Conservatives For Trump: A Symposium Featuring Scholars & Writers For Trump

When 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence they declared their “reliance upon divine Providence” and pledged to each their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Today, 125 scholars and writers have pledged to support Donald Trump for president. While we too rely upon divine Providence today, it is because of those risks taken by those men that we live in a republic where declaring support for a candidate does not imperil life or limb. But fortunes and sacred honor are always at stake, rarely more so than in a contentious election that will decide the future of this republic. We believe the stakes are high and that all Americans must stand up and be counted.

When scholars and academics offer public support to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton they risk nothing. It is expected and applauded. Not so, for supporters of Donald Trump. Today we host a symposium of leading conservative writers and scholars who have declared their support for Donald J. Trump for president. All of them are part of Scholars & Writers for Trump. Here, they explain why. These men and women are known for their intellectual and political achievements, but we selected them for their experience and, most of all, for their wisdom.

Conservatives for Trump: An American Greatness Symposium

—  F.H. Buckley —

I have some sympathy for people who can imagine a better Republican candidate this year, but from the very beginning I always thought that Donald Trump was perfect.

Maybe I should define perfection, however. For me it meant Trump was the only person who could defeat Hillary Clinton. What with her corrupt ways, her alliance with the most destructive policies imaginable, and especially the manner in which through her immigration policies she’d render it impossible for any conservative to win in my lifetime, this was an easy one. It became easier still when I saw the fainéants and milquetoasts on stage with Trump at the first candidates’ debate in Cleveland in 2015.

But on the positive side I also saw in Trump someone who could rescue what is living from what is dead in conservatism. And by dead I mean what passes for the higher thinking of today’s conservatism, the contempt for the poorest Americans, the indifference to mobility, the compromises with corruption, and mostly the sense of failure, the small-souled man’s belief that our best days are behind us. Against that, I take my stand.

F.H. Buckley is a law professor at George Mason University and the author of The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America (Encounter, 2016).


— James Piereson —

There are many reasons for Americans of varying political persuasions to support Donald Trump for President. Among these reasons, three are especially important:

First, Donald Trump has a plan to re-energize the U.S. economy after more than a decade of slow growth, stagnating incomes, and rising government debt. He will slash corporate taxes to encourage businesses to repatriate more than $3 trillion that they are holding offshore because of the current corporate tax rate that is the highest in the industrial world. Those funds once brought back home can be invested in American enterprises to provide jobs and incomes for American workers. He will cut individual income taxes to encourage work and investment, and economic growth. Just as important, he will cut regulations that have accumulated during the Obama years and that are discouraging investment and the hiring of U.S. workers.

Second, Mr. Trump will focus on national security in all of its dimensions by attacking the interlocking problems of terrorism, illegal immigration, and rising crime in the inner cities. He is committed to restoring America’s borders as an essential feature of national sovereignty and to fulfilling the first duty of government, which is to protect the security of its citizens.

Third, Donald Trump is by far the preferred alternative to Hillary Clinton who promises to entrench further the failed economic and foreign policies of the past eight years. For conservatives and moderates who hope for a stronger and more dynamic America, and a nation of rising incomes, strong communities, and secure borders, the choice could not be clearer. Donald Trump—not Hillary Clinton—is the candidate in this race who promises to restore American greatness.

James Piereson is, most recently, the author of Shattered Consensus: The Rise and Decline of America’s Post War Political Order (Encounter, 2015). His essays appear in many newspaper and journals, including The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and The New Criterion.


— William J. Bennett —

Most of our Commerce Clause law was written by the Supreme Court during the FDR era. Most of our criminal procedure law was written by the Court in the 1960s. Roe has been with us for over 40 years. With the next President, we are not talking about a Supreme Court—and federal courts—that will change our law for the next four years, but for much, much longer. Now consider that we are looking at a possible replacement of up to five Supreme Court Justices. In the hands of Hillary Clinton, we could see a 7-2 Court and it would change America, forever.

Beyond legal interpretations having to do with everything from religious liberty, the Second Amendment, property rights, illegal immigration, constitutional interpretation, and beyond, a Trump presidency would be staffed by Republicans and conservatives. A Clinton presidency would be staffed by Democrats and liberals—all committed to preserving and building on the last eight years. Now think about the regulatory state and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Voting for Donald Trump is not a hard choice for me, not if I want any shot at seriously fighting terrorism while undoing the damage of the past. As a Republican, as a conservative, I simply cannot hesitate between the two choices before me. The stakes are too high.

William J. Bennett is former Secretary of Education and author of America: The Last, Best Hope.


— Roger L. Simon —

We live in a time that is a depressing throwback to the 1950s, only in reverse. In those days, members of the academy, the media and the entertainment industry were terrified they would be “outed” as communists and lose their jobs, even be ostracized and forced to leave the country to support their families.

Now, in those same provinces, people fear being exposed as Republicans or, even worse, supporters of Donald Trump, with basically the same results, albeit the foreign ports are less welcoming.

As one who has worked in all three areas, I can attest to this extreme level of discrimination. It is a drastic and perhaps even terminal threat to the democratic republic created by our Founders.

Because the situation is so grave, my reaction is and has been to be convinced that Donald Trump, for all his rough edges, is the “bad medicine” necessary to fix an increasingly acute situation.

The standard form politician would not be enough to derail a “progressive” agenda that is leading our country into economic and cultural oblivion. Sometimes an outsider is needed—and this is one of them. The Founders would have approved.

Roger L. Simon is an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter, award-winning novelist and blogger, and the co-founder of PJ Media. He is the author most recently of I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already (Encounter, 2016).

american greatness

— Hadley Arkes —

In 1964 the Republicans, with Goldwater, were blown away, and yet four years later the Republicans came back strongly with Richard Nixon. But in those intervening four years the regime itself was changed:  The Great Society extended and confirmed the reach of the federal authority until it covered hiring and firing in corporations and even small, private colleges. And it extended federal controls over local education.  We are faced now with a comparable threat to change the regime yet again. Obama has already sought to govern wide sections of the economy with regulations that bear little connection to any statute that can give the standing of law to these executive orders. He has made a nullity of Congress and the separation of powers.

And an administration of the Left will only confirm and entrench these changes.  We face the threat of having medical care brought under national political management, with a federal commission rationing care for the aged.   We can expect a campaign to force religious schools to incorporate abortion in their medical plans and have outreach to LGBT groups. And we can expect new judges in the lower federal courts to support this war on the religious.  Only a Republican Congress can resist these moves, but that can be done only with a Republican president to sign its Acts into law.  And Donald Trump is the only one who can be right now that Republican President.

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College. He is also Founder and director of the Washington-based James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law.


— Darren Beattie —

I register my support on this list not as a conservative partisan, but rather as a young academic with a critical perspective on the prevailing left-right political paradigm—a subject I have taught at the university level both in the United States and in Europe.

Like so many others, I recognize that the increasingly narrow ideological differences allowable within the left-right paradigm are now more than ever less important than the emerging disagreements as to the soundness and relevance of the left-right paradigm as such. I recognize that the movement conservatism that emerged during and helped to win the Cold War is a far cry from its false and failed post-Cold War simulacrum of crony capitalism and reckless interventionism; on the other side, we see that the Left that once admirably defended free-speech and civil rights is now animated chiefly by an uncanny post-Cold War merger between a weaponized identity politics and multinational corporate power.

In short, the Bush-Clinton politics of the past 30 years is the rotten carcass of a politics that perhaps made sense in the past but has proven woefully inadequate to address the contemporary challenges we face. Donald J. Trump is the first major politician to reflect an understanding of this post- Cold War reality and to point boldly toward an alternative—for this he has my admiration and my support.

Darren Beattie is Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Political Science, Duke University.


— Ronald D. Rotunda —

Shortly before the first Presidential debate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that half of those who opposed her candidacy and supported Donald Trump were “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it”—they were a “basket of deplorables.” The other half suffered from “economic anxiety,” what one might call losers. They are, in fact, neither. They are people who see the need for change, appreciate the importance of economic growth, and who cannot trust Clinton, who (the FBI Director told us) repeatedly lied to the American people about the emails she destroyed and the computer server she created. They realize that we cannot tax the country into prosperity, and they include people like professors from Duke, Amherst, the University of Texas, the Claremont Institute, Tel-Aviv University, University of Colorado, Oxford University, Johns Hopkins University, Northwestern University, University of Chicago, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt, University of Illinois, and too many others to list here. Then there are the writers and creative artists not affiliated with any university, and stars in their own right, like Conrad Black, a former newspaper publisher and author (among other books), of a “brilliant and provocative biography of Franklin Roosevelt.” And Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education and author of America: The Last, Best Hope. These are the people that Hillary Clinton tars as deplorables and losers.

