What America really needs to do is put an end to Movement Conservatism once and for all

Politruk

Literotica Guru
Joined
Oct 13, 2024
Posts
17,614
The New Right began in 1964. It has never since then been right about anything at all, and it has never accomplished anything that was not harmful to the nation -- least of all the Reagan Administration. Tear Down This Myth! What started as anticommunism morphed into the Tea Party and Trumpism -- which is a form of fascism, and even Communism is always to be preferred to that.

Mike Lofgren writes:

I am referring to extreme right-wing or fascist ideology, which for all its local varieties has a common core of beliefs or, more accurately, attitudes and poses. In the multiparty systems of Europe, it is usually represented by recently created parties to the right of traditional conservative parties. In the U.S. two-party system, it has swallowed one of the two existing parties, usurping the role of conservatism and exploiting traditional party loyalties.

Thus it is, in the United States at least, whether through merger or hostile takeover, that there is now no meaningful distinction between conservative, far-right and fascist; they are also identified with the Republican Party. I shall use all these terms interchangeably, because they have become synonymous.

Some former followers of the movement (often in organizations like the Lincoln Project) claim that that the current dogmas of the GOP are a betrayal of “true” conservatism. This is a fundamental error: Ideologies are not platonic essences, existing unchanged beyond time and space. Like the biological process of life, they evolve according to need, opportunity and contingency. Conservatism coevolved with the opportunism of its leaders and the character of the American people who voted for its politicians.

Nevertheless, American conservatism would not have become what it is now (authoritarianism or fascism or Trumpism, or however political scientists choose to describe it) unless it was capable of developing in that direction, unless it already contained the seed of its present form in its ideological DNA. And unless it had a receptive audience.
 
Let there be no misundrerstanding: This is something we must destroy root and branch -- even in what you might call its original, uncorrupted, Burkean form.

Conservative British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge write in The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America:

The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of "conservative" offered by the Concise Oxford Dictionary are "adverse to rapid change" and "moderate, avoiding extremes." Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. "Conservatism" -- no less than its foes "liberalism" or "communitarianism" -- has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed.

But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism. Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, "preferred the past to the present and the present to the future."

To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke's principles and contradiction of the last three. The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in "schemes and speculations" like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not.

If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke's last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don't know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right -- unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another.

The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a "prophet of the past." Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting.

As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated "clerisy" of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the "silent majority." In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president's son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots -- on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold.
 
Man, I really do wish I had your Gift for Gab.

America needs to get it's shit together. Stop spending more than we earn. Stop letting undocumented people enter. Stop encouraging other people to kill each other. There's more. But the bottom line is, take care of your own people first. Worry about other people's problems later.
 
Man, I really do wish I had your Gift for Gab.

America needs to get it's shit together. Stop spending more than we earn. Stop letting undocumented people enter. Stop encouraging other people to kill each other. There's more. But the bottom line is, take care of your own people first. Worry about other people's problems later.

The thread calls for an end to conservatism and you come back in faux agreement with an ‘America First’ rant. 🙄
No gift of gab is needed - we see, we know.
 
Ahh
Very pretty WW2 of you !!
You would have voted to turn away Jews escaping Germany
Not our problem

How Christian of you !!
No, I'm on the pro-immigration side. Immigration is not a problem. It never was, in all of American history. (Except to the Indians, of course.)
 
Well.. and the Mexicans who took over indigenous lands first.

They (? Spain ?) wanted good Irish Catholics… they got slave holders instead
 
The New Right began in 1964. It has never since then been right about anything at all, and it has never accomplished anything that was not harmful to the nation -- least of all the Reagan Administration. Tear Down This Myth! What started as anticommunism morphed into the Tea Party and Trumpism -- which is a form of fascism, and even Communism is always to be preferred to that.
I notice nobody contradicts any of this.
 
American conservatism is a coalition of several distinguishable currents. All are pernicious and objectionable, and I defy any RW here to demonstrate the value of any of them:

White nationalism.

Religious right/Christian nationalism. Considerable membership overlap with white nationalism, but distinguishable in doctrine.

Neoconservatism. Mostly a dead letter since the W Administration. Could always come back -- we still have the required MIC.

