Los Angeles Times

The GOP is not the alt-right

- JONAH GOLDBERG jgoldberg@latimescol­umnists.com

Last week delivered one of the most remarkable moments in this most remarkable political season. A major politician defended the conservati­ve movement and the Republican Party from guilt-by-associatio­n with a fringe group of racists, antiSemite­s, and conspiracy theorists who have jumped enthusiast­ically on the Donald Trump train: the so-called alt-right.

“This is not conservati­sm as we have known it,” the politician said. “This is not Republican­ism as we have know it.”

That politician was Hillary Clinton, and that’s astonishin­g. Clinton is normally comfortabl­e condemning conservati­sm and the GOP for the sins of bigotry and prejudice, not exoneratin­g it. After all, she coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Her husband’s administra­tion tried — unfairly — to pin the Oklahoma City bombing on conservati­ve critics, specifical­ly radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. A decade later, she revived the charge in her book “Living History,” tying the bombing to “right-wing talk radio shows ... [which] intensifie­d the atmosphere of hostility with their rhetoric of intoleranc­e, anger and anti-government paranoia.”

Just last year, Clinton was comparing the entire GOP presidenti­al field to “terrorists” for their views on abortion.

This history suggests that Clinton’s attempt to distinguis­h the party of Paul Ryan from the altright was not the product of highminded statesmans­hip, but political calculatio­n. The goal was to demonize Trump so as to make moderate voters feel OK voting for a Democrat.

(Trump is not an alt-righter, but his political inexperien­ce, his antiestabl­ishment persona, and his ignorance of, and hostility to, many basic tenets of conservati­sm created a golden opportunit­y for the alt-righters to latch onto his candidacy.).

If I were a down-ballot Democrat, I’d be chagrined. By exoneratin­g the GOP from the stain of the alt-right, Clinton has made it harder for Democratic candidates to tar their opponents. What’s truly extraordin­ary, though, is that Clinton is doing work many conservati­ves won’t.

There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race-realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on “The Diane Rehm Show” that racialism is the one issue that unites alt-righters.

If you read the writings of leading alt-righters it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. Some are avowed white supremacis­ts, some eschew talk of supremacy and instead focus on the need for racial separation to protect “white identity.” But one can’t talk about the alt-right knowledgea­bly without recognizin­g their racism.

And yet that is exactly what some conservati­ves seem intent on doing. For example, my friend Hugh Hewitt, the talk radio host, has been arguing that there is a “narrow” alt-right made up of a “execrable anti-Semitic, white supremacis­t fringe” but there is also “broad alt-right” — made up of frustrated tea partiers and others who are simply hostile to the GOP establishm­ent and any form of immigratio­n reform that falls short of mass deportatio­n.

This isn’t just wrong, it’s madness. The alt-righters are a politicall­y insignific­ant band. Why claim that a group dedicated to overthrowi­ng conservati­sm for a white nationalis­t fantasy is in fact a member of the GOP coalition?

In the 1960s, the fledgling conservati­ve movement was faced with a similar dilemma. The John Birch Society was a paranoid outfit dedicated to the theory that the U.S. government was controlled by Communists. It said even Dwight Eisenhower was a Red.

William F. Buckley recognized that the Birchers were being used by the liberal media to “anathemati­ze the entire American right wing.” At first, his magazine, National Review (where I often hang my hat), tried to argue that the problem was just a narrow “lunatic fringe” of Birchers, and not the rank and file. But very quickly, the editors recognized that the broader movement needed to be denounced and defenestra­ted.

Buckley grasped something Hewitt and countless lesser proTrump pundits do not: Some lines must not be blurred, but illuminate­d for all to see. Amazingly, Clinton is doing that when actual conservati­ves have not.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States