Ronald D. Rotunda is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law


— Esther Goldberg —

Despite the fact that Donald Trump expresses himself, not in the Queen’s English, but in Queens’ English, his ideas have clarity and logic rarely found in politics, and this is what draws me to him:

Islamic terrorists are not misguided youth seeking social acceptance and a bourgeoisie lifestyle. They are fanatics who want to hurt us, and the role of Government is to stop them.

Groups like Black Lives Matter are not rioting and looting to protest racism and police brutality. While they undoubtedly had legitimate grievances, their unlawful behavior cannot be tolerated by a society that values the rule of law.

Nationalism—the love of country—does not threaten our democracy. Corporate fascism—the control of our election process by monied interests—constitutes such a threat.

Our desire to maintain social cohesion by limiting immigration to those whom we can integrate into our way of life is not “nativism,” for we welcome any newcomer who promises to abide by our Constitution.

A trade policy that privileges capital at the cost of lowering wages creates a class system that is antithetical to our democracy.

Our Constitution guarantees free speech and free exercise of religion; it is not intended to protect against all hurt feelings, howsoever unreasonable these might be.

Esther Goldberg is a lawyer and writer for The American Spectator.


— Bradley C.S. Watson —

Donald Trump shows an intuitive grasp of what most politicians must have explained to them: here in America, the people rule. Popular sovereignty requires borders, and it requires security. The people cannot govern by reflection and choice if they must forever respond to accident and force. Popular sovereignty also requires that the people not be slaves to an unelected and unrepresentative administrative state. The laws as well as the agencies of government must be trimmed and tamed so that they once again serve the people. Donald Trump grasps this too: the Supreme Court is the least republican branch of the federal government, and the people cannot rule if they are subjected to capricious judicial edicts masquerading as constitutional interpretation. Trump has put forth a serious list of judicial nominees who would only go where the text, tradition, logic, and structure of the Constitution—rather than currently fashionable political preferences—point. Beyond this, Trump has wisely called for the resignation of a transparently political Supreme Court justice, thereby reminding us of constitutionally legitimate political checks against an overweening judiciary. Finally, Donald Trump shows spiritedness in abundance: there’s reason to be believe he’d actually tackle all this.

Bradley C. S. Watson is Professor of Politics and Philip M. McKenna Chair in American and Western Political Thought at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, where is co-director of the college’s Center for Political and Economic Thought. He has authored or edited many books, including Living Constitution, Dying Faith: Progressivism and the New Science of Jurisprudence. His next book is an anthology entitled Progressive Challenges to the American Constitution: A New Republic, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.


— Michael Ledeen —

If I’d had my druthers, Donald Trump would not have been my nominee, but so what? I now have to choose between him and Hillary, and it isn’t a tough choice. That’s because Hillary has shown such contempt for American security, while Trump clearly likes America. Hillary, through the auspices of the family foundation, has quite clearly auctioned off key government decisions. I don’t know of any other secretary of state who has done such a thing. So I don’t want her in any position of power in my government. Never mind president.

You don’t have to tell me about Trump’s shortcomings. I can probably add to your list. But then, I’m not being asked to pass judgment on him, I’m asked if he’s the better of the two, and I think he is.

I like his sense of humor most of the time. I like his feisty desire to win, not just for himself but for all of us. I like many of the strong and smart people that are working with him. Again, the contrast is luminously clear: he likes Lt. Gen Mike Flynn, with whom I recently wrote a book, while Hillary likes Sidney Blumenthal, a very bad man. I’d rather see General Flynn in the White House than Mr. Blumenthal. By a long shot.

And yes, I dread the thought of Hillary choosing multiple justices for the Supreme Court. Trump’s list is excellent.

I haven’t been excited about a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan, about whom I had myriad doubts. But I thought it was urgent to defeat Jimmy Carter, so I voted for Reagan. He turned out to be a terrific president. I certainly don’t expect Trump to be remotely comparable to Reagan, but I think Hillary is more dangerous to America than Carter was.

And I’m not a Republican. I’d love to vote for Scoop Jackson, but he’s not on the ballot. Trump’s next best.

Michael Ledeen holds a Ph.D. From the University of Wisconsin, is a world class bridge player and is author of 37 books, most recently The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies with Lt. Gen Michael T. Flynn, and Virgil’s Golden Egg and Other Neapolitan Miracles: An Investigation into the Sources of Creativity.


— John R. Lott, Jr. —

No other presidential election in my lifetime has had so much at stake. The differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could not be starker. If Clinton wins, she has promised that the Supreme Court Justices that she will appoint will overturn Citizens United. Few people seem to understand that would mean that the federal government would be able to ban movies and books deemed too political during election years. It is hard to believe that we could soon be living in a country where movies and books could be banned because of their political positions. The judges that Trump has listed as the ones he would appoint would protect the 1st Amendment and would not allow the government to ban movies or books based on politics.

While Trump would protect the 2nd Amendment, Clinton has also promised to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will vote to overturn the recent Supreme Court decisions in Heller and MacDonald. Those decisions did only one thing: say that governments could not completely ban all guns or an entire category of guns. That will mean that some places such as Washington, DC will again ban guns. California, which has banned over 1,200 models of handguns since 2001, will soon be able to completely ban the few remaining handguns that can be sold in the state.

On taxes, we already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and Clinton has promised to raise corporate as well as individual taxes. Trump has promised to cut them. Trump understands why companies and investment are fleeing the US. Clinton thinks that the solution is more taxes and more regulation.

John R. Lott, Jr. is President of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author, most recently, of The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (Regnery, 2016).


— David P. Goldman (Spengler) —

Of all the contenders for the office of president in the primaries and general, Donald Trump was alone in recognizing the seriousness of our national condition, and declaring that his goal was to make America great again. He understands that our national standing is on the line. A third of our adults do not “participate” in the labor force. Entrepreneurship and innovation are frozen. The stifling tax and regulatory policies of the last eight years have left us with the lowest productivity and family income growth in three generations. These are big problems, and Mr. Trump is willing to apply big solutions. Small-ball economics won’t save us. In national security matters, he has had the courage to break with past Republican mistakes and focus on America’s national security interests. We still have an opportunity to reverse course; after another four years of Democratic governance, it may be too late. Donald Trump is our last, best hope.

David P. Goldman (Spengler) is a columnist for Asia Times and PJ Media, and the author of How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too) (Regnery, 2016).  He directed debt research at Bank of America and credit strategy at Credit Suisse, and advises institutional investors on macro investment strategy.


— Chris Buskirk —

America has become unmoored from the constitution that has maintained and encouraged her freedom, justice, and prosperity and has entered a period of post-constitutionalism that imperils the natural rights of her people  Coincident with the decline of American constitutionalism has been the rise of a ruling class that exercises authority through control of the state and elite cultural institutions without regard to the interests or consent of the sovereign people.  The ruling class is insensible of, when they are not openly hostile to, the legitimate interests of the American nation and her people.  They long for a post-national millennial utopia and will use whatever means necessary to achieve it.    

Donald Trump cannot fix this – not in one term or even in two.  But he can start.  And that alone is enough at this point in our nation’s history to require a vote for him.  And he is far better than what the Democrats offer.  A Clinton presidency would only accelerate our progress down this dangerous, post-constitutional path.  Trump’s candidacy has already done the nation a great service by giving voice to the nagging, sometimes urgent, concerns of ordinary people imperiled by ruling class hegemony.  They said only Nixon could go to China so perhaps only a billionaire could name the peril posed by the globalist ruling class.  Only Trump, of the two candidates running this year – or of any candidate running since 1984 – has shown an innate understanding of the challenges the country faces and a willingness to name them publicly and face them head-on.  A Trump presidency would not mark the beginning of the end of what promises to be a long struggle to regain constitutional government, but it might mark the end of the beginning.

Chris Buskirk is the publisher and a senior editor of American Greatness.


— Stephen B. Presser —

There are three basic principles of government in America, and only Donald Trump is likely to maintain them. These are that government exists to protect our rights, and not to redistribute our property, that the only legitimate source of authority is the American people themselves, and that the sovereignty of the people cannot survive without adherence to the rule of law. These principles can only be secured if we have a judiciary committed to implementing the original understanding of our Constitution and laws, and not one committed to altering the meaning of the Constitution and laws to shift resources to groups or causes particularly favored by elite opinion. These were the views of the late Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court Justice whose recent passing has left the United States Supreme Court precariously divided and unable to fulfill its responsibilities. Donald Trump has made clear that his potential Supreme Court nominees would be in the mold of Justice Scalia, and any of them would begin the necessary process of restoring the Supreme Court and our nation to a point where the federal leviathan can be restrained, and where the American people can once again enjoy our ultimate Constitutional right, self-government.

