# National Review devotes an entire issue to "Against Trump" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 22, 2016, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868 "2016-01-22T07:16:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/161 "2016-01-27T20:51:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > So she’s a progressive/liberal Democrat who likes to tell other progressive/liberal Democrats what they want to hear. That wouldn’t make her wrong, would it? If she were a RW/conservative Republican telling other such what they want to hear, that probably – not necessarily, but probably – **would** make her wrong – again, based on each side’s pundits’ track records to date. Why that is would be a different debate. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/162 "2016-01-27T21:30:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That wouldn’t make her wrong, would it? > > If she were a RW/conservative Republican telling other such what they want to hear, that probably – not necessarily, but probably – **would** make her wrong – again, based on each side’s pundits’ track records to date. Why that is would be a different debate. Not necessarily wrong but definitely biased. She likes to translate what conservatives and Republicans think and do into something that progressives/liberal/Democrats want to hear. I think it makes them feel better about themselves? What Digby can’t explain is why the progressives/Democrats lost control of the U.S. House and Senate, or why Democrats hold fewer state governor seats, or why Democrats hold fewer state legislatures. I think it’s because progressives/Democrats don’t have a clue as to what the other side actually wants because they’re to busy using Digby-style articles when trying to ridicule the opposition. FYI - I doubt any conservatives or Republicans make decisions based on what a Digby-type has to say about anything. Progressives/Democrats just think they do. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/163 "2016-01-27T22:28:31Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Not necessarily wrong but definitely biased. She likes to translate what conservatives and Republicans think and do into something that progressives/liberal/Democrats want to hear. I think it makes them feel better about themselves? Try to make some criticism that would not apply with equal force to **all** pundits of **any** politics. And that does not mean pundits are not worth reading – does it? > [@doorhinge](#): > > What Digby can’t explain is why the progressives/Democrats lost control of the U.S. House and Senate, or why Democrats hold fewer state governor seats, or why Democrats hold fewer state legislatures. Because that is not the topic of the article, nor it is a fact demanding explanation in the context of what is the topic. > [@doorhinge](#): > > I think it’s because progressives/Democrats don’t have a clue as to what the other side actually wants because they’re to busy using Digby-style articles when trying to ridicule the opposition. This is analysis, not ridicule. Digby’s own politics might be clear, but not one word of her article amounts to ridicule of the Pub base – nor of the _NR_ pundits, for that matter. This thread is **about** the fact that there is now a division within the GOP – an **unusual, remarkable** division, far more so than the Ford-Reagan fight in 1976. _NR_ has spent the past 60 years preaching the word of Movement Conservative ideology . . . and now the Pub base seems to lining up behind a populist demagogue who is not only not a consistent conservative ideologue but does not even appear to **understand** the ideology. Suppose the frontrunner were Rand Paul – _NR_ might have a problem with that, because Paul is dead against neoconservative warhawkery, but nevertheless he clearly is an ideologue of a kind (libertarian) long found within the Pub/Movement mainstream – different editors would argue for or against him within the pages of _NR,_ but they would not close ranks against him. But with Trump they seem to think they have no other choice – and when was the last time _NR_ took a stand against a GOP frontrunner?! This is a strange phenomenon that demands explanation – and it appears the RW pundits not only cannot explain it but cannot understand it – certainly [David Brooks doesn’t understand it](http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/david_brookss_electoral_panic_attack_why_the_voice_of_the_conservative_establishment_is_in_crisis/). I haven’t read any of the articles from the anti-Trump issue of _NR,_ but none of the bits quoted in this thread so far show any better level of insight. Set against all that, Digby’s explanation appears simple and compelling: Trump is leading because the Pub base is no more consistently ideologically Movement-Conservative than Trump is, does not understand _NR’s_ ideological message any more than he does, and is simply growling from its gut. Digby gets it. [And so does Robert Reich.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=782325) > [@](#): > > Which explains a paradox I found a few months ago when I was on book tour in the nation’s heartland: I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump. > > At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide. > > But as I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end “crony capitalism.” They detested “corporate welfare,” such as the Wall Street bailout. > > They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics. > > Somewhere in all this I came to see the volcanic core of what’s fueling this election. > > If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who are working harder than ever but getting nowhere, and who understand that the political-economic system is rigged against you and in favor of the rich and powerful, what are you going to do? > > Either you’re going to be attracted to an authoritarian son-of-a-bitch who promises to make America great again by keeping out people different from you and creating “great” jobs in America, who sounds like he won’t let anything or anybody stand in his way, and who’s so rich he can’t be bought off. > > Or you’ll go for a political activist who tells it like it is, who has lived by his convictions for fifty years, who won’t take a dime of money from big corporations or Wall Street or the very rich, and who is leading a grass-roots “political revolution” to regain control over our democracy and economy. > > In other words, either a dictator who promises to bring power back to the people, or a movement leader who asks us to join together to bring power back to the people. > > You don’t care about the details of proposed policies and programs. > > You just want a system that works for you. Once again – it’s not policy nor ideology that