Donald Trump, National Review, And The Battle For The Conservative Mind

The editors and writers of National Review recently did something extraordinary. They came out en masse against a Republican candidate during the primary. Their “Against Trump” symposium and accompanying “Editors introduction” offer up a barrage of attacks on Donald Trump’s surprising presidential candidacy.

For the symposium, National Review assembled an enormously diverse group of conservative thinkers, from “movement conservatives” to more “establishment” types, to “conservatarians.” Clearly, this is no monolithic bloc. Yet there they are—an eclectic bunch of odd bedfellows making the same core argument: Donald Trump is not a conservative based on any meaningful definition of the term.

The National Review’s writers make this case fearlessly, meticulously, and thoroughly. In past and current statements or actions, Trump has violated virtually every pillar of conservatism. Some of his positions defy constitutionally limited, liberty-motivated government (e.g. his support of eminent domain); contradict traditional values (e.g., his sometimes support for Planned Parenthood); and call into serious question whether he really is a foreign-affairs conservative by any measure (e.g. his protectionist proposals on trade or his willingness to contemplate Russian hegemony in the Middle East). On whether Donald Trump is a consistent, true conservative … the case is arguably closed.

But if National Review editors’ intent was to cause Trump supporters to question their loyalties, such efforts are doomed to fail for one simple reason: Many Trump enthusiasts are not the reliable conservatives that National Review wishes them to be. Consider:

One widely touted source, YouGov, reports that only 13 percent of Trump voters describe themselves as “very conservative” versus 20 percent that describe themselves as liberal or moderate. Only 30 percent of them say that they identify with the Tea Party movement, according to a Newsweek summary of the YouGov data on Trump. In short, the “Trump is not especially conservative” refrain doesn’t work with his supporters because neither are they.

How can it be so? How can it be that the Republican currently garnering a large plurality of support in a crowded but highly qualified field of candidates (many of them unquestionably conservative) is the one with the feeblest conservative credentials and some of the most heretical statements and positions?

One plausible and compelling answer to this question is embodied in Tim Groseclose’s path breaking book, Left Turn. The book covers an awful lot of ground, beginning with a detailed demonstration of how to define, quantify, and trend liberal media bias; and an amazingly rich and systematic account of how liberal media bias actually happens in practice. These are, in themselves, hugely important contributions.

But the most relevant finding of the book is reflected in its subtitle: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. Simply put, liberal media bias is exerting an independent effect on the “political quotient” of the average American and is moving it steadily and substantially leftward. By Groseclose’s math, media bias has shifted the average American political quotient approximately 20 percent further left, to the point where it is worth about 8 points in presidential elections in favor of Democrat candidates. That is significant.

Other widely accepted data sources validate the trend, if not the causes. According to recent data from Gallup, the percentage of Americans who identify as “conservative” outnumbers “liberals” by 37 percent to 24 percent (with 35 percent identifying as moderates). But in 1992, that same percentage for conservatives was 43 percent versus 17 percent for liberals. A 26 point gap between conservatives and liberals has shriveled to 12 points in just over 20 years.

Is America still the “center-right nation” it is so often assumed to be? Perhaps. But it is far less so than it was, not even a generation ago. True, the fight isn’t fair. Undoubtedly, liberal media bias forms colossal, perhaps even insurmountable headwinds for conservative ideas.

Regardless, it seems abundantly clear that the conservative punditry is overestimating the conservatism of the Republican and national electorates. Just to offer a couple of examples, the current Republican front runner frequently argues against entitlement reform. Worse still, the Republican candidates (as a group) are talking less about the debt and deficits than at any other point in recent memory.

Put differently, conservatives must confront the simple reality that they are losing the argument. This being the case, at least one truth is manifest: effectively making the case for conservative ideas is more important today than ever before. Conservatives can either take up this fight, or accept being mere enablers in the self-reinforcing “triumph” of American liberalism.

Certainly, conservatives can (and should) also debate the wisdom of their flagship journal taking such a definitive stance regarding one particular candidate this early in the cycle. But the effort to clearly define and passionately argue for true conservative ideas is really the best hope they have. In this battle for the conservative mind, National Review’s contribution has always been and continues to be, invaluable.