Stephen B. Presser is the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History Emeritus at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, and the author of the forthcoming Law Professors: Three Centuries of Shaping American Law.


— Thomas K. Lindsay —

America enjoys a special place among nations. Our exceptionalism consists in the fact that, unlike other countries, past and present, America lives by two core principles: equality and inalienable rights. This combination has created the most powerful, prosperous country in history. And the most generous.

But the conditions of American dignity are under siege.

Out-of-control spending by Washington elites has left us with a Greece-style national debt. Under Obama, debt has doubled, to $20 trillion, robbing our children and grandchildren of the opportunities essential to the American Dream. Clinton’s promised policies will only increase this debt, locking us into stagnation for the foreseeable future.

America has the third highest corporate tax rate worldwide. Businesses have thus been fleeing our borders. This government-forced exodus stifles economic growth and stagnates middle-class wages.

Abroad, America’s influence is in tatters, thanks to Obama and Clinton’s feckless foreign policies. Our friends no longer trust us. Our enemies are emboldened.

This leadership vacuum has made America—and the world—far worse off than we were eight years ago. Terrorist attacks occur near-daily due to incompetent border-enforcement. ISIS is growing, thanks to Obama and Clinton’s suicidal policies.

Trump has pledged to reverse these dysfunctions—through protecting our borders, fighting Islamic terrorism, and returning national-security-critical industries to America.

At home, Trump would expand the economic pie for lower- and middle-income Americans through lowering taxes and reducing regulations.

America’s dignity can be restored. But not if we continue the liberty-threatening, economy-killing policies championed by Obama and Clinton. Americans crave a change. Donald Trump alone can bring it.

Thomas K. Lindsay, has served as a university dean, provost, and college president. He was Deputy Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 2006-2008. He is co-author and editor of the college textbook, Investigating American Democracy (Oxford University Press).

american greatness

— Seth Leibsohn —

We face tremendous challenges ranging from illegal immigration to foreign policy to national security and terrorism to our debt.  All of these challenges have been exacerbated by the Obama administration.  There is not one of these problems President Obama’s former Secretary of State will make better. She will double down on them.  And we haven’t even begun to address the growth of the administrative state or Supreme Court, both of which have taken power rightly belonging to the people acting in their constitutional majority.

Compound all of this with the practical history of presidential administrations whereby Democratic presidents usually staff themselves to the left while Republican presidents usually staff themselves to the right. Simply put, a Democratic presidency will increase and worsen our current and looming crises while a Trump presidency can put us on the ultimate course of correction.

Donald Trump is the only choice for those that look around the world—and at home—and see something very much wrong going on.  What is that wrong?  The inversion of common sense.  We conservatives have long-lamented the increasing state of political correctness and multiculturalism, the “kick me” sign on our country’s back, and the increasing hostility to our allies and appeasement of our enemies.  Donald Trump stands athwart the latter and has staked his campaign on reversing all of the former—in a way no other Republican has, in a very long time.  I will vote and urge others to vote for Donald Trump.

Seth Leibsohn is a Contributing Editor at American Greatness, a Senior Fellow of The Claremont Institute, and the host The Seth Leibsohn Show on KKNT in Phoenix. He is the co-author with William J. Bennett of “The Fight of Our Lives.”


— Tiffany Miller —

Conservatives should have no illusions about the gravity of the threats facing us today. American progressives, as a matter of principle, abandoned the Founders’ vision of limited republican government over a century ago. Crucial constitutional elements of that vision—particular liberties as well as key institutional safeguards—have been seriously compromised since. Today’s progressives have trained their sights on other core protections including the First Amendment. Churches are rapidly seeing themselves re-designated as mere “public accommodations,” which designation will require them to conform to the state-mandated LGBT agenda. Meanwhile the specter of “hate speech” threatens to muzzle criticism of this or any other politically correct orthodoxy—to our increasing peril. The sense that the United States is becoming Germany grows almost daily. I am for Trump not only because of what he is not but because of what he is. He is not a progressive ideologue like Hillary and so there is greater reason to believe his nominations for the federal courts and executive branch will help extend the lives of these key freedoms. But I am also for Trump because he has shown great fortitude in insisting on the need to discuss topics of truly existential import like the growing influence of radical Islam in the United States.

Tiffany Miller is Associate Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas

ink-pen— Deal W. Hudson —

As a Catholic conservative, I consider protecting innocent life first, and, on that score, there is no doubt that Trump/Pence is a pro-life ticket, while Clinton/Kaine might as well be called the “Herod” ticket. But like other Catholics, I am far from being “single-issue” voter. Why? To care about life is to care about everything, because human life can flourish only within a society directed towards the common good of all. I consider the policies of Trump/Pence as doing greater service to the common good than the alternative. For example, securing the border with Mexico does not appear to them as rash or unreasonable, it’s a matter of common sense and respecting the rule of law. Immigration itself has become a matter of national security, and the present is no time for our border guards to be pressured to ignore the law. I believe Trump’s promises: his list of Scalia-like Supreme Court nominees; his promise to defund Planned Parenthood and to protect the Hyde Amendment; to lift the restriction on political speech off the people of faith by removing the Johnson Amendment. These choices and promises represent the kind of America I want for our children and grandchildren, one that respects human dignity and the unalienable rights, given by God, and enshrined in our American founding.

Deal W. Hudson is Publisher and editor of The Christian Review.


— Ken Masugi —

It being essential to defeat Hillary Clinton, I had thought Marco Rubio might be the one to lead us beyond an encroaching administrative state, foreign policy disasters, the destruction of religious liberty, and political correctness.

But as the campaign got underway Trump developed from bombastic entertainer to a serious possibility. I saw how he addressed each of my concerns. His rallies revitalized democratic politics in both parties and formed a new “America First” center, which had hitherto groaned under the yoke of globalist multiculturalism, the new majority faction governing America since Reagan.

The political amateur Trump was the only one in 2016 who could assemble a majority for the elementary principles of American democracy—the sovereignty of the people, the consent of the governed, and standing on one’s rights as Americans. Political correctness had prevented conventional partisans from making obvious objections to nonsensical policies ranging from restrooms to terrorism; objectors were derided as bigots or dog whistlers.

But “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” is absurd if government continues to ignore real people. That is the open secret of Trump’s victorious message.

Ken Masugi has been a speechwriter for two Cabinet members and for Clarence Thomas, when he was Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He has taught at the U.S. Air Force Academy,  James Madison College of Michigan State University, the Ashbrook Center of Ashland University, and Princeton University.


 — Julie Ponzi—

Like many people, I was not drawn immediately to the prospect of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for president. Okay. That’s an understatement. My initial reaction to him was somewhere between bemused and annoyed. But two things happened to cause a reevaluation in my thinking about his candidacy. 

The first was that I began to listen to the “non-expert” people in my life; people I love and know to be hard-working, intelligent, and patriotic citizens. They were not blind to his faults, but they saw something in his campaign that was lacking in the others. The second thing was that I began to notice something in the commentary I was reading from pundits and experts I thought I respected. It was contempt. And not just contempt for Trump, but contempt for the people who found something valuable in what he had to say about their lives and their interests.

It’s generally my policy to be skeptical of those who think they understand the interests of others better than those people understand them themselves. I see what is happening now within conservatism and the GOP as a well-deserved rebuke (and one that might have been avoided) for telling the people they were not thinking “correctly” about ordinary political questions. Progressives want to farm out these matters to “experts” and conservatives seem to believe that most policy questions rise to the level of fundamental principle (as understood by them, of course). They cannot countenance compromise among friends, but capitulation to the Democrats is often a different story.

This demonstrates a poor understanding of our foundational principle that “all men are created equal.” That is the bedrock of self-government–the reason why no man may rule another man without his consent. Self-styled constitutional experts who believe that we can “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” without first understanding and acting like the people are sovereign, do more violence to our principles than they imagine we poor unsophisticated citizens can do when we get something wrong.

Julie Ponzi is Senior Editor at American Greatness.


— Douglas A. Jeffrey —

One contributor to the “Against Trump” forum in the Feb. 15 issue of National Review wrote, “Should [Trump’s] election results match his polls, he would be, unquestionably, the worst thing to happen to the American common culture in my lifetime.” If Wikipedia is to be trusted, the author of this sentence was born not yesterday but in 1961, since which America’s common culture—something that requires, to name just two things we used to be good at, historical literacy and assimilation—has been nearly obliterated. The same issue of NR contained a review of two books on Bush 41, whose break with the politics of Reagan hurried America down the road of globalist post-constitutionalism and initiated three decades of bipartisan political ineptitude—in both domestic and foreign policy—that has driven America from a high point in its history to its knees. It read in part: “If ever there was an indispensable man at an essential time, it was George H. W. Bush.”

