National Review Reluctantly Supports Protectionism—But Misses the Point

National Review Reluctantly Supports Protectionism—But Misses the Point

A recent article written by Edward Conard of National Review Online acknowledges the legitimate interests of “blue-collar” (code word for White) workers.

In a surprise shift of narrative, NRO abandoned its staunch support for Globalist free-trade and, albeit begrudgingly, acknowledged that, if the GOP wants to remain in power, it will have to embrace protectionism on some level:

“Support for free enterprise has always been fragile. Free-market Republicans must recognize they can’t build a winning coalition without the president’s supporters. In our two-party democracy, agendas without winning coalitions are largely irrelevant.”

The tone of the article is one of resigned capitulation to an unpleasant reality, but what more can we really expect, it is NRO after all.

“Dismissing President Trump’s supporters as racist, antiestablishment, or lemmings of polarized media trivializes their concerns and deflects attention from their agenda. His supporters view criticism of the president as self-serving, undermining their leader’s effectiveness, and subordinating their objectives to other priorities—the very fear of these previously underrepresented voters.”

It is amazing how this article builds the image of a school guidance counselor instructing teachers to be more inclusive of students with mental disabilities. These people are so ideologically prostrate before the religion of “muh free-markets” that they have to reluctantly frame serving the interests of their working class White constituents as a necessary evil to preserve the future of unimpeded consumerism.

“A relative shortage of U.S. talent exacerbates the problem. Twenty-five percent of Americans score in the top-third globally on comparable tests of academic skills, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, while forty-five percent score in the bottom third—meaning America has roughly one high-scorer for every two low-scorers. A third of Germans score in each the top, middle, and bottom third, leaving Germany with one high-scorer for every low-scorer—twice as many high-scorers per low-scorer as America.”

Even though he starts this article by acknowledging the interests of Americans, Mr. Conard can’t help but openly demonstrate his contempt for the average White American. These wannabe-intellectuals are quick to point out things like low US worker competency and education standards but they will never acknowledge the reason for it. White Americans test just as highly as Germans. The “low-scorers” dragging America down are our more “diverse” citizens.

NRO writers live in constant fear of being called redneck-racist-bigot-homophobes by liberals and so they must go out of their way to distance themselves from those traditional White Americans who may even compose a majority of the their readership, all for the purpose of being accepted by the liberal establishment as the “good conservative.”

In this whole article the one thing that is never addressed is the most important objection to free trade. Independent from concerns of employment and employablility of White voters, free trade disrupts American communities, and when communities are disrupted people are less happy. It’s not that complicated of an idea—when people need to move to find work they don’t know who their neighbors are, and when they don’t know who their neighbors are, social institutions (churches, community centers, and even local parks) break down and people are less happy and less likely to have children.

All of this is exacerbated by diversity and multiculturalism, but even in the absence of diversity and multiculturalism, it is still the obligation of governments and so called “conservative intellectuals” to consider the immediate as well as long term interests of their constituent communities instead of maximizing Walmart’s profits.

Anthony Romano

Related Posts