The National Review, one of the preeminent American conservative journals, has dedicated its latest issue to methodically laying out why businessman Donald Trump would be an unacceptable nominee for the Republican Party.
The issue was published on Jan. 21, containing contributions from 21 conservative commentators including Glenn Beck, Thomas Sowell and Cal Thomas, all writing why Trump is bad for the brand, The Atlantic reports.
The journal's fiery opening editorial was written by National Review’s editors, describing Trump as 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 editors assert that Trump has no loyalty to the Republican party and that the business mogul has shifted from liberal to conservative beliefs only recently just to appeal to a dissatisfied GOP voter base.
Going after the centerpiece of Trump’s campaign platform — his pledge to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border paid for by the Mexican government and deport every undocumented immigrant in the country — the editors point out how these plans are “beyond the capacity of the federal government.”
“This plan wouldn’t survive its first contact with reality,” the editors wrote.
Slamming Trump on foreign policy, the National Review team implies that he is a narcissist who would irresponsibly wield the might of the U.S. military.
“He is fixated on stealing Iraq’s oil and casually suggested a few weeks ago a war crime — killing terrorists’ families — as a tactic in the war on terror,” the editors wrote. “For someone who wants to project strength, he has an astonishing weakness for flattery, falling for Vladimir Putin after a few coquettish bats of the eyelashes from the Russian thug.”
The editorial proceeded to mock Trump’s unfamiliarity with the issues and his obsession with polling data. They slammed his lack of political experience, saying that his “outsider” status is not a virtue.
“The burdens and intricacies of leadership are special; experience in other fields are not transferable,” the editors wrote. “That is why all American president have been politicians, or generals.”
The editorial then criticizes Trump’s record as a businessman, referencing how he had to bail out his earlier failed enterprises using his father’s money and how he has made much of his fortune through branding himself and gaming the political system through campaign donations.
The National Review’s editors concluded that Trump is exploiting the legitimate anxieties and anger of the GOP base.
“We sympathize with many of the complaints of Trump supporters about the GOP, but that doesn’t make the mogul any less flawed a vessel for them,” they wrote.
Taking such a strong stance against the current front-runner for the Republican nomination has had immediate consequences. Following the issue’s publication, the Republican National Committee (RNC) disinvited that journal from partnering with them in the upcoming presidential debate in Houston, Texas.
“We expected this was coming,” responded National Review publisher Jack Fowler, according to Politico. “Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald.”
Trump himself has taken to social media to blast the conservative journal for opposing him, The Atlantic reports.
“National Review is a failing publication that has lost it’s way,” the business mogul tweeted. “It’s circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!”