this election is about, however much the _NR_ crowd would like it to be. Or, maybe it is – ideology of a sort, but not as the word is usually understood. [John B. Judis discusses a little-known book, _The Radical Center: Middle Americans and the Politics of Alienation,_ by Donald Warren (1976):](http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/74221/return-middle-american-radical) > [@](#): > > While conducting extensive surveys of white voters in 1971 and again in 1975, Warren identified a group who defied the usual partisan and ideological divisions. These voters were not college educated; their income fell somewhere in the middle or lower-middle range; and they primarily held skilled and semi-skilled blue-collar jobs or sales and clerical white-collar jobs. At the time, they made up about a quarter of the electorate. What distinguished them was their ideology: It was neither conventionally liberal nor conventionally conservative, but instead revolved around an intense conviction that the middle class was under siege from above and below. > > Warren called these voters Middle American Radicals, or MARS. “MARS are distinct in the depth of their feeling that the middle class has been seriously neglected,” Warren wrote. They saw “government as favoring both the rich and the poor simultaneously.” Like many on the left, MARS were deeply suspicious of big business: Compared with the other groups he surveyed—lower-income whites, middle-income whites who went to college, and what Warren called “affluents”—MARS were the most likely to believe that corporations had “too much power,” “don’t pay attention,” and were “too big.” MARS also backed many liberal programs: By a large percentage, they favored government guaranteeing jobs to everyone; and they supported price controls, Medicare, some kind of national health insurance, federal aid to education, and Social Security. > > On the other hand, they held very conservative positions on poverty and race. They were the least likely to agree that whites had any responsibility “to make up for wrongs done to blacks in the past,” they were the most critical of welfare agencies, they rejected racial busing, and they wanted to grant police a “heavier hand” to “control crime.” They were also the group most distrustful of the national government. And in a stand that wasn’t really liberal or conservative (and that appeared, at least on the surface, to be in tension with their dislike of the national government), MARS were more likely than any other group to favor strong leadership in Washington—to advocate for a situation “when one person is in charge.” > > If these voters are beginning to sound familiar, they should: Warren’s MARS of the 1970s are the Donald Trump supporters of today. Since at least the late 1960s, these voters have periodically coalesced to become a force in presidential politics, just as they did this past summer. In 1968 and 1972, they were at the heart of George Wallace’s presidential campaigns; in 1992 and 1996, many of them backed H. Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan. Over the years, some of their issues have changed—illegal immigration has replaced explicitly racist appeals—and many of these voters now have junior-college degrees and are as likely to hold white-collar as blue-collar jobs. But the basic MARS worldview that Warren outlined has remained surprisingly intact from the 1970s through the present. > [@doorhinge](#): > > FYI - I doubt any conservatives or Republicans make decisions based on what a Digby-type has to say about anything. Progressives/Democrats just think they do. 😕 No, I don’t think Digby nor any Salon writer nor any of their readers think they’re having any effect on Republican voters’ behavior. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/164 "2016-01-27T22:39:31Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Wearing a kilt? In the traditional manner? You da MAN… Does it in Minnesota, he won’t be for long. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/165 "2016-01-27T22:41:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Does it in Minnesota, he won’t be for long. Is Minnesota really any colder than Scotland? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/166 "2016-01-28T01:07:49Z")
Yes! Scotland has the benefit of the Gulf Stream, so it’s much warmer, especially considering its latitude. Glasgow, for instance, is at 55° 51′ 44.86″ N, much more northern than Minneapolis (44° 59′ N). Even though it’s farther north, its winters are more mild: [QUOTE=wikipedia on Glasgow] Winters are cool and overcast, with a January mean of 5.0 °C (41.0 °F), though lows sometimes fall below freezing. Since 2000 Glasgow has experienced few very cold, snowy and harsh winters where temperatures have fallen much below freezing. The most extreme instances have however seen temperatures around −12 °C (10 °F) in the area. Snowfall accumulation is infrequent and short-lived. The spring months (March to May) are usually mild and often quite pleasant. Many of Glasgow’s trees and plants begin to flower at this time of the year and parks and gardens are filled with spring colours. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=wiki on Minneapolis] As is typical in a continental climate, the difference between average temperatures in the coldest winter month and the warmest summer month is great: 60.1 °F (33.4 °C). The city experiences a full range of precipitation and related weather events, including snow, sleet, ice, rain, thunderstorms, and fog. The highest recorded temperature was 108 °F (42 °C) in July 1936 while the lowest was −41 °F (−41 °C) in January 1888. The snowiest winter of record was 1983–84, when 98.4 inches (250 cm) of snow fell.[42] [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/167 "2016-01-28T15:03:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is Minnesota really any colder than Scotland? The UK generally is much warmer than almost anywhere along the same latitude, because of the Gulf Stream. London (which of course is at the other end of the country) is as far north as Nova Scotia and the sun sets at like 4:00 in the winter, but it hardly ever drops more than a couple of degrees below freezing and can reach over 90 degrees (F) in the summer. In 1993 it got to -20 Celsius on one of the Orkneys during what was then the coldest UK winter in something like 150 years, and everyone was amazed. I gather most of Minnesota sees lower temperatures than that every winter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/168 "2016-01-28T15:54:17Z")
Depends. Some years, they put out containers like maple syrup gatherers to collect liquid oxygen for NASA. But it keeps the ice spider population under control. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868.md?page=8)