For years in the arts, critics have been known to blabber on, many times missing the very importance of what they are witnessing – especially if the work of art is groundbreaking and defies “conventional” thinking.
In music, literature, or art there are legions of stories where something new comes along, but some critics who are so stuck in a conceptual time warp are sadly unable to analyze and see it as something innovative. This happens even in film. Critics have written analysis for films, giving their stamp of approval or disapproval, while never really being held accountable for anything. They have no risk; they do not create! They sit back, pontificate an opinion, which is temporal and of the moment, and then drink another dry martini. A work of art has a unique way of lasting beyond its époque.
There are many of these “establishment types” who year after year spew their volcano of ash into the world attempting to choke those who can create. Then there are the effete intellectuals who decide who or what or how something will be defined and supported. They create nothing, but try to influence – even sometimes campaigning amongst themselves to help shape the groupthink.
The recent issue of National Review is dedicated to the proposition that Donald Trump, the GOP’s presidential frontrunner, is not a true conservative. The 22 contributors in this special issue write their barrage of articles like a Super PAC mounting another attack against The Donald. They all broke the “Conservative Commandment.” While it is perfectly okay for candidates to slug it out – after all, they are vying for the biggest title in the world – I think these conservative pundits should be held to a different rule.
The “Eleventh Commandment” was a phrase used by Ronald Reagan during his 1966 campaign for governor of California. The Commandment reads: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
For years I have heard all of them quote this 11th commandment, feigning shock like Claude Rains in Casablanca when he falsely protested that which he knew was taking place all along. So now, in the back rooms they all band together and perform blasphemy. Ye hypocrites!
Like figures in Madame Tussauds wax museum, they stand together bloodless and stiff – the dead elitists who dare go among us, the Great Unwashed. I have met some of them. Some are nice, but the majority are so elitist that they are like a synod of intellectual snobbery – out of touch with the world and stuck in the dusty rooms they write in, while becoming intoxicated by breathing in the stale air of their own gas.
This current display of solidarity is as smug as the smirk on Glenn Beck’s face, one of the 22 contributors of National Review’s “Against Trump” issue who should know better. Beck had an addiction problem. He went through a “change.” Does this make him any less authentic or sincere in his recovery? By trying to “undefined” Trump, they are saying they can see into his heart and soul. Well, you morons, if you want to see Trump’s heart and soul, look to his children. That more than anything is the measure of a man. And it is not an easy thing to bring up children. What’s more, we know that Trump’s admonishment to his children to not “smoke, drink, or do drugs” can be looked on as the words of someone who respects discipline. Also, Trump to my knowledge is the only candidate in recent memory to mention President Eisenhower! Are you saying that Ike wasn’t considered “conservative”?
Isn’t it in our nature to develop, change, and evolve? The GOP has been on life support. We have heard how it will be harder and harder for them to grow; but now that they have a frontrunner who can infuse new blood into the whole party, they stab him in the back on the steps of the Roman Senate. The attacks they lay on Trump seem to me to be motivated by insider trading gone awry. There seems to be a panicked reaction from the status quo. Elitists hate when an upstart is successful. Over the years alliances have been formed, potential deals made, and expectations shared. They are considered opinion makers, and we are told how we think.
So, to me, they are like those film critics who have never made a film or created anything except give opinions hoping for relevancy. In reality they have contributed to the decline of the GOP. Like the stale politicians who have let the American people down, the establishment types at National Review behind the “Against Trump” issue cling to their own John Friendly political mafia. Johnny Friendly and his goons in the film On the Waterfront throw anyone who exposes their irrelevancy off the roof. So, along comes Trump who, like Terry Malloy, can no longer sit by and watch; so he exposes them for what they are.
Trump wants America to get back to work. He has become the hope and voice of the blue-collar men and women who have watched America’s decline and feel ignored. Like the cement blocks that form the foundation of the impressive buildings Trump constructs all across America, we have a growing populace who knows he can do the same for America. This alone should have given pause to National Review, but narcissism is blind, and these 22, like some in the Congress and Senate, forget what they are supposed to stand for.
Let me tell you this: Trump has “conservative” principles, and they are more vibrant and resonating than any we have seen since Ronald Reagan. Those 22 who contributed to National Review’s “Against Trump” issue all have a differing agenda. They are for Cruz or Bush or Rubio or Kasich or any establishment politician — for anyone who has served in politics in my estimation is establishment, and they have alliances with the folks that wrote “Against Trump.”
Like Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront, Trump has seen the hypocrisy from the inside and can no longer stand by and watch. Trump is going up against the political mafia chieftains of the seemingly “conservative old guard.” They are like the Mustached Petes who were stuck in the mud of their own self-importance. This is what has happened with Trump. He has seen the decline of the American worker. He has seen the corruption and lies and manipulation, and now he confronts the Johnny Friendlys who want to hold onto political control. Have a look at Brando as he fights for those who have been held hostage:
Lastly, there is no absolute pure strain of “conservatism,” my dear fellow Americans. There are many differing opinions depending on circumstances. William F. Buckley, Jr., who I greatly respected, had once said that if the United States had a parliamentary system, President Bush would be subject to a “no confidence” vote. He was highly critical of the war in Iraq. In the past, Buckley’s nephew Brent Bozell has weighed in on National Review’s relevance. Back in 2012, he posted this to Facebook and Twitter: “National Review’s endorsement of Romney & Huntsman proves only that this is no longer the magazine of William F. Buckley Jr. My uncle would be appalled.”
So, you see, opinions are all over the place, and there are no absolutes – no pure strain of conservatism. The survival of America is at stake, and the 22 writers of National Review are goons trying to muscle and goose-step the America people against the GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump. Now that is not conservative.