous neocon thinking which led to the disastrous policies of the Bush years?

[massadvj]

According to one of the recent articles on the Alt-Right, Robert Richard Spencer of Jihad Watch is considered Alt-Right; so I think what the below article by Gottfried is correct,  this is just more left-wing name-calling, Gottfried even says it's a Democratic trick.

What below article by Gottfried?

[thackney]

I wish there were another way, but I'll take four years of Clinton to the death of conservatism.

:thumbsup2:

[Sanguine]

I'm a faithful follower of Brother John Birch
And I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church.

Do you still live with your mother?

[endicom]

Trump supporters should want a clear distinction from the alt right not denials and a blurring of the line.

Good discussion between Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt about the alt right and Trump supporters.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/08/31/anyone-doesnt-understand-alt-right-needs-see/

There would have to be a line for it not to be blurred.

"Jared Taylor is a leading racist…"

Who? I've haven't heard of him and few people would if he were not being used as a prop to create an image of some "alt-right."

"...Richard Spencer at the, who leads an alt right think tank..."

Spencer is rather dark complexioned. The knock against him is that he is anti-Muslim so I guess that makes him racist which makes him alt-right.

Goldberg says that VDare is alt-right and Breitbart just alt-right friendly. Well, if Breitbart is dispensed with then a site like Instapundit will become the alt-right. If Instapundit is then done away with then National Review becomes the alt-right.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The problem for those who want to do this is.. .how? There isn't any single site or magazine anymore that represents "mainstream conservatism". National Review's influence is no where near where it once was. Say what you will about Breitbart but their influence is far greater. But even they are just the leader with the myriad of avenues someone with "conservative leanings" can get right-leaning news and commentary online.

[Cripplecreek]

There would have to be a line for it not to be blurred.

"Jared Taylor is a leading racist…"

Who? I've haven't heard of him and few people would if he were not being used as a prop to create an image of some "alt-right."

"...Richard Spencer at the, who leads an alt right think tank..."

Spencer is rather dark complexioned. The knock against him is that he is anti-Muslim so I guess that makes him racist which makes him alt-right.

Goldberg says that VDare is alt-right and Breitbart just alt-right friendly. Well, if Breitbart is dispensed with then a site like Instapundit will become the alt-right. If Instapundit is then done away with then National Review becomes the alt-right.

So denial is your choice, good luck with that.

[Jazzhead]

Having said this,and having heard Jared Taylor, I don't believe his views are any more racist than those of Black Lives Matter.  Perhaps the GOP can disavow the alt-right when the Democrats disavow Black Lives Matter, or even the Black Panthers.  Why is it that we are always pushed by pop culture and the media to clean our house while their house has been a festering cesspool of racial animosity and divisiveness for generations?

Yes, it sucks to be us, but I'd still rather hold my head high and say we did the right thing.  Racialism is poison, it polarizes us as a nation and mocks "the American values that unite us".   

[Jazzhead]

The problem for those who want to do this is.. .how?

Step one is to defeat Trumpism.  We should have done it a year ago, we should have done it in the debates, we should have done it at the convention, we should have done it when Trump denounced that Gold Star family a month or so ago.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.   Now we're going to have to do it by making sure Trump loses to Hillary Clinton.  As with most things in life,  denying a problem and putting off addressing it just makes the cost of the solution higher.

   

[Cripplecreek]

Yes, it sucks to be us, but I'd still rather hold my head high and say we did the right thing.  Racialism is poison, it polarizes us as a nation and mocks "the American values that unite us".

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Step one is to defeat Trumpism.  We should have done it a year ago, we should have done it in the debates, we should have done it at the convention, we should have done it when Trump denounced that Gold Star family a month or so ago.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.   Now we're going to have to do it by making sure Trump loses to Hillary Clinton.  As with most things in life,  denying a problem and putting off addressing it just makes the cost of the solution higher.

   

I will never ever ever ever ever vote for Hillary. Not a Trump fan, never was, but I will always hope for a Trump victory over a Hillary one.

[endicom]

So denial is your choice, good luck with that.

Denial of what? If someone is clearly racist then call that person racist. If someone is clearly anti-Semitic then call that person anti-Semitic. "Alt-right" is a fog that will envelope all of us not socialist.

[Jazzhead]

I will never ever ever ever ever vote for Hillary. Not a Trump fan, never was, but I will always hope for a Trump victory over a Hillary one.

I understand.  My preference is to deny Trump my vote in favor of Gary Johnson.  The thought of voting for Hillary chills me to the bone.  But so does a Trump Presidency.   

I, like many,  feel I've been backed into a corner.  The time for killing Trumpism at little cost has past.  Now it requires us to choose between a plague of frogs and a plague of locusts.