The publication of such rubbish in National Review indicates that not only has conservatism failed to conserve a way of life consistent with our founding principles—a failure long observable, and not in itself ignoble—but that too many conservatives have been co-opted by the administrative state or have grown so accustomed to it that they have forgotten what that way of life looked like and are incapable of imagining its recovery. Hence the realignment we see occurring, long overdue, for which we have Trump to thank. The movement that will eventually take conservatism’s place (Les Deplorables!) may fail as well, but at least, one hopes, without coming to confuse itself for what it seeks to recover and serve: the disappearing nation (a thing with borders!) that Lincoln called “the last best hope of earth.”

Douglas A. Jeffrey is vice president for external affairs and editor of Imprimis at Hillsdale College.


If you are a scholar or writer and want to add your name, please contact Frank Buckley at

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

142 responses to “Conservatives For Trump: A Symposium Featuring Scholars & Writers For Trump”

  1. Amen to all and especially Douglas Jeffrey! The good news is that NR has lost all influence and credibility, and has been pushed to the trash heap along with Bill Kristol and his Insidious Minions.

    • Bill Kristol is the editor for The Weekly Standard, not NR.

      • We know that Dave. Both are Neo Con mags nowadays. Which is to say – Globalists for Manhattan Privilege.

      • Jeepers Dave, did you forget that the National Enquirer is a big fan of the Clintons? They did a fine job of reporting on the Pretty Pony and his trysts. Something Manhattan Media knew, but didn’t want to report.

      • Saying “necon” is such a knee-jerk reaction. It means almost nothing. It’s not even true. It’s just a way to dismiss people you disagree with on one issue, without having to engage the substance and complexity of their arguments. Instead of saying “they’re all neocons” it’s just as likely that they, the majority they, whoever they are, are in the wrong and the minority “antineocon” crowd are in the ignorant minority.

        It’s like when Trump and his supporters say The Establishment is trying to undermine him. Like when liberals The Man or The System. It’s meaningless. There’s no such thing. Those are abstractions. No one’s trying to oppress you. No one’s hiding under the bed.

      • Are you suggesting that Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg are not NeoCons? I have been reading them for several years and they find ‘Nationalism’ scary but Globalism just fine. I think it has more to do with the number of Manhattan donors.

      • We live in a world that’s interdepedent. To some degree, it always has been. What happens in one place affects someplace else. How many hundreds of years have contries been trading with each other? Again, it’s too superficial to say “globalism good” or “globalism bad”. Don’t worry about isms. There is no “global” ism. Dig into the subject.

      • Dig into the fact that the Republican Party was a protectionist party since Lincoln. It only changed positions after Reagan. Understand what is good for Manhattan is not necessarily good for America. You should also take a look at what Coolidge had to do in 1924 to clean up after Wilson with regard to immigration.

    • Most conservative thought has been marginalized by Trump.

      Of course.

      Trump marginalizes the GOP, et al.

    • There are probably a lot of people at Hillsdale who wish Jeffrey had kept his opinions to himself, lest it seem he is presenting himself as the college’s mouthpiece. Shades of George Roche.

  2. “When scholars and academics offer public support to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton they risk nothing. It is expected and applauded. Not so, for supporters of Donald Trump.”

    Scholars and academics risk much to support Trump, as do writers, actors, artists and professionals. They are to be applauded. We need to ask how a nation that was founded on principles of democracy and free speech reached the point where the perfectly reasonable support of one candidate over a vastly inferior opponent became career-threatening. Darkness has descended over the United States, and only a Trump victory can start to light the lamps that have gone out on our own shores.

      • Nice try “Dave The Idiot” but your Straw Man hyperbole is just another example of the child-like liberal hysteria we get to hear on fake “news” sources like CNN (Clinton News Network), pablum for all the anti-intellectual lemmings, like yourself. You sound like yet another of Obama The AyatOllah’s Government. Court Jesters. Aren’t you embarrassed? …you should be. You sound dumb.

      • This was not hyperbole? . Darkness has descended over the United States, and only a Trump victory can start to light the lamps that have gone out on our own shores.

      • No, it’s not hyperbole. If you love this country you cannot vote for Clinton. If you want to see it effectively end, vote for her. It’s that simple. There will be a post-Clinton polity known as the United States, a dying, Third World debtor police state, if Americans make the egregious mistake of voting for her. That’s not hyperbole, it is reality, and your choice.

      • I thought you were the guy who didn’t like hyperbole?

      • Yep. No matter who wins, I don’t anticipate any major changes. I just want to know how the full implementation of Trump’s policies would not lead to a police state, as feared above.

      • I am talking about a mass deportation force that Trump has proposed.

      • I don’t believe Mr. Trump has discussed exactly how he intends to resolve the illegal alien problem. Certainly he hasn’t proposed a “mass deportation force”, although he expects that, in the end, illegals will go home, get in line and be vetted.

        Serious enforcement of existing laws would do almost all that is necessary, since requiring employers to determine legal residence, limiting Federal and State aid to legal residents and deportation of all those who come into contact with law enforcement would remove both the incentives and ability to stay in country. Whoever is left over can be dealt with in various ways that don’t involve house to house searches. So, once again, your fears are hyperbolic.

      • “We’re rounding ’em up in a very humane way, in a very nice way. And they’re going to be happy because they want to be legalized. And, by the way, I know it doesn’t sound nice. But not everything is nice.”

      • See? Not a word about force. “They’re going to be happy because they want to be legalized.” Sounds like identify and resolve status. Now of course the ones with criminal records in the US are probably going to have to be treated like ….err, criminals, because they don’t care about being citizens, or about laws. In other words, just like now. Except the end result will be the rule of law.

      • There’s no way to “round up” that many millions of people in America. Not peacefully. And I doubt even by force. Who’s going to do it? Mail carriers?

      • The core is building an effective “wall”, whether physical or surveillance. If each encounter with the police means deportation, the level of INS contacts we already have each year will do it in about five years. If neither jobs nor welfare are available, self deportations will halve that time, especially if, after some reasonable deadline, apprehension means ineligibility to return.

        Positive effects on the economy (decreasing public services to illegals, increased ratio of employed to permanently unemployed, reduced cross-border drug trade) will offset a part of the cost of the effort.

        This isn’t like putting a man on Mars. The problem isn’t how to effectively and affordably deport illegal aliens, the problem is the large number of people who, for various reasons, don’t want to do it at all.

      • America has been turning into a Third World country since the 1980s. Accept it, and do what I do, think about what country you want to move to in the near future.

        You will have to try to save America without me. I’m going to leave it to the Know Nothings, do-gooders, illegal immigrants, entitled, criminal, hostile, mush-headed, uneducated, loud, vulgar, fat, superficial, materialistic, software-stealing, boob-tube watching, fast-food chomping, iphone-talking, Facebook-staring zombies.

        All I have to do is work out the logistics. With a laptop and the internet, today it’s possible to live and work anywhere in the world.

      • There is a reason we have millions of people lined up to come here, and millions more willing to risk life and break the law to get here. I’ll concentrate on fixing this nation, whatever its flaws, rather than look for an escape hatch that may well turn out to be illusory.

        Without strong, free democracies, small, free democracies won’t last much time at all: maybe your lifetime, but not your kids. Reforming the US, Britain and the European states, and protecting the weaker democracies and emerging democracies is critical to the world’s future.

      • Obviously, there are wealthy and powerful people who don’t want legal or illegal immigration to be reduced. Otherwise, it would have been done decades ago. It’s a problem that could be sovled. Start by enforcing the law. There’s no need to debate a possible solution because there are people who don’t want to solve it, because it’s a benefit to them. This election won’t change that, just as previous elections haven’t. The demand for cheap labor is high. Cheap labor fuels our economy.

      • How will Clinton make the US a “third world debtor police state”? How will Donald “Mad Max” Trump save us from this apocolyptic future? How are his policies of a mass deportion force and trade wars designed to protect us from Armageddon?

  3. As I read this inspiring introduction and the great contributions that followed, I couldn’t help, for many reasons, to recall an old essay of mine, “Timshel, America”–on the choices of those 56 men, the freedom they fought for as a nation, and the freedom under which we as individuals choose self-limitation and exercise self-governance–Timshel: “thou mayest,” vs “do thou.”

