Thread by @RuleandRuin

1. My NYT piece on QAnon compared the current conspiracy to the John Birch Society in the '60s but argued the GOP & conservative movement condemned the latter while Trump embraced the former. This is part of a wider historical and political debate...

nytimes.com/2020/08/25/opi…

2. ...as seen in @jonathanchait's piece that came out the same day, on the "burn it all down" debate about whether a post-Trump GOP is worth saving. Jon sees conservatism as the real problem -- it hasn't been corrupted by Trump b/c it was always corrupt

nymag.com/intelligencer/…

3. Specifically, the idea that William F. Buckley Jr expelled the JBS from conservatism is the movement's foundational myth: "This small and seemingly esoteric point of historical interpretation is the root of the intellectual right’s systemic inability to face up to its problem"

4. If the WFB vs JBS story is untrue, it follows that there never was a conservative movement that was thoughtful, responsible, or capable of governance; and so a conservative-dominated GOP will always be corrupt, incompetent, and a threat to democracy

5. Jon made an early articulation of the "burn it down" thesis at a @NiskanenCenter conference in 2018 and noticed that we didn't reject it out of hand; we do have "a broad and deep argument with the [conservative] movement’s core assumptions"

nymag.com/intelligencer/…

6. I doubt there will ever be a GOP that's not conservative-dominated, but I'm sympathetic to the Steve Teles/Rob Saldin view that there may be an opening for moderate factions in both parties if Trump is defeated and if they organize as a coherent bloc

niskanencenter.org/the-future-is-…

7. But the possibility and maybe even the morality of that scenario requires you to believe that there has been or can be an intellectually respectable, governing-minded, extremism-rejecting conservatism -- which gets us back to the historical question of Buckley vs. the Birchers

8. The historical record of WFB vs JBS is fairly well established. Buckley and Welch had their first break in 1958 when B (alone among cons. leaders) rejected W's Ike-as-Commie thesis; B opposed the JBS "impeach Earl Warren" crusade in the late '50s...

politico.com/story/2017/12/…

9. NR first editorially condemned Welch (though not the JBS as a whole) in April 1961; Buckley argued in conservative meetings to exclude the JBS from the Goldwater campaign starting in 1962; and finally condemned the JBS as a whole in August 1965

nationalreview.com/2017/06/willia…

10. Opinions may vary on the significance of this history. Jon Chait cites Al Felzenberg's WFB bio to conclude that B's "gentle and very partial break" with Welch means B's dalliance with extremism should define his legacy

amazon.com/Man-His-Presid…

11. But Felzenberg agrees w/ me that there were real costs to Buckley and National Review in terms of alienated subscribers, writers, donors, and board members; Buckley's own mother was a Bircher and his actions risked splitting the conservative movement

newrepublic.com/article/102241…

12. Felzenberg concludes (p. 331) that Buckley's legacy is defined by what he saw as his greatest achievement: keeping the conservative movement "free of 'kooks,' 'crackpots,' racists, and anti-Semites."

nytimes.com/2017/05/08/boo…

13. I side with Michael Gerson in seeing Buckley and others in a battle with Trump forebears like George Wallace and Pat Buchanan to define conservatism; the fact that B's side lost doesn't mean it was complicit in what the right has become

washingtonpost.com/opinions/where…

14. Ultimately @jerry_jtaylor is correct that the need to thwart a "competitive, proto-fascist party" is the best rationale for sticking with the GOP; and for that we need the help of Buckley's heirs, even understanding that his legacy comes with baggage

niskanencenter.org/whither-never-…