To the cowardly Publius Decius Mus,

  To the royal mouthpiece, Rush Limbaugh,

    And to his royal heinous, Donald J. Trump,

      Friends, Americans, Countrymen,

I have never claimed to speak for or represent, in whole or in part, the brave and honorable citizens that have, by their own moral agency, joined the #NeverTrump movement. I do not pretend to speak for them now as I voice my opinion. Should it even accidentally represent the values and beliefs of these honorable men and women, then it will be more the better. Should anyone in the movement agree with it, I hope that they share this message, so that it may reach as many as needs to hear it.

I do not make the following accusations lightly nor without understanding the seriousness of these accusations, but the truth of them is inescapable. We have been betrayed, countrymen, not by some faceless bureaucrat or Establishment power broker hiding in some smoke filled back room in Washington, DC. We have been betrayed by the booming voice on the right that we have depended upon for decades now. Please, allow me to lay out my case, without condemnation.

First, on his own program, Wednesday, September 8th, 2016, Rush Limbaugh spoke at length on an article published on the Claremont Institute website (here), written by some nameless coward who exploits the tragedy and bravery of the passengers of Flight 93 for political advantage, while hiding in anonymity from the obvious repercussions of his dishonor. Equivocating Americans with the murderous Islamists who carried out the 9/11/2001 attacks is ridiculous hyperbole at its best and despicable slander at its worse. This alone is already an unforgivable transgress.

Second, Rush Limbaugh made clear his effusive support for this piece, agreeing with its premises and conclusion, without reservation. Assuming Rush possesses the intellectual capacity to understand what the premises and the conclusions of the piece are, then we can assume that Rush Limbaugh is operating through moral agency. It is not the conclusion that I am interested in, because the conclusion of the piece was “therefor Donald Trump.” Rush’s support of the conclusion is uncontroversial, because he is, after all, a man of the party, no matter the standard bearer of the party.

Third, it’s the premises, not the predictable conclusion, that matter, and it is here that we find the heart of the betrayal. The Claremont Institute piece elevates Pat Buchanan as the role model for Donald Trump, expressly establishing three issues as being defining of Pat Buchanan: trade, war, and immigration. While it is unfair to apply simplistic labels to Pat Buchanan, who is right on many substantive positions, on these three positions he is absolutely head in the sand wrong.

On trade, his position is staunchly against free trade. His position requires the government to arbitrate on imports, which Buchanan sees as a source of tax revenue and a necessity of “economic nationalism“. Yet at the same time, he is silent on reducing or eliminating the very socialist policies creating the situation he wishes to address to begin with: minimum wage policy that distorts the American labor market and destroying American competitiveness in the international market and socialist subsidization of American industry. It is questionable that only now, when America is no longer the sole manufacturing super power in the world, does he see free market policies troublesome.

On war, Pat Buchanan is wrong again, ignoring the realities of 1,500 years of expansionist Jihadism, even while the Jihadists themselves say theirs is the same expansionist Jihadism that Thomas Jefferson dealt with in 1801 when he dispatched the United States Navy to fight the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. Pat Buchanan’s foreign war policy is worse than ignorant and naive, because it ignores our own history, as well as disregard the Islamists marching through their streets while shouting “Death to America!“. It is absurd to not take them seriously, bordering on treasonous.

On immigration, Buchanan is wrong based not on his conclusion, but on the fundamental basis for his position, which can fairly be described as White Nationalism. His views on immigration and national demographics are, especially to minority immigrants, anathema to Americanism. His own words condemn him, “What I would like is — I’d like the country I grew up in. It was a good country. I lived in Washington, D.C., — 400,000 black folks, 400,000 white folks, in a country 89 or 90 percent white. I like that country.“

I never thought I would see the day that Rush Limbaugh would even accidentally espouse National Socialism on his program, but it happened today. Again, I do not make this accusation lightly. While Buchanan, Trump, and Limbaugh pretend at a benign brand of Nationalism, they know that waving American Flags and singing the National Anthem will do less than nothing to improve trade or immigration issues, and that’s why they aren’t saying what they aren’t saying.

The reality is that the federal government will have to interfere in the free exchange of goods and services across the border, against the best interests of the individuals involved. The reality is that the federal government will have to interfere in the day to day operating decisions of private industry, against the best interests of these businesses. The reality is that the federal government will have to interfere in immigration, not because of specific legitimate national security threats, but to protect socialist social welfare policies, labor policies, and industrial subsidization policies.

This is naked American National Socialism. It is, literally, a federally mandated socialist policy with the same economic effects of direct subsidization, justified by draping a flag over it. Let me be absolutely clear. It is wrong when China does it. It is wrong when Mexico does it. It was wrong when the Japanese did it. It was wrong when the Germans did it. It is wrong when the USSR did it. It is wrong, because Americans have to compete just like everyone else does.

Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump, and Rush Limbaugh all are promoting unjust socialist policies designed to unjustly protect American workers from just international competition because of their own nationalistic bigotry. Rush Limbaugh’s embrace of repugnant alt-right National Socialist arguments, specifically spelled out in the Claremont Institute article, is the single greatest betrayal of everything that William F. Buckley, Jr. stood for since the very inception of the conservative movement.

I reject all betrayers of Liberty. “Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.“

-Quintus Caepio Brutus-

 

---

Liberty is For The Win!