  4. I notice Decius left his name off. Interesting… Sad to see that Dr. Tiffany Miller has sipped the Trump kool aid.

  5. I would like to add the name of the late, great Phyllis Schlafly to the list of intellectuals who support Trump; and I would nominate one of her final articles to be added to the symposium:

    Trump Battles Globalist Republicans
    July 13, 2016

    Before heading to Cleveland to accept the Republican nomination for president, Donald Trump paid a high-profile visit to Capitol Hill, where he hoped to unify Congressional Republicans behind his presidential campaign. Many of the 247 Republican Representatives and 54 Senators were cordial to their party’s presumptive nominee, but others remained hostile and weren’t shy about expressing it to reporters after leaving the closed-door meetings.

    One Congressman reportedly demanded that Trump promise to protect Congress’ Article I powers if he is elected. Trump tactfully refrained from pointing out how many times the Republican Congress has unilaterally surrendered its Article I powers, including the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

    Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona openly mocked Trump at the meeting and then bragged to reporters about their “tense” exchange. Flake, an unrepentant member of the Gang of Eight that produced the 2013 amnesty bill, has already announced plans to resurrect that discredited bill next year no matter who is elected president.
    The globalists will never accept Trump or anyone else who puts Americans first, and they are using Cruz to undermine Trump’s campaign. Cruz’s mega-donors think they can buy their way to control of the Republican Party even if Trump wins the presidency this year, and they are already funding the takeover of several conservative organizations.

    These globalist money-men are also hostile to our Constitution, which they want to rewrite in a new constitutional convention, also called “Convention of States.” Eric O’Keefe, who has close ties to the billionaire Koch brothers, backs the Never Trump movement and is a board member of the Convention of States project.

    Justice Scalia in May 2015 called this attempt for a new constitutional convention a “horrible idea,” but several of its cheerleaders were able to get on the Republican platform committee that is meeting this week. Cruz has praised the delusional proposal to add many amendments to the Constitution, and some of his donors are part of the same group that seeks to alter our Constitution.

    Cruz earned support by many conservatives when he first came to D.C. four years ago. It is long overdue for Cruz to repudiate the support of these globalists who are working against Trump and against our national sovereignty.

    “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” Trump promised in his April 27 foreign policy speech in Washington. That sentiment is anathema to the globalists who provide much of the money for Republican candidates.

    “I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down,” Trump continued. “Under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs. Americans must know that we’re putting the American people first again.”

    When Trump vows to “put Americans first” the globalists complain about “protectionism,” as if there’s something wrong with expecting our own government to protect American jobs and America’s economic interests.

    “On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, the jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority,” Trump said. “Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours, and we – while being fair to them – must start doing the same.” (more)

  6. I would like to add the name of the late, great Phyllis Schlafly to the list of intellectuals who support Trump; and I would nominate one of her final articles to be added to the symposium:

    Donald Trump Channels Pat McCarran || December 16, 2015

    Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has done it again. Speaking aboard the USS Yorktown on the 74th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Trump called on our government to stop letting Muslims enter the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

    Trump’s profanity was justified by the revelation that the Muslim wife who helped her Muslim husband massacre 14 people in San Bernardino received a visa from our government, which gave her official permission to enter the United States last year. With that visa and her Pakistani passport, she legally traveled from Saudi Arabia to San Bernardino and married her U.S.-born Pakistani fiancé, with whom she jointly plotted jihad against Americans.
    Unconstitutional? On the contrary, the Supreme Court has never dared to limit Congress’ “plenary power” over immigration, even when it was based on race, religion or national origin. In a 1977 case, for example, the Supreme Court observed that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”

    That plenary power is best expressed in this federal law: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens, or of any class of aliens, into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.”

    That law was the work of one of our greatest U.S. Senators, Pat McCarran (D-NV), after whom the airport at Las Vegas is named. Along with Representative Francis Walter (D-PA), the two Democrats wrote the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act which Congress passed over Harry Truman’s veto in 1952.
    In addition to barring the entry of “any class of aliens” who may be “detrimental to the interests of the United States” (a category that could include Muslims or persons of any faith who are citizens of, or have traveled to, a Muslim country), the law says the president may “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” They could be required to wear ankle bracelets to monitor their movements, or to provide passwords to their electronic devices and social media accounts, as a condition of the privilege of entering our country.

    Sixty years ago, the Democratic party could boast a patriotic, pro-American anti-Communist like Pat McCarran, but that is no longer the case. Hard-left Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) proposed an amendment, which unfortunately was adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee with the help of seven Republicans, stating that “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

    No, the fundamental principle on which this Nation was founded is that “we the people,” through our elected representatives, have the unalienable right to pick and choose whom we shall allow to enter our great country. The Constitution which our founding fathers bequeathed “to ourselves and our posterity” does not extend its rights and benefits to the whole world~
    Mrs Phyllis Schlafly with Senators Barry Goldwater and Hiram Fong (R-HI) in 1960

    • Also by Mrs Schlafly: Trump’s Muslim Ban Gains Support || July 6, 2016

      When an ISIS-supporting Muslim named Mateen massacred 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando on June 12, Donald Trump reminded Americans that he is still the only political candidate to support a pause in the massive flow of Muslims entering the United States. Trump made his proposal last December after another ISIS-supporting Muslim massacred 14 people at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.

      Trump said his Muslim ban would be temporary. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses,” he said, “our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad.”

      Trump’s reasonable, commonsense proposal was immediately condemned or disavowed by other presidential candidates in both parties. Even Senator Ted Cruz said he disagreed with it, though he didn’t say why.

      Now that Cruz has returned to his “day job” as U.S. Senator from Texas, he recently co-authored a new report with Senator Jeff Sessions that provides powerful support for Trump’s position. The report issued June 22 shows that the overwhelming majority of convicted terrorists came into our country as immigrants or refugees from Muslim countries.
      In an interview, Trump said “there’s no real assimilation” by Muslim immigrants, even in the “second and third generation.” A liberal website called Politifact tried to refute that statement by citing a telephone survey of Muslims who said they wanted to become American, but the interviews were conducted in “Arabic, Farsi and Urdu” – hardly evidence of assimilation. (more)

      • Of what I’ve seen, they have no worries about going public in support of Trump. Julie Ponzi, for example, is a grad student. She is on the list above.

      • I think a greater concern are for students affiliated with schools like Hillsdale and Claremont. Will employers not hire them thinking that they are associated with an institution on the alt-right? Will students not enroll in their programs?

  7. It is not a symposium. It is a concordance. It should be renamed so as not to prostitute the language even a little bit, in order to sound like more than it is.

  8. generally here a renunciation of the intellectual honesty that requires that serious inquiry examine multiple sides of an issue. critiques if trump, considerations of of his obvious short-comings? few and very very far beteeen here.

    and, not sure how this inherently contradictory statement passes for “scholarly” logic:

    “You don’t have to tell me about Trump’s shortcomings. I can probably add to your list. But then, I’m not being asked to pass judgment on him, I’m asked if he’s the better of the two.” ???

  9. Scholars and writers for trump is an oxymoron. These are truly the tallest midgets. The list of scholars and writers, Pulitzer prize winners, best sellers, ivy league academics, ANY scholar or writer who has been awarded any major encomium DWARFS this embarrassing list of wannabes. This list is the definition of lightweights. And just as side note out of 21 only 3 are women. That is 14% for those academics who have trouble with math. How many are not white? I’m sure it is below 5%. The good part of this is that if these percentages hold true in the election the opinions of these associate professors from Buttfuck University will be relegated to the ash bin of history – where they rightfully belong.

  10. “What with her corrupt ways, her alliance with the most destructive policies imaginable…”

    Says a guy who is backing an established con man who has ripped-off thousands of people for millions of dollars and whose foreign policy is so dangerous and irresponsible that scores of experts from both sides of the aisle have warned the American people against electing him.

  11. If these are scholars then it says much about the need for serious education reforms in America.

  12. Thank you all. This progressive disease that is infecting the minds of many shares space with the evil of complicit self-interest, both of which are destroying our nation, and as a result, de-stabilizing the entire world.

    God Bless You All and may He magnify your voices in the hearts and minds of all.

    • There is no god.

      Santa Claus is make-believe, too.

      Welcome to the real world.

  13. Ridiculous. Trump supporters have bemerded themselves for all time, and they’re too stupid to know even that much.

    • ========================

      I made this Meme as Pure Inspiration……

      This Meme is to inspire you to do EVERYTHING you can to help Donald Trump get elected to the presidency!

      Lightning Has Struck, Folks !

      This is the First Chance We’ve had to Save Our Nation
      Since Ronald Regan !

