The thing about “conservatism” is that Cheney viewed it as the three-legged stool wherein each was there to support the other, and should one fall, the others became extremely wobbly and prone to collapse.
However the vast majority Republicans as we’ve learn, including Graham, is that that the leg of social conservatism, or what I think we should call “aesthetic conservatism”, was nailed in the ground and solidified in cement. The other two legs were on the ground, but should they be kicked out, the stool still stands. Not ideally, but strong enough to maintain it.
So while Liz views robust foreign policy and democracy spreading as equal to low taxes and social issues, Lindsey and the rest view their visceral distain for the brown girl at Starbucks with the “they/them” name tag as central to their politics while NATO protection is just a preference.
The thing about “conservatism” is that Cheney viewed it as the three-legged stool wherein each was there to support the other, and should one fall, the others became extremely wobbly and prone to collapse.
However the vast majority Republicans as we’ve learn, including Graham, is that that the leg of social conservatism, or what I think we should call “aesthetic conservatism”, was nailed in the ground and solidified in cement. The other two legs were on the ground, but should they be kicked out, the stool still stands. Not ideally, but strong enough to maintain it.
So while Liz views robust foreign policy and democracy spreading as equal to low taxes and social issues, Lindsey and the rest view their visceral distain for the brown girl at Starbucks with the “they/them” name tag as central to their politics while NATO protection is just a preference.
This is an excellent point, I have never thought about this incongruity within the modern Republican Party in this way. Thanks for the insight!