doubleplusundead

In the revolt against The GOP Establishment, it’s important to differentiate several distinct clusters of entities that might occasionally be called “establishment”, and to narrow down who rightly deserves the moniker.

First and foremost are the axis of the Donor Class and their agents in the government. This includes the Chamber of Commerce, any company that might benefit from the Ex-Im bank, Wall Street firms, the Big Agriculture/Ethanol axis, etc. The subservient politicians of those entities are more than willing to pretend to support free markets, stricter immigration, and generally smaller government… for about the first thirty seconds after they are elected and have to vote on something that contradicts one of their benefactors’ interests. In case there is any question, all national GOP bodies (and probably most of the state bodies) fall into this category.

Secondly, there are the “Business of Conservatism” crowd. These people sell conservatism and conservative-flavored-outrage products to individual voters in exchange for donations to keep fighting for the cause. Much like charities, there is a spectrum of honest effort toward effecting change versus callous and parasitic exploitation of their donors. I leave it as an exercise to the reader precisely which groups belong in this category and where they belong on the spectrum.

Lastly, there are the intellectuals, writers, and pundits. This includes National Review, The Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, individuals such as George Will and Thomas Sowell, and I would probably include such organizations such as AEI and the Hoover Institution.

Some organizations such as Heritage probably straddle these last two categories since they do put out quite serious public policy analysis but also engage in the Business of Conservatism. Certain talk radio hosts also straddle these last two categories since they too sometimes engage in both serious policy discussions but also outrage peddling. Again, the exact identities of these radio hosts and their position on the spectrum is left as an exercise to the reader.

I consider the intellectual-pundit category not to be engaged so much in the “Business of Conservatism” in that business is generally not so good. These folks rely on what Dennis Prager has termed “moral bank accounts” for their paychecks. When they make a “withdrawal”, they risk making a bad business decision. And yet, occasional withdrawals are a necessary part of the job.

When I say “Establishment”, I mean primarily the Donor Class and their agents in the government and party infrastructure.

So when National Review and other noted and respected writers take a principled stance against Trump while simultaneously agents of the donor class are warming to Trump, I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to suggest that “The Establishment” is trying to take out Trump. NR is much less “The Establishment” than are Bob Dole and Trent Lott.

To the extent that The Establishment has let conservatism down, it is much less NR than it is the Donor Class. NR, whatever missteps they might have made over the years, doesn’t get rich by selling out conservatism. The Donor Class does.