The decision of the editor’s of National Review to dedicate a cover editorial and symposium to the cause of defeating Donald Trump was an important statement and a welcome contribution to the debate about the presidential contest. Coming as it does from the magazine that largely created the modern conservative movement, it’s a must-read for those who call themselves conservatives. But as much as I find myself in complete agreement with its arguments, I’m afraid it’s not exactly a game changer in terms of the race. The contributions of intellectuals — even profoundly important ones like NR’s late, great founder William F. Buckley and those who succeeded him there, as well as the thought leaders at other conservative publications like The Weekly Standard and here at COMMENTARY — are always more about setting the tone and laying the foundation for the debates on issues than they are about changing votes.

Unfortunately, the NR editorial comes a bit late to perform that service for the 2016 election. Even though we are ten days away from the first votes being cast in Iowa, Trump’s hold on the imagination of a critical mass of voters may be too great. His flip, vulgar, and vainglorious style seems to embody the desire of much of the public for a leader who will defy all conventions. His candidacy, like his business career, is largely a matter of smart marketing rather than substance. But that doesn’t matter to his growing body of fans who are, at least for the moment, untroubled by his lack of command of the issues, his inconsistent and often incoherent positions, and his Putinesque argument that America needs a strong man and a dealmaker rather than a belief in constitutional principles or a substantive understanding of American foreign policy objectives. All many seem to care about is attitude — the pleasure of seeing a very rich man, who need kowtow to no one, flip off the “establishment,” even if their idea of who or what might constitute that entity is as hazy as Trump’s knowledge of the nuclear triad.