Why The National Review Is Rejecting Trump

The National Review, a pillar of the conservative movement in modern America, isn't particularly fond of the Republican Party's current frontrunner in the race to succeed President Barack Obama. Really. And their high-profile, full-issue take down of billionaire businessman and Republican presidential contender Donald Trump drew all the usual attention.

To understand more about this developing story (the Iowa Caucuses are this coming Monday, after all), we invited National Review editor Rich Lowry to explain his reasoning.

"We wanted to put down a marker and hold up a banner for Buckley-Reaganite conservatism and make the case that Donald Trump is not a conservative," Lowry told us. "He really has shown very little interest in limited government, or liberty, or the Constitution — the animating causes for American conservatism in the last 50 years."

And if Trump does manage to win the Republican Party's nomination and the eventual U.S. Presidency, Lowry and his fellow conservative writers and thinkers are concerned a President Trump would attempt to override some of the important limits set out in the U.S. Constitution on executive authority."

"He's an a-Constitutional candidate," Lowry said. He shows very little interest in the Constitution and seems to have no understanding of the restraints that the Constitution puts on popular majorities and elected officials."

Trump's forceful campaigning draws eyes, ears and headlines, but his occasionally outrageous policy proposals and untested governing concepts lead Lowry and his colleagues to urge voters in the upcoming primaries to ultimately reject Trump in favor of a more traditionally conservative candidate.

"There's a strongman flavor to Trump, and it's part of his appeal," Lowry conceded. "Strength is important to people, but it has to be more to certain ideals and Constitutional constraints."

You can listen to the entire interview with Lowry — and hear from callers and Trump supporters — here.