      And, if We don’t get him elected, it will have been Our Last Chance…

      If We Don’t Get Donald Trump Elected President, We’ll Never get another chance to get a real American with traditional values elected to the presidency again.

      Our nation and all we honor and hold dear, will simply slip through our hand, as if we are trying to hold onto a fist full of sand.

      You ALL know full well what the Leftists have planned for us if we lose this!…….

      Massive Amnesty
      Massive 3rd World Immigration
      Massive Muslim Migration
      Massive Debt Building
      Hate Speech Laws – End of True Free Speech
      Curtailment of Gun Rights
      Flooding the Supreme Court with Leftists
      (as many as 4 Leftist Judges added)
      They’re Giving the Internet Away Tommorrow
      And, God Knows the thousands of New Laws and Restrictions coming.

      Make this Meme go viral…..

      I’ll be adding some comments to the Meme soon.

      ⤵ Also, do you like this?

      • Now that’s a very creative inspiration to be sure but a better question is, does your shrink like it. He’s the one with the say on letting you out of your padded cell.

  14. Misogyny is a poor reason to vote for Trump, Folks.

    Women vote, too.

    Just watch and see.

    • Misandry is a poor reason to vote for Clinton, idiot. Men vote too.

  15. Why would a sane adult rationalize Bigotry and Racism?


    • Obviously you’re not sane, since as a leftist you support and promote Bigotry and Racism on a daily basis.

  16. No true conservative should vote for Trump. Trump is not a conservative, he’s a con man. And if elected, he will destroy conservatism. We will see the Democrats take control of the House and Senate in 2018, and the country’s revulsion with Trump will ensure a really liberal election in 2020, and conservatism will be given a bad name. For decades to come conservatism will be associated with Trump. Clinton, on the other hand, will likely bolster the conservative movement in this country, and likely be defeated in 2020 due to the continued economic malaise we find ourselves in. But the Republicans will have to nominate someone who really is a conservative for that to happen – and not just a blowhard conman. So if you’re a real conservative either vote for Gary Johnson, or write in the name of a true conservative. But don’t vote for Trump.

    • But… but… rule of law… soverignty… a country needs borders… Godzilla… Flight 93… GOPe… Neocons…

    • It’s always amusing to see all the supposed “real conservatives” like yourself working frantically to get Hillary Clinton elected President. Trump is the most conservative Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1980, and everything the Trump haters say about Trump – every single thing – was said about Reagan back in the day.

      • “Trump is the most conservative Republican presidential candidate since
        Reagan in 1980” Obviously this is false, and can be proved false by some reading, as can this: “everything the Trump haters say about Trump – every
        single thing – was said about Reagan back in the day.”

        Wrong. Reagan wasn’t like Trump at all. No one accused him of being racist and sexist, of wanting to round up Muslims and Mexicans, of being too friendly to Russia, or criticizing Miss America, of calling the opponent fat, and on and on. You are either very young or you have a short memory. There’s plenty of information out there to refute what you are saying, and what you are saying I have heard few people say.

        Making specific criticisms about someone doesn’t make one a “hater.” That’s a sentiment from a Taylor Swift song.

    • Gary Johnson is certainly not a conservative. He’s a libertarian. Nor is he qualified to be president. To me, he always looks like he just woke up. I agree that Trump isn’t a conservative. He’s a con man, a snake oil real estate salesman, a carny barker who will say anything to get attention. He’s not even a real candidate. He’s a reality TV personality starring in The Presidential Campaign series on all the channels. He knows nothing about politics, history, diplomacy, and on and on. He knows a few things about real estate, but that’s it. He’s a loathsome human being who no one ought to vote for. No one would be voting for him except that he’s running against a woman who is as loathsome as he is, but at least she’s a real candidate with real political experience. Electing Trump would be like electing a pro wrestler. Idiocracy.

  17. My mistake. I thought the words “…Scholars and Writers…” somehow implied intelligence. The contributors and their statements showed me how wrong I was (although it’s hard to discount the political wisdom of a “world class bridge player.”)

  18. Liberals presenting themselves as conservatives. To hell with your symposium.

  19. I suspect that Bill Buckley is both rolling and “roiling” in his grave to witness the utter vacuousness of his once great magazine as its writers and editors jockey for position in establishing their *conservative* credentials while simultaneously exhibiting a gleeful disdain at “those people” who support The Trumpster.

    I can not fathom a Bill Buckley who would have been content to allow for the election of one so corrupt as Madame Hillary nor who would be so ungracious and dismissive of the GOP candidate and his supporters.

    NRO is DEAD!

    • I can’t imagine anyone as intelllectual and aristocratic as William F. Buckley, Jr. supporting someone as loathsome, immature, vulgar, and rude as Donald Trump.

      • You know, if you’re to prance about the place posing as an “intellectual” it might be a good move for you to occasionally attempt to ground your objections to Trump in the concrete of rationality. Instead all you can muster is cheap ad hominem. Calling somebody “loathsome, immature, vulgar, and rude” is the quality of “argument” I’d expect to hear from one of our brain-washed progressives with a degree in grievance studies from our madrasa-like universities.

      • I wasn’t going to insult you by stating the obvious, and it’s obvious to everyone that Trump is a rude, loudmouthed, vulgar New Yorker. All you have to do is Google or turn on the TV right now for examples.

      • Go back to Red State you Erick Erickson minion.

      • Well, I suspect I am going to insult you by stating the obvious – you are an idiot. You’re not liking Trump (or, more likely, not liking what you’ve seen of Trump from the Clinton campaign commercials) says a gig fat nothing about whether Trump is conservative or not, or about the merits of the policies he is running on.

        This is a contest between globalism and nationalism. The conservative position is the nationalist position, at least in this instance. If the country is destroyed and converted into Venezuela Norte then your ignorant blather about what you imagine Burke, Kirk and Buckley were like as people is going to be even less meaningful than it is at present. You can sit around imagining yourself enjoying a debate philosophical debate with the shades of these men over a glass of fine cognac, but since an exercise will remain pointless fantasy.

      • Your insults are proof that you can’t comprehend the situation or make a good argument. They also disqualify you from talking to me. I hope things go well for you. bye-ya

    • Well, the younger Bill Buckley wanted to disfranchise Black people where they could influence the outcome of elections because he thought that the “advanced race must prevail.” If memory serves, he also wrote that 14th Amendment was an “inorganic excretion” to the constitution.

      So the younger Buckley, at least, would have had a lot in common with Trump America.

  20. “These men and women are known for their intellectual and political
    achievements, but we selected them for their experience and, most of
    all, for their wisdom.”

    Wisdom? These clowns wouldn’t know wisdom if the damn tree fell on them.

    What this site brings to mind a quote from Goethe: “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”.

  21. This is one of the most uplifting, encouraging articles I’ve read in a long time.

  22. Stopped reading when Trump supporters compared themselves to signers of the Declaration of Independence. That was the first sentence of the article. What a waste of internet.

  23. Americans ! ! !

    Please listen to one of your elders:

    I am an old man near 70, and in my 50 + years of observing politics I have never seen a politician hand an adversary such a powerful weapon as Hillary Clinton did when she damned 20% of the American people as “irredeemable” “deplorables”.

    In that one remark she summarized the leftist contempt for Americans who stubbornly refuse to submit to leftist shibboleths, and she poured gasoline on the anger of half our population who are sick of being treated as enemies in their own country.

    And “Irredeemable” is even worse than deplorable, because as leftists do not as a rule believe in either salvation, or heaven, or hell, just what do they think they are justified in doing to someone whom they believe is “irredeemable?”

    It is for God to decide such things, not human beings.

    Hillary Clinton is stone cold evil.

    Her remark reeks of death camps,

    and I have never seen her like before in American politics.

    Please do not vote for her ! ! !

    • So, I take it that you identify with white supremacists, anti-Semites, crooked business people etc?

  24. These are not the real conservative thinkers. There’s no one here from the staffs of The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New Criterion, or The Claremont Review of Books. What about George Will, Mark Helprin, and Tom Wolfe?

    You might want to Google Republicans against Trump or conservatives against Trump for a long list of reasoned objections to the Trump fiasco.

    • You’re not a real conservative, which is why you keep your comment history private. There is nothing remotely “conservative” about National Review, the Weekly Standard etc. In the case of NR they have not been conservative in decades. The Standard was never conservative at all.

      George Will? Ye Gods!

      • Hmm. So you think you are smarter than George Will and Bill Kristol? OK. Talk is cheap, as they say. But when you agreed with them, you thought they were brilliant, right?

        I didn’t realize I had my history private. I’ve used Disqus on maybe three occasions in my life. Doesn’t mean anything.

