Why Haven’t Conservative Thinkers Denounced Trump?

This headline was in the New Yorker today (December 7th). I think I have a much shorter answer than it provided. They are hoping that when he finds out how much more complicated the job is than he imagined, he will turn to them for help and their power, like a magic spell wearing off, will be miraculously restored. That would certainly give us the devil we know. But equally, Trump's ego may get in the way; then we have the devil we don't.

Ambiguity

Recently a couple of things got me thinking about the strategic use of use ambiguity. The first is the "Special Relationship" between the US and the UK. The Economist describes is as resting on three pillars:

For America, the alliance has long rested on three pillars. One: the historical links and shared values between the two countries. Two: the chemistry between their political and cultural elites. Three: the case-by-case alignment of their interests"¹.

The beauty of this lies in the scope it affords for interpretation. Whatever happens on the ground whether it is acting in cooperatively or when actions diverge, politicians (perhaps the people interested in using the construct) can always find a way (cherry picking a pillar for example) of framing action as consistent with the Special Relationship.

The second is "the silent majority", useful since one can ascribe to this imaginary group any position. Because they are silent, one doesn’t actually know what their views are so one cannot be wrong.

One could say "the silent majority believes in life after death" or  "the silent majority believes in life on Mars". While one is more likely than the other, in the moment such assertions can't be definitively contradicted.           

¹Some Brits, the article suggests, see a fourth pillar: "a common foreign-policy doctrine evolving in lock-step".