The “Death” of “Virtue”

Listening to two First Things editors justify their support of Trump

Despite the insistence of the Trump supporters that the conservatives who refuse to support him will be to blame for his inevitable loss, the reality is that we remain too small a minority to be able to make that kind of a difference. And it is precisely because of this reality that any time someone who is perceived as being against Trump (whether because of past statements about the Republican nominee or due to the fact that he stands for just about everything which is contrary to what mainstream conservatives have believed for decades,) comes out for Trump, the defection –as it were — is all the more painful.

There was one such defection in early October, when an open letter of “Scholars and Writers for Trump” was published bearing a list of names which were, for the most part, thoroughly unimpressive. But among those who signed the letter was R.R. Reno, editor of First Things magazine, which was especially notable because Reno had contributed to National Review’s “Against Trump” issue, and has written that he “regard[s] Trump as a dangerous figure in our public life.”

Naturally, this leads one to wonder what it might be that changed his way of thinking.

Reno took to the (since deleted) First Things podcast (along with Senior Editor Mark Bauerlein, another signatory on the letter,) to give his reasons for endorsing Trump. And while he tried valiantly for twenty minutes to explain, nothing was said during the discussion that would pass as justification for supporting Trump.

Reno began by contrasting the two candidates as being about “stay the course” (that would be Hillary) vs. “we have serious problems” (that one, of course, being Trump.) But in the very same breath, he concedes that he doesn’t “necessarily trust him to do anything about” these problems, seeing as Trump is “an untrustworthy figure [and] a volatile figure, but,” he continues, “I do think it’s important to support someone who is at least willing to admit that we have real serious problems in our country.”

Hardly a reason to support him, and talk about lowering the bar.

Both Bauerlein and Reno say that a big part of the reason they chose to sign the letter was because of what Reno says is a “taboo against any positive reason to support Trump.” Which would be fine, I guess, if he would have mentioned any such positive reason. Bauerlein describes this as a “dogma that had settled in…that only stupid and uneducated people can support this blowhard.” His reaction to his perception that most people of intelligence won’t support Trump is “to recoil from it and also to be able to say that when 40%, roughly, of the electorate are on one side, they can’t all be stupid” by signing the letter.

That’s kind of like a firefighter decrying the fact that all firefighters are against toddlers playing with matches, and reacting to that “dogma” by signing a letter circulated by matches-loving toddlers who, after all, can’t be stupid, right? The idea that a lot of people want something, ergo, it must be good is quite literally the opposite of an intellectual argument — which is what they claim to be making.

The closest they come to an actual reason for supporting Trump (although they emphatically deny that they are solely making a lesser-of-two-evils argument,) is when they discuss the failures of the elites which precipitated Trump’s rise. But here they not only confuse analysis of Trumpism with justification for support, but they also undercut the argument that theirs is an intellectual one in any way.

When trying to get at that elusive “positive reason”, Reno lists the core issues Trump is running on, and finds that while he is understanding of Trump supporters concerns, he disagrees with him on all of them. (“It doesn’t mean I’m opposed to immigration…I’m not opposed to the trade deals; I’m not opposed to international trade, it’s kind of absurd…American power abroad…maybe it was the best we can do, I don’t know.”) What it boils down to is that, he says, the middle class doesn’t feel the prosperity the current system has created, and while “often the argument is ‘well, globalization, and we have to get through this difficult patch’ — so they have answers and maybe they are right. But I think voters are beginning to wonder.”

So apparently, it isn’t just signing the letter which was based solely on the desire to validate the feelings of the (ever dwindling) masses who are supporting Trump, support for the candidate who, Reno unwittingly argues, is wrong on just about everything, is justified because, “voters are beginning to wonder.”

That’s not to say he is wrong that the elite consensus hasn’t served the American voter (especially the instinctually right-wing voter) well. But what he is arguing for is not just recognition of that as a fact, and an effort to ensure that a new class of “elites” is more responsive to these concerns, but system where nothing matters but populism. Again, it’s hard to see how that’s an intellectual position in any way.

Most frustrating of all is that if Reno had only read his own words from the National Review Against Trump symposium, he would have found a fine rejoinder to just about everything he said on the podcast.

All true, but it’s sad that this frustrated cohort now fixes on Trump as its savior.

He presents himself as a Strong Man who promises to knock heads and make things right again. In this, he has a lot more in common with South American populist demagogues than with our tradition of political leaders.

But I suppose that’s the reason for his popularity. The middle-class consensus in America has collapsed. This is the most important political and social earthquake since World War II. The conservative movement’s leadership isn’t up to the challenge, and a good number of voters are willing to gamble on Trump’s bluster. Bad bet. Our nation’s solidarity is being tested. It will only make things worse if we go Trumpster diving.

Still, Reno says he isn’t “at war” with conservatives who are against Trump, although he also dismisses criticism of Trump as “an exercise in virtue signaling.” Even if it were true, it’s ironic that the editor of First Things is so dismissive of the desire people might have to show that they value actual virtue. That people in positions like Reno are so dismissive of that innate desire might be as big a contributor to the death of virtue as the candidacy of Trump itself.

Reno now finds himself (unwillingly) among those in that group, having had the great fortune of coming out as a Trump supporter right before the rollout of all of Trump’s scandals, telling the Washington Post that “Trump has hit new moral lows (who thought that possible???) and I’m beginning to regret signaling any public support.”

It’s too bad he didn’t pay attention to the “virtue signaling” earlier, or he could’ve saved himself a great deal of trouble.

Update (10/31/2016 10:52 EDT) : Here is the audio of the deleted podcast.