Neoliberalism/supply-side economics. Still the default economic position of both parties since 1980. Never accomplishes anything but its real intended purpose, which is to make the rich richer. This is the strongest current politically and the one most certain to remain at the movement's core, because it has the most funding and support from the corporations and the 1%,

Populism/paleoconservatism/producerism. Currently ascendant -- the core politics of the Reform Party, the Tea Party and the Trump movement. Essentially demotic and working-class/middle-class. Significantly committed to economic nationalism and protectionism, which puts it in opposition to neoliberal economic globalism. Significantly isolationist in foreign/military affairs, which puts it in opposition to neoconservative warhawkery. Anti-immigration, which puts it in opposition to the business interests. Considerable overlap with white nationalism, but, again, distinguishable.

Libertarianism. The only current that can claim at least a veneer of rationalism, to be on the side of Team Enlightenment as against Team Romanticism. However . . . I recall reading a piece by Robert Anton Wilson from 1980, when he was covering Barry Commoner's presidential run as a Citizens Party candidate. Wilson remarked, "In terms of my politics I suppose I should have supported the Libertarian Party, but I'm not that kind of Libertarian. I don't hate poor people." There is also such thing as Libertarian socialism, but most American Libs are not that at all, they're vulgar libertarians. Many drift over to the flatly anti-Enlightenment neoreactionary movement when they come to realize they don't really like freedom for others all that much.
 
Last edited:
Populism/paleoconservatism/producerism. Currently ascendant -- the core politics of the Reform Party, the Tea Party and the Trump movement. Essentially demotic and working-class/middle-class. Significantly committed to economic nationalism and protectionism, which puts it in opposition to neoliberal economic globalism. Significantly isolationist in foreign/military affairs, which puts it in opposition to neoconservative warhawkery. Anti-immigration, which puts it in opposition to the business interests. Considerable overlap with white nationalism, but, again, distinguishable.
N.B.: Quite a few of these would go over to the Democrats, if the party were to soft-pedal culture-war issues and embrace economic left-populism.
 
Just in case we didn't learn our lesson from the Reagan and Bush years and Trump's first term, we are now seeing once again what happens when conservatives are in power: Nothing good.
 
Just in case we didn't learn our lesson from the Reagan and Bush years and Trump's first term, we are now seeing once again what happens when conservatives are in power: Nothing good.
Maybe someone should start a political party that offers better ideas that appeal to Americans
 
Maybe someone should start a political party that offers better ideas that appeal to Americans
That would be the Democrats, if the party were to soft-pedal culture-war issues and embrace economic left-populism. As things stand now, there is no party that really looks out for the interests of the working class, or really threatens the plutocracy.
 
That would be the Democrats, if the party were to soft-pedal culture-war issues and embrace economic left-populism. As things stand now, there is no party that really looks out for the interests of the working class, or really threatens the plutocracy.
That is, no party that matters. There are some small socialist parties, see here.
 
Man, I really do wish I had your Gift for Gab.

America needs to get it's shit together. Stop spending more than we earn. Stop letting undocumented people enter. Stop encouraging other people to kill each other. There's more. But the bottom line is, take care of your own people first. Worry about other people's problems later.
Some good points here, yes, but as mentioned:

1) Undocumented people entering the US are not the problem that it is hyped up to be. I actually support rounding up and deporting criminals who illegally come to the US to commit crimes and cause havoc. I do NOT support rounding up innocent, non-violent farmworkers, dishwashers, students, and mothers- which is what is actually happening (and why the protests are happening.)

2) Stop spending more than we earn. Yes, but let's have a fair and reasonable tax code. Cutting social services, raising taxes on the poor so they can give the Elon Musks of this country a tax break is NOT the way to do it.

3) Take care of your people first. This administration is taking care of his people all right, his ultra-wealthy billionaires. He's fucking over everyone else though. This should be pretty obvious to everyone by now (for some reason a few people still refuse to accept this.)

4) In order to purge the tyranny and corruption of the Trump administration, and push for fairer, reasonable government that works for all people, the opposition party needs to market itself better, work for common values that all people can embrace, stop focusing too much attention on controversial social issues (trans people in sports? errrm....) and focus on economic populism- to appeal to voters. The way the Right PRETENDED to, while actually delivering the opposite.
 
4) In order to purge the tyranny and corruption of the Trump administration, and push for fairer, reasonable government that works for all people, the opposition party needs to market itself better, work for common values that all people can embrace, stop focusing too much attention on controversial social issues (trans people in sports? errrm....) and focus on economic populism- to appeal to voters. The way the Right PRETENDED to, while actually delivering the opposite.
If they had nominated Sanders in 2016, he would have beaten Trump. Early in the primary season many voters were wavering between Trump and Sanders, seeing both as "anti-establishment." Which Sanders was and Trump wasn't.
 
Back
Top