The Standard was a creature of a particular time and place—the 1990s, the Bush-Clinton ascendancy, and Washington, D.C.’s insular, self-referential political class. As such, it never really fit within the broad flow of historic American conservatism. It was always, and intentionally, something different. So perhaps the magazine’s opposition to Donald Trump, his voters, and the America First agenda should come as no surprise.
This is an interesting and a good point. Coming out of the 1980s it was clear Reagan and the old National Review style conservatives had won. They rolled back the tax regime just as they rolled back and defeated communism. Old style Big Government liberalism was discredited. Liberal was a dirty word. Just ask Bill Clinton.
So what next?
Kristol and other neoconservatives developed an ideology for the 1990's. This was based on wonky ideas about schools, Medicare, taxes....even garbage collection. Outgoing speaker Paul Ryan is probably the greatest manifestation of this brand of conservatism.
Most of these ideas went nowhere. They needed to be explained and when you're explaining, you're losing.
Aside from the wonkish stuff what did neo-cons believe? Muscular, idealistic foreign policy. Free trade. Open borders*. Support for Israel. Low taxes. Government reform. A return to civil culture
You know, for all the talk of Kristol and the Standard being one side of a uni-party DC consensus coin, they hated Bill Clinton and advocated for his impeachment.
Whatever one thinks of the Weekly Standard it's time has passed and conservatism has entered the age of Trump and big ideas: Build that Wall.
*Anyone else remember the visit of Mexican President Vicente Fox the week before 9/11, he and we were calling for open borders. We just thought that you couldn't enforce it anyway, might as well make it official.
No comments:
Post a Comment