      • Well, I rather think that I am in fact smarter than George Will and Bill Kristol, although I don’t see that as bragging on my part since I’ve never seen the slightest evidence that those two men possess any unusual degree of intellect. I don’t know why you suppose that there was some point in the past where I agreed with them, or considered them “brilliant”. You employ an awful lot of supposition in your thinking.

        But all that’s beside the point, which is that Will and Kristol are “conservative” only in the sense of favoring the preservation of the status quo – the liberal and progressive status quo. Neither of them are remotely conservative in the traditional Burkean sense of the word, which is why they can speak so highly of the most radically left-wing President the US has ever seen.

      • Kristol went to Yale and Will went to Princeton. What about you?

        And if you think Trump is more Burkean than Kristol or Will, you need to re-read Burke. Or you can start with the recent books by Yuval Levin.

      • Princeton and Yale is how you judge intelligence?

        Isn’t that exactly the problem being discussed here?

        The failure of the Ivy League Elite is why are country is in such despair.

        Maybe it’s time for regular Americans to take control.

      • Oh, you’re going with the “Ivy League people are the best and brightest, the natural leaders of mankind” schick?

        It takes one of two things to get an Ivy degree – money and/or connections.

        If you think Trump is not more Burkean than Kristol or Will, then you need to listen (I suspect for the very first time in your life) to what Trump is saying.

        Bill “All hail Obama!” Kristol is about as Burkean as Leon Trotsky.

      • It takes high grades, SAT scores, and so on to get into the Ivy League, among other things. I’m not a fan of those schools, but it would be foolish to deny how bright those those kids are. I’ve met them. Some of my friends went to Ivy League colleges. They’re not superior human beings, but they are bright. If you want a job done, any job, you, too, would take a look at an Ivy League resume. Or are you satisfied with a nation of Blutarskys?

      • It takes high grades, SAT scores, and so on to get into the Ivy
        League, among other things.

        You really don’t know much about how the world works.

        If you want a job done, any job, you, too, would take a look at an Ivy League resume.

        If I want a job done, any job, I carefully screen out anybody with an Ivy League resume. Of course the sort of jobs I want done are real world jobs, not “jobs” which are largely dependent on having the right friends and connections. If I was looking to appoint a board member to a large corporation, one who was friends with assorted lawyers and judges and politicians, than perhaps I’d consider one of those Ivy League people.

  25. Do these things sound familiar?

    “He’s racist, xenophobic, and fuels the fires of hatred!”

    “He’s been divorced and remarried. He can’t commit to anything.”

    “He’s dangerously ignorant about international affairs. The Russian leaders will walk all over him.”

    “He has no filter – doesn’t think before he speaks.”

    “Until recently, he was a Democrat. He’s not a real Republican. He hasn’t paid his GOP dues.”

    “He used to be Pro Choice. Now, suddenly he’s Pro Life?”

    “That can’t be his real hair!”

    “He’s a loose cannon. No one wants HIS finger on the nuclear button.”

    “His opponent has the experience and political savvy to be president. He does not.”

    “He’s just not presidential.”

    “His temperament disqualifies him from ever being Commander-In-Chief.”

    “He’s proven himself to be mentally unstable.”

    “The military will never accept him as Commander-In-Chief. He’s not smart enough.”

    “The GOP doesn’t want him to be the head of the party. He could never reach across the aisle to get anything done.”

    “Most Republican voters will just stay home rather than go out and vote for him.”

    “He’s almost 70. Much too old to be president.”

    “Evangelicals will never support him.”

    “He says (Let’s) Make America Great Again. How dare he say we aren’t still great?!?!”

    “His intellect is thinner than spit on a slate rock.”

    “90 percent of Republican state chairmen judge him guilty of simplistic approaches, with no depth in federal government administration and no experience in foreign affairs.”

    “His spontaneity with reporters and voters plays well but also gives him plenty of space to disgorge fantasies and factual errors so prolific and often outrageous that he
    single-handedly makes the word gaffe a permanent fixture in America’s political vernacular. He confuses Pakistan with Afghanistan. He claimed once that trees contributed 93 percent of the atmosphere’s nitrous oxide…”

    “After all his gaffs, he doubles down on them instead of admitting he made a mistake.”

    “He’s threatening to upend our treaties and relationships with our allies by demanding that they pay for their own defense!”

    “Because of his gross factual errors he might take rash action and needlessly lead this country into open warfare!”

    “You shouldn’t take him seriously. He has a penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems and a stubborn insistence that he is always right in every argument.”

    “The rising turnout of his are not loyal Republicans or Democrats and are alienated from both parties because neither takes a sympathetic view toward their issues.”

    “He wears the disdain he draws from the GOP elites as a badge of honor.”

    “Henry Kissinger’s championing the other GOP candidate and attacking him are actually helping him!”

    “The fact that he could be deemed a serious candidate for president is a shame and embarrassment for the country.”

    They were all said about Ronald Reagan, who went on to be one of the greatest American Presidents ever.

    • Ronald Reagan was a disaster to minority communities, which is probably why he’s so beloved by “conservatives.”

  26. This is all about choosing sides. Cheerleading for one’s party. We’re not supposed to be married to party. We’re supposed to think for ourselves. I don’t know how to turn non-thinkers into thinkers.

    It’s worth asking Democrats and Republicans alike: Is there anyone running for “your” party who you wouldn’t vote for as the main presidential candidate? Here’s how too many people think: My side is good, your side is evil. That is not the way to accomplish anything.

    End justifies means. He’s a bum, but he’s our bum. He’ll fight for our side, right? I hear that every election and nothing ever changes.

    You really think a billionaire whose knowledge extends only to buying and selling commercial real estate (casinos, luxury hotels) knows or cares anything about how most of us live?

    This isn’t the country I thought it was. Maybe I should pack my bags. What is dominant in America, what it values, what it admires, isn’t what I value and admire: the TV shows (reality TV, sex-coms, Game of Thrones), movies (comic books, cartoons, explosions), music (rap, hip hop, the sexualizing of youth, female singers who warble off-key to imitate Mariah Carey) the overemphasis on sports with its cheating and high salaries and ticket prices and nose-bleed seats and, of all things, NASCAR, which is far inferior to open-wheel racing); the anything for a buck attitude; the ends justifies the means; the manipulative tactics of the computer industry (soldering RAM!); the greed and pettiness and selfishness of business execs; the dominance of left-wing professors with their race, class, gender agenda; the dominance of culture by left-wing eggheads who every day accuse me of being sexist, racist, and classist; the immorality, lawlessness, rudeness, selfishness, childishness, materialism, and vulgarity; and the huge number of dumb and lazy who are being pulled along by the rest of us, we who pay the price for their immoral, irresponsible behavior.

    I see Trump supports on TV, these horrible, loud, ugly, rude, vulgar, ignorant people, and think that I didn’t realize this is what constitutes the Republican Party. These are not my kind of people. I have a bookshelf of deep reading. These are people who grew up admiring Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Harry Potter.

    • I don’t see any evidence that you can think at all.

      I see Trump supporters on TV, these horrible, loud, ugly, fat, rude, vulgar, ignorant people

      You’re just an ignorant, prejudiced bigot. Kirk and Buckley would be Trump supporters if they were alive today. Trump is the most conservative candidate the GOP has put forward since Reagan, and perhaps since Silent Cal.

      • The insults are really flying now, aren’t they? Is that the best you can do? No wonder you like Trump. I don’t even know how to respond to something as inane as putting Trump in the same group as Buckley, Kirk, Reagan, and Calvin Coolidge. It boggles the mind. Curiouser and curiouser.

      • Hillary’s insults: deplorable, irredeemable and “should not be allowed to rise again.”

        It stinks from the top.

      • You are obviously a very, very bitter man.

        Vote for Hillary and be done with it.

      • I’ve rarely seen a person more completely lacking in self-awareness. Your opening remarks here were one long, extended sneer, a gigantic raised middle-finger at tens of millions of Americans and Republicans. It’s a little late to start worrying about the lack of civility now.

        I don’t even know how to respond to something as inane as putting Trump in the same group as Buckley, Kirk, Reagan, and Calvin Coolidge.

        Why is your lack of intelligence supposed to be my problem? As I already documented on this thread, Reagan was generally regarded as a stupid boor back in the day. It was only after he was elected president – in the teeth of opposition from pseudo-intellectuals like yourself – that he came to be regarded as a visionary leader.

  27. Clinton exemplifies the worldview of the New Class which manages the New Administrative State. This decayed form of governance is characterized by intertwined elites from Big Business, Big Government, and Big Media acting in their own interests. The European Union is the most fully developed version of the New Administrative State we’ve seen so far, so if Clinton were to be elected, she would push the USA much more in the direction of the EU.