– See more at: http://www.visionandvalues.org

7 Of The Worst Liberal Places To Work At

Liberal groups are always claiming they’re for the little guy. Labor unions claim to support employee rights and their best interests. Liberal candidates rail against “unfair” pay and high CEO salaries. They pledge workplace “fairness.”

But do they walk the walk? A surprising number don’t.

The website Glassdoor, which allows current and former employees to rate their companies, offers a peek behind the curtain at whether liberal groups are so high and mighty. The truth, according to former and current employees, is revealing.  

Image credit: JStone / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: JStone / Shutterstock.com

Clinton Health Access Initiative

An arm of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative recently came under scrutiny after a performance review found that its CEO had shown “disdain” for the board of directors and shown “duplicitousness with management.” A number of employee reviews show that the name “Clinton” shouldn’t be confused with “golden.”  

What Employees Say:

“In most cases, individuals are promoted on the basis of nepotism. As a result, the organization has really horrible managers as high up as even the Director-level. In any case, one learns more from bad managers than good ones.”

“CHAI staff used to pride itself on being frugal and money was being channeled to programs. Recently directors have started purchasing brand new Land Cruisers and drive around town in these fancy cars. Wait, what? We used to drive some of the most basic cars and now we have these shiny fancy SUVs.”

“Pay is poor, benefits are the bare minimum. … [L]ow overheads which is good since most benefit to client/patient but results in worker burnout due to poor work-life balance coupled first point above on poor pay. The personality cult of [CEO] Ira Magaziner overshadows implementation in some cases.”

“Turnover at CHAI is due to two main factors: burnout due to high stress with lack of coaching and poaching from other teams for projects suddenly deemed more important that month/quarter/semester… CHAI’s reputation in country is definitely in jeopardy because of the lack of an effective structure to engage with partner countries and no experienced (real) managers.”

Image credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

One of the major labor unions in the country and a group that spent $28 million supporting Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, SEIU claims to represent and support service workers such as nurses and security guards. Now behind the supposedly employee-oriented “Fight for $15” movement, the SEIU’s own employees say this place is far from a workers’ paradise.

What Employees Say:

“12-18 hour workdays…fighting for things that you as an organizer will never have.”

“Catty, viscous atmosphere. Everyone seemed to think everyone else was an idiot behind their back which meant they were likely saying the same thing about you. Very little ever got done.”

“No promotion. Racist. Sexist. Ablest. All the people of color get fired or look for other places. Office politics. Horrible people in management. The toxicity is promoted and encouraged from above. You have to brown nose.”

“Insane hours, vicious manipulative and petty lead organizers, rampant nepotism that makes it impossible to get ahead unless you’re somebodies sister or sleeping with the boss, no acknowledgement of good work only criticism.”

“The leadership is racist & negligent under the pretense of ‘fighting for the cause’. They help each other advance in ranks by stepping on the work of others. There’s SUPER HIGH turnover.”

“Staff routinely work 60 – 80 hours a week. We were expected to regularly work evenings, weekends and holidays, in addition to the ‘regular’ work week, for no additional pay. Forget about having any personal plans or a personal life if you work there.”

Image credit: Patrick Kwan/Flickr

Image credit: Patrick Kwan/Flickr

Humane Society of the United States

Despite its name, the Humane Society of the United States isn’t actually affiliated with the numerous humane societies in cities and counties across the country. Instead, it’s a liberal lobbying group with an extreme animal rights agenda intended to shut down hunting and meat-eating. But this group doesn’t seem to get what the word “humane” means, according to some reviewers. Reviewers have complained about sexism and cronyism, as well as an extreme pay gap between execs and younger employees.

What Employees Say:

“Low pay and everyone appears to be overworked and stretched. Infighting and executive staff pay (compared to mid tier, hands on workers) is excessive.”

“Toxic work environment at times. If you think you left the world of bullying and mean-girl cliques behind in high school, think again.”

