About Those Young Republicans ...

On the GOP, conservatism, the Venezuelan Nobel, and more

Photo by Glen Carrie on Unsplash

An article, published in Politico, has kicked up a little storm. Its headline: “ ‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat.” Here is the subheading: “Thousands of private messages reveal young GOP leaders joking about gas chambers, slavery and rape.”

Swell.

There has been lots of commentary on this article, and I will add a little of my own.

I was not surprised by the article, because I have heard testimony on this subject for years. I have had “informants,” if you will.

These informants have been young conservatives—real conservatives, not other types who call themselves that. They have been interns and junior employees. They know their contemporaries.

A conversation with an intern might go something like this:

Me: “Are you involved with the College Republicans on your campus?”

Intern: “No way. They are pretty far-out—to the extent of being fascism-curious, or beyond merely ‘curious.’ ”

Again, I have had a lot of testimony along those lines. It is also true that I have met wonderful students who, in fact, lead their College Republicans chapter.

Let me walk down Memory Lane. (“When do you not?” I can hear some readers say.)

When I was in college, I knew some Republicans, and I knew a lot more when I was in my twenties and thirties. I was a Republican, and an ardent one.

Maybe I was naïve, maybe I was sheltered—but, I swear: I did not know a racist or an antisemite, much less someone who had a good word for fascism.

I knew extremists on the left, for sure—lots of them. But among Republicans? Unless I am completely “blanking,” no.

Don’t get me wrong: I knew that right-wing extremists existed. They played a considerable role in the 20th century! Also, they had publications. One of them was called “The Spotlight.” But these extremists were on the fringe, certainly in America.

The Republicans I knew were basically sunny Reaganites, keen to defend liberal values, or Enlightenment values, against their foes—the statist or collectivist foes of those values.

My guys were for limited government, the rule of law, free enterprise, individual rights, E pluribus unum—the whole bitsy (as we’d say in the Midwest).

Again, I may have been naïve or sheltered—but frankly, I don’t think so.

In the last several years, people have asked, “Was it ever thus?” Differently worded: “Is there a straight line from the Reagan era to Trumpism?”

I say no, even hell-no. But I am just one person with his own experience.

We admired leaders such as Reagan, Thatcher, and, in Canada, Mulroney. (Thatcher and Mulroney spoke at Reagan’s funeral.) We did not admire the likes of Orbán, Bukele—or Putin.

Our economists were, say, Friedman and Sowell—a far cry from the Trump folk.

I could go on (“When can’t you?”).

***

I will go on just a little ...

This week, in response to the uproar over the Politico article, a prominent right-wing “influencer” said, in effect, “We need to circle the wagons. We need to protect our own.”

Certainly, the vice president is of this mindset, as he has proven.

This is what I heard from conservatives, way back—conservatives writing in National Review, Commentary, the Wall Street Journal, etc.:

Remember: You are an individual. You are not a tribalist, not a mere group member. You have a right to conscience. You have a duty to think for yourself. Leave the group-think to others.

That was one of the things—one of the many things—that attracted me to conservatism.

“Pas d’ennemis à gauche,” goes an old line: “No enemies to the left.” It has its parallel on the right.

Well, nuts to that mentality.

***

Maybe I could quote from a column I published early last month. Here goes:

There may be a book or two about Laura Loomer in the future—about her and her influence on the government in this current period. Loomer, as you know, is a social-media “influencer” who has the ear of President Trump. She is a “9/11 truther” (someone who thinks the attacks of that day were an “inside job”). She once clinked glasses with Nick Fuentes, another “influencer.” He is a Nazi-friendly Putinist. As they clinked their glasses, Loomer offered a toast: “To the hostile takeover of the Republican Party.” See it here.

Another paragraph or three:

... I was talking with an experienced reporter who has traveled the length and breadth of this country. He said that Nick Fuentes has been very, very underrated as an influencer. He has lots of followers. He is very, very popular with the young. He is talented, quick, clever. He is forcing others in the right-wing social-media “space” to get more extreme, just to keep up.

Think of drugs, or porn. People want ever harder stuff. There comes a day when pot, or Hustler, seems tame. Too soft. Gotta “escalate.”

This is something to watch, the influence of young Fuentes.

***

There will always be people who believe that tomorrow belongs to them. (I allude to an old song.) Will tomorrow belong to the type of person cited, and quoted, in that Politico article?

It is up to all of us to ensure it does not, and it is up to Republicans in particular, I would say.

To whom will JD Vance attempt to appeal, when he runs for president? What will Marco Rubio do?

The near future will not be boring—unfortunately.

***

Sometimes, the Nobel Peace Prize is a freedom prize. I have written about this for The Next Move, the publication of the Renew Democracy Initiative (where I am a fellow). This year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has given the prize to a Venezuelan dissident and democrat: María Corina Machado.

To read my piece, go here.

Alfred Nobel, the testator, wanted his peace prize to go for “fraternity between nations.” That is the primary criterion of the prize: Who has done the best or most work, during the preceding year, for fraternity between nations?

The Nobel prizes started in 1901. The peace prize always went for international efforts, as the testator wanted. In the 1960s, however, the committee began to honor people who wage a freedom struggle within their own borders.

(If you want to read more about this jazz, consult my Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World.)

The prize for 1960 went to Albert John Lutuli—a great man. I wish he were better known. He was a South African, and a man of parts: a Zulu chief; a Christian lay pastor; the president of the African National Congress (in its nonviolent days).

He was also a beautiful writer.

In 1983, the committee gave the prize to Lech Wałęsa, the leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland. From the White House, President Reagan said that the award to Wałęsa was “a triumph of moral force over brute force” and “a victory for those who seek to enlarge the human spirit over those who seek to crush it.”

(That was like Reagan, to say that.)

Let me now quote from my Next Move piece:

In a 2010 interview, Wałęsa told me that the prize had meant everything to the Solidarity movement. He put it this way: “There was no wind blowing into Poland’s sail. It’s hard to say what would have happened if I had not won the prize. The Nobel prize blew a strong wind into our sail.”

Has it now done the same to Venezuela’s?

That would be great.

***

When Eliot A. Cohen talks, I listen. He is a veteran scholar of international relations, and a man of excellent judgment. Have you seen his piece in The Atlantic? “Trump’s Great Achievement.” The subheading of the piece reads, “If the president succeeds in ending the Gaza war, he will deserve a gala night in Oslo.”

For what it’s worth, I join Professor Cohen in saluting Trump and his team for their achievement. I will have more to say about the matter in due course.

***

“Why, as a British Conservative, I thrill to the principles of the American Revolution and admire the men who made it.” With those words, Daniel Hannan linked to a talk he gave.

Earlier, I mentioned Margaret Thatcher. The first piece I ever published in a magazine, I published in October 1995. It appeared in The Weekly Standard, where I was then working. It ended with the line: “and, by the way, can Mrs. Thatcher come over and be president, please?”

I can say just the same about my man Dan.

For my long-ago piece—30 years!—go here. And I thank you all.