    Unfortunately, the EU is based on an ideology of bureaucratic centralism that’s hostile to traditional national culture, identity, and sense of solidarity. This ideology is fundamentally anti-democratic, where ordinary citizens are pawns on the chessboard, to be moved around by central planners according to utopian schemes. The New Administrative State is hypnotized by its own ideology and the interests of the New Class,so reality becomes marginalized. Fantasies such as global warming and gender ideology are treated with solemn respect. Realities such as national defense, public debt and deficit spending, the migrant crisis, unemployment and underemployment, falling wages for non-elite citizens, decaying infrastructure, government corruption, politically correct Big Media that censors opposing views, falling educational standards, hardening class lines, demographic winter, drug abuse, and rising crime are either ignored or nibbled at with ineffective politically correct non-solutions. Eventually, reality triumphs over fantasy, so the EU is in major trouble.

    Trump questions the New Administrative State and rebukes the corruption and incompetence of the New Class. He uses blunt common-sense language to tell the obvious truth, so of course this truth-telling gets marginalized as stupidity, vulgarity, and so on and on. Trump and his supporters realize that the Emperor has no clothes. The Emperor doesn’t like this.

    • “intertwined elites from Big Business, Big Government, and Big Media acting in their own interests”— which has occurred throughout American history regardless of who is president. When in history hasn’t there been a group of peple with more wealth and power than others? It’s a question not of the existence of this fact, but of degree. How much disparity of wealth and power is acceptable before it becomes obvious that only certain people get treated properly, and the rest of get the shaft? Again, a half-truth trumped up to appear as though it were new. Regardless of who is elected, money and power will continue to accrue toward certain people.

      • Of course, every society has a leadership group, and such groups have a certain sense of themselves. This is normal. What has changed for the worse is that the New Class has developed a certain contempt for the non-elite population. We see this quite clearly in the invective directed at Trump supporters, and before that, at anyone who questioned Obama. Elite contempt destroys the trust that the non-elites must feel in order for a society to function.

        For example, remember when Big Media insisted that anyone who questioned the amazing wonderfulness of Obamacare was obviously racist? Common sense counter-arguments were dismissed with scorn; the only possible reason why anyone would question Obamacare was animosity toward Obama himself. Today, Obamacare is imploding exactly as predicted. The whole project was a utopian fantasy that raised costs for the struggling middle class, while still leaving many lower income citizens uninsured or under insured…New Class incompetence at its worst.

        Wise leaders do not cut themselves off from the genuine needs and concerns of ordinary people. Wise leaders do not wink at obvious corruption and self-dealing by members of the leadership group, for example, the Clinton Foundation. Wise leaders are reality-focused and do not pursue utopian fantasies

      • “Elite contempt destroys the trust that the non-elites must feel in order for a society to function.”I disagree. Don’t be inimidated by the word elite. You know what’s terrible about elites? I’m not one of them. You know what’s terrible about millionaires and billionaires? I’m not one of them.

        A terrible person can still be beneficial. Imagine a hedge fund manager on Wall Street who’s a real scumbag. Yet, he may managing money for a company that handles my finances. Obviously I won’t my investments to increse. But this hedge fund scumbag doesn’t know me. He might feel he is superior and that I’m stupid and untrustworthy, as many Americans are.

        So there’s an example of a guy doesn’t like me, yet he can still work for my benefit.

        What are the elites, if they exist, whoever they are, to think of a country that elects two loathsome human beings like Trump and Clinton? They might think to themselves, “How stupid can people be?” It’s not as though those two grabbed the primaries illegally. People voted them. They didn’t have to. But they did. They are the ones who have a lot explaning to do. The ones who have, through their own free will, enabled the Clintons and Trumps of the world.

        I know there are a lot of people like me. But not enough to have an impact in a country of 100 million voters out of 320 million people. There are too many yahoos. If you call that elitist, OK. I’m elitist when I want the best plumber to come to my house. Or when I buy clothes from the company that makes the best clothes. Or when when I want my football team to be the best. Why would I want to defend the dumb kids in class who cheat, lie, and steal? If I’m on an airplane, I want the A student to fly us. The one the other kids can’t stand.

      • A terrible person can still be beneficial. Imagine a hedge fund manager on Wall Street who’s a real scumbag. Yet, he may managing money for a company that handles my finances.

        Hey, what a brilliant insight. Now if you could just wrap your head around the fact that it applies to politicians as well as hedge fund managers. Your thinking that Trump is a scumbag is, or should be, completely irrelevant to the question “Should he be President”?

        To answer that question we need to know two things. 1) What direction do we want the country to go in? 2) What candidate is most likely to get us there?

        Why would I want to defend the dumb kids in class who cheat, lie, and steal?

        I’m really unimpressed by your constant assertions and insinuations that you are a superior intellectual specimen. if you want people to respect you for you intelligence than try saying something intelligent for once. Repeating “I’m smart, other people are dumb” simply does not cut it.

        All you’ve got is an argument from authority – in which you claim to be the authority!

      • The Administrative State is erasing our Country without our consent.

        That’s the difference.

      • When in history hasn’t there been a group of peple with more wealth and
        power than others? It’s a question not of the existence of this fact,
        but of degree.

        No, it’s a question what those with wealth and power do with it. The “Robber Barons” had plenty of wealth and power, but unlike our current mandarin class, they were patriotic Americans who employed their wealth and power on the side of the American people, building schools and libraries and so on. They did NOT put their wealth and power to work in the service of the cause of destroying their own country and its people.

      • The robber barons were patriotic? No. Of course note. They loved themselves first. They were looking out for No.1, just like most people in America today. Maybe you can love a country like that. I can’t.

      • You sound a lot like Barack Obama. Given that, by your own admission, you don’t like America or the American people, in what sense do you imagine yourself to be “conservative”?

      • She represents that, but a TV personality and shyster real estate developer doesn’t?

  28. Reading the comments below after the endorsements is a bit scary. It appears that Conservatism and the GOP have the days of reckoning upon us.

    I’ve never seen such contention from within our ranks.

    How will this end if we are become as angry and nasty as the Left?

    • You must be too young to remember Reagan. All the hatred directed at Trump today was directed at Reagan before he became president, much of it from other Republicans.

      Some of the hostility from the right continued long after he became President. In 1988 the libertarian Mises Institute slammed Reagan as being “the most protectionist President since Herbert Hoover”.

      • Actually, I campaigned for AuH2O in ’64, and I have an excellent memory.

        I do not ever remember such vitriol!

      • Well, there was no internet or mass media in those days to spread and amplify it but the vitriol was there, as the numerous examples I’ve posted here attest.

  29. The anti-Trump crowd consistently display two characteristics: ignorance and arrogance. They will tell you all day long about how immensely learned and well-read and erudite and clever they are – and yet their entire “argument”, if it can be called such, always boils down to “I find Trump to be a vulgar, boorish clown”.

    They never even attempt any discussion of the critical issues facing us. Immigration? Trade? Terrorism? The economy? The race riots in our cities? The chin-stroking pseudo-intellectuals have nothing to say on these topics. All that matters to them is their personal feelings about Trump.

    I think their personal feelings about Trump are largely baseless, derived from the same sort of dishonesty and selective quotation which was once used to depict Ronald Reagan as a boorish simpleton. But that’s besides the point. Our country is in a fight for its very existence. iI the best leader of that fight is a boorish person, so what? Great leaders are not, as a rule, the type of people whom everyone finds agreeable. Lincoln was hated in his time. Reagan was widely despised by the “smart people” right up to the day he left office. U.S. Grant was a drunk. George Patton was, by all accounts, a bit of an egoistical bastard.

    We’re not voting for a saint, or a pastor, or the captain of the debaters club at Oxford. We’re not voting for the head of the Conservative Philosophers Book Club. We’re supposed to be voting for somebody whom will fight for our best interests. When you hire a lawyer to represent you in court you don’t inquire as to whether he is the most genteel, polite, politically correct person available – you want to know that he’s a fighter and a winner.

  30. “Limited government” has always been about limiting government to wealthy white men, for wealthy white men, so it figures that many of the above see Mr. Trump as their political messiah.

    • You’re such a brainless bigot. No wonder you’re e Democrat.

      • What a pithy retort. You must make your mother so proud.

        (I’m being sarcastic, in case you didn’t pick that up.)

      • My mother is proud of me for telling the truth. The Democratic Party is the home of the most prejudiced, racist, and bigoted people in the country – and you’re a fine example of that.

  31. When do they find a legitimate thinker to add to this list?