There are very valid concerns of female staff that a male leadership volunteer with a history of sexual harassment and rape charges had extensive contact with our staff and no one has ever been notified or warned to stay away from him. This, and many other internal concerns, makes me fear that the organization is one scandal away from oblivion.”

“Work harder, for less money than you deserve. And if you don’t like it, leave. How’s that for progressive? Years of awful internal bureaucracy, including and especially from an often surly, insensitive, unresponsive and indifferent HR department, nepotism, red tape, low morale, and lack of investment in staff is dismantling this organization from the inside out.”

“There’s cronyism, nepotism, and ‘mean girl’ cliques. … The execs are out of touch and the board is out of reach.”

Image credit: Tory/Flickr

Image credit: Tory/Flickr

Media Matters for America

Calling itself a “media watchdog,” Media Matters was founded by Clinton hack David Brock. This progressive outfit has been outed before for not practicing what it preaches—such as when a Media Matters staffer illegally carried a handgun to protect Brock and the organization. Additionally, it has kept many of its donors quiet despite criticizing right-leaning groups for doing the same thing—and its employees have shed some additional light on what goes on behind the curtains.

What Employees Say:

“High-turnover due to: lack of diversity, low ceiling, no built-in development. Senior-level management is too single-tracked minded, rarely consider and implement critical input from researchers to keep employees happy…does not pay nearly enough (starting salary: $35k) …folks of color rarely last here.”

“Media Matters doesn’t care about providing decent benefits or opportunities for advancement because there will ALWAYS be another round of kids to replace you. That’s pretty smart, but it makes it a bad place to work. Unsurprisingly, turnover was incredibly high while I was there.”

“Promotions are largely based on personal relationships rather than professional, which leads to underqualified people filling high positions while talent languishes in smaller capacity roles. Extremely high turnover due to low morale in research staff. At one point in my tenure there, almost every single researcher was searching for employment opportunities elsewhere.”

“All staff is often overworked as you’re basically fighting the ocean with a teaspoon and, as a ‘journalist,’ (or are you a non-profiter?), you’re supposed to like working all the time. Sometimes they clean house. Sometimes they hire more people than they can manage. It’s not clear who’s managing what. If you’re not a pseudo-journalist you will be shunned.”

Image credit: Juan Camilo Bernal / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: Juan Camilo Bernal / Shutterstock.com

Human Rights Campaign

The Human Rights Campaign lobbies for equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and for protection from things like workplace discrimination. But it seems the organization has a “do as I say, not as I do” problem.

What Employees Say:

“A very hostile work environment.”

They will haze you the first year and make life or any idea of work/life balance impossible. Proceed with caution.”

HRC lives up to its image as an upper class ‘gay men’s’ organization. If you’re not ‘in’ with the gay men who run this organization, don’t expect any upward mobility. Expect sexism and cliquiness among employees. There is extremely high support staff turnover here because people continually quit after they are burnt out from being overworked, not taken seriously, and lousy pay.”

Not a great place to grow and they pay very low. Finance Department is all over the place and the people who are running the department obviously do not know what they’re doing. If you know someone in the company, you’ll definitely get in even if you’re not qualified. For a company that is supposed to support equality, many employees are not treated that way.”

Image credit: Richard Thornton / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: Richard Thornton / Shutterstock.com

Teamsters

The union notorious for its ties to the mafia is also a major funder of left-wing causes—more than 90 percent of the Teamsters’ political donations go to Democrats. But the union that pushes for worker equality could use some lessons in self-analysis.

What Employees Say:

“There are no really career opportunities. employees and managers never eat lunch together. you will find people who have been working on the same position for more than 20 years.”

“Expect to come here and waste away. Stuck in the 1950’s. Rampant sexual harassment. Member’s work hard to pay overpriced salaries and benefits and lots of luxury trips and dinners. There really should be investigations into this. Political backstabbing. People who aren’t qualified gets Cush jobs because of political favor or nepotism and they never ever leave. If only the members knew what really goes on. Shameful to do this on the backs of working people. No wonder unions are irrelevant.”

“Too many secrets from members, secretary treasurers don’t promote by seniority, and they fire older workers.”

