One of the things that I like about National Review, and always liked about National Review,
is that we weren't just there to go after the Left, which we do.
We were also there to police our own side.
And I've tried to keep that up.
Hi, I'm Nick Gillespie with Reason TV, and we're talking with Charles W. Cooke.
He is the newly appointed editor of National Review Online, and the author of The Conservatarian
Manifesto.
Thanks for talking to us, Charles.
Thank you for having me.
You are also originally from Britain until you migrated this way.
What's your take on Brexit?
I was pro.
I was pleased.
I was in England.
I didn't expect it to happen.
I'd hoped it would happen... for probably 20 years, long before I was political, actually.
Is there anything good about the EU that gets lost if England moves out of it?
That's the debate.
So, I'm going to tell you first why I was in favor of it, and then we can go on to that,
because that's a really important point.
I've been in favor of Britain's leaving the EU for a long time because I'm in favor of
sovereignty.
To me, if you are going to have a parliament, you should be bound by that parliament.
On this, I was with the British socialist Tony Benn.
"You have got to be able to defeat the people who govern you."
Probably the only thing I ever agreed with him on.
He said it would be theft of public rights to say somebody, "Vote for me, and I will
look after your interests... oh, actually, I've loaned those powers elsewhere."
Now, there seems to have been a small majority in Britain in favor of that proposition.
But there's now going to be an almighty fight as to what the parliament does with that power
when it's repatriated.
But I think, for many people who voted for it, this was a question of outcomes.
They thought, "Well, if we leave the EU, we get rid of free migration.
If we leave the EU, we get rid of the free trade agreements.
If we leave the EU, we get rid of this regulation or that regulation."
Now that's not necessarily the case.
One of the things that people were trying to do is to take the energy and the animus and
anger behind Brexit and say, "Ok, this is parallel to something going on with Trump."
National Review back in December, of course, came out with a Never Trump issue.
Is there a meaningful parallel between these events, or the energy, and, if it's good to
Brexit in England, does that mean that Trump should be given a second look in America?
On the latter question...
no.
There is a parallel, but there's also a difference.
So, the parallel is that some of the people who voted for Brexit are annoyed with what
they think of as negative globalization.
They're annoyed with immigration.
They're annoyed with free trade.
They think that Britain is being sold out to this invisible cabal.
And I think you see that within the Trump movement.
Where it's different is there's also a lot of, if you will, Never Trumpers who would've
been pro-Brexit, because they would've believed in old-fashioned ideas like sovereignty, of,
sort of, constitutional integrity.
I don't think, personally, that it helps Trump.
First of all, Britain is a different country, has a different culture.
It's a different question, "Do you wish to change the way your country relates with the
world in terms of its fundamental sovereignty" from, "Do you wish this person to be president?"
And, I think, what we're seeing thus far, at least, is that people don't want Trump
to be their president.
In your stimulating and popular book, The Conservatarian Manifesto, who are the conservatarians
going to vote for in election 2016?
Well, that's a fascinating question.
I think the Republican Party essentially read my book, insofar as it did at all, and said,
"Let's not do this."
So, anyone who liked the book-- -
-I think you're giving them to much credit for reading--
But anyone who liked the book probably is not voting for Trump.
I think that Gary Johnson is popular.
But I also think there are a lot of people, at least my email inbox would suggest, there
are a lot of people who read my book who want to reclaim the Republican Party but certainly
can't do so until November.
You were recently named the editor of National Review Online, which was really one of the
first, and still one of the best, certainly most trafficked, but also most provocative
websites for a political magazine...
What direction do you see the site moving under your editorship?
And what are areas, new areas or new writers, new things that you're looking to do?
Well, I think we have a pretty good offering as it is.
Certainly, opposition against Trump is unlikely to change.
One of the things that I like about National Review, and always have liked about National
Review is that we weren't just there to go after the Left, which we do.
But we were also there to police our own side.
And I've tried to keep that up.
I think it's extremely important to call out people who are nominally with you, whether
it's because they're crony capitalists, whether it's because they are crooked, or whether
it's because they are in hoc to somebody I think, in Donald Trump, is a charlatan.
I think that's important.
Also, I have a slightly more libertarian bent.
So, that'll probably shine through a little bit.
National Review has always been a magazine and a website that has included a number of
viewpoints.
I hope that will continue.
But the editor probably has some stamp on it, so it should move slightly more in the
libertarian direction.
But I can't imagine that it will change too much, because I think it was pretty good in
the first place.
All right, well, thank you.
We'll leave it there.
Thank you.
We have been talking with Charles W. Cooke of National Review.
He's the new editor of National Review Online and the author of The Conservatarian Manifesto.
Thanks so much for talking.
Yeah, thank you for having me.
For Reason TV, I'm Nick Gillespie.