Crisis of the Conservative House Divided

For months it has been clear that in one vital respect Donald Trump's fate in the presidential election does not matter. Win or lose, he has divided and may yet shatter the conservative movement, a fact that was evident before the Access Hollywood tape gave us a TMI moment barely suitable for TMZ. Who could have foreseen that the Great Pumpkin candidate would turn out to be a Black Swan event for conservatism?

I have good friends who are enthusiastic pro-Trumpers and good friends who are adamant Never Trumpers, and I'm doing my best to stick with my friends. I've always been a fusionist conservative, finding merit and insight in every corner of the right-wing galaxy and often acting the diplomat in trying to reconcile the competing kingdoms in our ideological game of thrones. I have argued to the neocon followers of Leo Strauss, for example, that they should pay more attention to Roger Scruton's traditionalism and to economist Friedrich Hayek's congenial work. I tell libertarians and apolitical traditionalists to be less disdainful of politics if they ever hope to prosper in actual elections. And I'm always trying to explain everything about politics to economists, some of whom, I assume, are good people.

Trump's political balance sheet is by now thoroughly known, even if his financial balance sheet isn't. The main political arguments for him—his victory will be a rebuke to the media and political correctness; he'll keep the Supreme Court nominally in Republican control; his economic policy is vastly preferable; he's serious about immigration control; he isn't Hillary Clinton, full stop—are all plausible. His doubtful character, uncertain ideology, inexperience, inconsistency, rhetorical deficiencies, short attention span, and the prospect that a Trump administration might destroy the GOP for a decade or more are considerable reasons to withhold a vote.

Everyone has his own perspective on these factors, and I won't try to audit them again nor reproach anyone on either side of the divide. The air is thick with attacks and recriminations already. Lots of Trump sympathizers are mad at The Weekly Standard, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington-based conservative think tanks, and nearly every Republican congressional leader. Trump skeptics are equally antagonistic toward Breitbart, Fox News, and the so-called alt-right. But it is the stance of one corner of the right that is raising eyebrows and puzzlement all around: the writers associated with the Claremont Institute—aka the "Claremonsters"—and their fellow travelers.

Several Claremont eminentos appear prominently on the recent list of "Scholars and Writers for Trump," including Charles Kesler, Larry Arnn, Thomas West, Hadley Arkes, Brian Kennedy, and John Eastman. Good friends all, as is "Publius Decius Mus" of "The Flight 93 Election" fame. In fact, the pseudonymous writer previewed a draft of that notorious Claremont Review of Books essay on the deck of my house that overlooks the Pacific Ocean, accompanied by a fine bottle of Bordeaux that "Decius" thoughtfully brought along. (I mention this gratuitous detail only to preserve our smug coastal elite street cred.) It is also worth adding that the Claremonsters on this list are typically at odds with many of their fellow signatories who hail from the "paleocon" and libertarian neighborhoods of the right—another indication of the extraordinary ideological scrambling effect of the Trump campaign.