“The old boy network is alive and well. Women are not valued and are segregated, not even invited to the Company Christmas luncheon. This is a labor union, but the current management treat their ‘office girls’ with contempt. They use the lessons they’ve learned from their worst employers against their own employees. The environment is full of suspicion and backstabbing.”

“Everything else – the backstabbing, the lack of helpful communication, the blatant cronyism and nepotism. If you want to learn something in your career and actually have management that doesn’t vacillate back and forth between non-existent and overly micro-managed, stay away.”

Image credit: Adrin Shamsudin / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: Adrin Shamsudin / Shutterstock.com

Open Society Foundations

Billionaire European George Soros has put loads of money into changing America’s culture and electing liberal politicians. His Open Society Foundations have pushed “progressive” causes from rolling back anti-drug laws to ‘gay rights.’ But it’s hardly a progressive workplace, per the reviews of its staff.

What Employees Say:

“Sometimes arbitrary management style, few managers are open to honest (critical) employee feedback, new foundation director has created far too much paperwork and bureaucracy for both staff and grantees.”

Top heavy and lack of responsibility at higher level, long working hours, no opportunities for promotions.”

You can work like a dog for very little money….Dealing with the toxic management wasn’t worth it, but maybe other parts of the organization are different. It’s a shame, it could be a nice place to work if it weren’t an abusive environment.”

Lack of integrity is very common. Dictatorial, infantile, self serving program directors. Systems make it possible for lots of mischief to happen. Amount spent on directors egos can run entire programs. Regions are closed societies and not open society.”

“Rampant racism and sexism remain a serious problem that management refuses to tackle. In short, while OSF espouses principles of human rights, this is only outward facing. Internally, human rights and employees rights are routinely set aside”

Lib Professor Who Called For ‘Muscle’ To Remove Media Just Got Massive Justice Delivered

In the wake of disruptive college demonstrations that spread across the nation throughout last year, a conversation about race relations in the U.S. followed — along with criticism of the tactics used by student and faculty protesters. One of the most pilloried figures involved in the trend-setting protest at the University of Missouri was Melissa Click.

Employed as a communications professor at the school, Click was caught on camera forcing a campus reporter to leave a protest in progress after insisting that he had no right to report on the public event. She then asked around for “some muscle” to aid her in the task of forcibly removing the reporter from the premises.

The negative attention was not relegated to social media or the largely right-leaning outlets already critical of the associated Black Lives Matter movement. Recent reports indicate Click has been charged with a misdemeanor assault in connection to the on-campus incident.

Her current predicament garnered little sympathy among many social media users.

Some suggested the student journalist at the receiving end of Click’s rant should follow up with a civil suit against her.

The class-C crime carries a possible jail sentence of 15 days. Despite the legal action, reports indicate Click remains, as of the latest evidence available, an active member of the university’s faculty.

Her behavior was previously denounced by others, including dozens of state lawmakers who urged the University of Missouri to fire the assistant professor.

These 22 Conservatives Just Declared ‘War’ On Donald Trump On Front Page Of Popular Magazine

A host of conservatives are trying to derail the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump through a National Review cover story that denounces Trump. The article questioned his knowledge of key issues, criticized several major Trump policies, and said Trump is not a candidate who embodies bedrock conservative principles.

The list of conservatives opposing Trump includes Glenn Beck, David Boaz, L. Brent Bozell III, Mona Charen, Ben Domenech, Erick Erickson, Steven F. Hayward, Mark Helprin, William Kristol, Yuval Levin, Dana Loesch, Andrew C. McCarthy, David M. McIntosh, Michael Medved, Edwin Meese III, Russell Moore, Michael B. Muskasey, Katie Pavlich, John Podhoretz, R. R. Reno, Thomas Sowell and Cal Thomas.

Trump, who in September feuded with National Review Editor Rich Lowry, calling him a “crude pundit” after comments Lowry made about Trump and Carly Fiorina in a GOP debate, fired back against the piece via Twitter.

The article, for which the Republican National Committee disinvited the National Review from participation in the Feb. 26 GOP presidential debate, said Trump is “not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries.”

“Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones,” the National Review wrote in a piece bylined “The Editors.”

“Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy,” the article said.

“If Trump were to become the president, the Republican nominee, or even a failed candidate with strong conservative support, what would that say about conservatives? The movement that ground down the Soviet Union and took the shine, at least temporarily, off socialism would have fallen in behind a huckster,” the article read.

The article includes an in-depth castigation of Trump’s immigration proposals.

“Trump nevertheless offers a valuable warning for the Republican party. If responsible men irresponsibly ignore an issue as important as immigration, it will be taken up by the reckless. If they cannot explain their Beltway maneuvers — worse, if their maneuvering is indefensible — they will be rejected by their own voters,” the article read.

“Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself,” it concluded.

h/t: IJ Review

The ‘White Actors Matter’ Academy Awards

“Black Lives Matter” — except in Tinseltown.

The Hollywood liberals who give Academy Awards to their friends got called out for their lack of diversity this week.

It seems this year the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences couldn’t find a single actor of color worthy of an Oscar nomination for a lead or supporting role.

Its 6,000-odd members went 0 for 20 in their search. For the second straight year.

Have Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx, Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Don Cheadle, Laurence Fishburne, Cuba Gooding Jr., Djimon Hounsou, Forest Whitaker, Octavia Spencer, Samuel L. Jackson, Jennifer Hudson, Angela Bassett, Halle Berry and Queen Latifah taken the last two years off?

Spike Lee said because black actors were snubbed again, he was boycotting the Academy Awards gala next month.

He’s been supported by Jada Pinkett Smith, who is understandably miffed that her husband Will wasn’t honored for his role in “Concussion.”

And Snoop Dog, leftie documentary-maker Michael Moore and a few others who don’t care if they ever eat lunch in Beverly Hills again are joining the boycott of the White Actors Matter Awards.

Being accused of insufficient diversity by black artists couldn’t have happened to a rottener bunch of liberal hypocrites.

Hollywood is the most liberal town on the planet. The left controls it and tries to make every anti-American, anti-conservative, anti-business movie it can.

Black actors love Hollywood — or they did until they started to notice that its creative community shows its true colors when it comes time to hand out best-actor awards.

Since Sidney Poitier won in 1963 for “Lilies of the Field,” only Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Forest Whitaker have won for best actor.

Halle Berry’s Oscar in 2001 for “Monster’s Ball” remains the first and only time a black woman won for best actress.

Maybe Spike Lee and his celebrity allies have finally learned how liberals work.

Maybe they’ve figured out what millions of ordinary blacks around the country need to start figuring out about the Democrat Party.

The liberal left in Washington pretends to support blacks, but they only use them to get reelected or maintain power. The rest of the time, they take them for granted.

Hollywood liberals do the same thing. They usually use black actors to prove how liberal they are.

That’s why a movie like “12 Years a Slave” gets made and why it won so big at the Oscars in 2014 — it was a political twofer.

It proved how liberal Hollywood was, plus it showed how rotten and racist America was.

“The Butler” delivered the same message. Then, for good measure, it unfairly made my father out to be a racist. It was so awful it was snubbed by the Academy.

Some say blacks are shortchanged at Oscar time because the voting Academy is not as diverse as the acting academy. An L.A. Times story reported that Academy members are 94 percent white, 77 percent male and 2 percent black.

That’s pathetic, and it’s good that the Academy has been shamed by this year’s all-white nominations into promising to fix that imbalance.

But Spike Lee says it’s not the Academy that’s the problem. It’s the whole film industry.

He says there aren’t enough good movies about blacks or for black actors because there aren’t any black executives at the studios who can make the decision to green light them.

To fix that injustice, Lee has basically called for an affirmative-action plan for the movie business. He wants someone to force Hollywood to meet a quota of minority films.

It’s a lousy idea that will never happen, but maybe it should.

A quota wouldn’t produce more Oscars for black actors. But it’d be a lot of fun to see how Hollywood liberals like being forced to abide by one of the bad laws they think everyone else in America should be forced to follow.