"Was MAGA always the inevitable endpoint of conservatism?" The answer is Yes. But that requires us to properly understand just what "Conservatism" is. We need to distinguish it from Liberalism - which is the political philosophy of individual rights and limited government which dates back to the Age of Revolutions in the latter 18th cent…
"Was MAGA always the inevitable endpoint of conservatism?"
The answer is Yes.
But that requires us to properly understand just what "Conservatism" is. We need to distinguish it from Liberalism - which is the political philosophy of individual rights and limited government which dates back to the Age of Revolutions in the latter 18th century. The Liberal Revolution smashed the Ancien Regime, otherwise known as the Patriarchate, that throne-and-altar conception of society as organized in terms of vested hierarchy and privilege. The cardinal value of this Regime was ANTI-equality. They understood "freedom" in terms of knowing your place and fulfilling your God-given role in society. Liberalism was aimed like a dagger at this worldview and this anthropology.
Conservative values are the values of Patriarchy. The Patriarchate/the Ancien Regime was brought down by Liberalism, but Patriarchal *values* persist. And not for no reason - Patriarchal values were essential to keep civilization going, when zero-sum competition reigned, levels of economic productivity and technological innovation were in the basement, and life was nasty, brutish, and short.
Those values are less practical for us today, but they still have a tight grip on the minds of many. And one of the most enduring aspects of the Patriarchal worldview is the DENIAL of true universal political equality. The Conservative doesn't *really* believe that we're created equal.
Conservatives are not to be confused with Right-liberals, who really are very different from them. Right-liberals value political equality, but they value individual liberty and small government (which is not to be equated with limited government) more. One of the biggest differences is that Conservatives are permanently tempted by the attractions of authoritarian conservative populism (more succinctly referred to as Fascism), while Right-liberals are diametrically opposed to the Fascists.
The curious byways of American politics however have led the Right-liberals to go into political coalition with the Christian conservative populists; their interests are aligned to the extent that they are skeptical of the Left-liberal emphasis on egalitarianism and a robust measure of equality of outcomes.
We are seeing now however how that coalition is exploding, spectacularly - and in a manner which threatens to bring down the Founders' Experiment.
This label-clarifying is apt and quickly explains where we are, in terms of strong undercurrents that are not always readily visible. Unfortunately, the distinction between "conservative" and "right-liberal" is not going to be appreciated and adopted very far beyond these virtual pages.
So: The Burke>Buckley>Reagan tradition is not "conservative", but rather "right-liberal" in nature. Until Trump and with the exception of the brief George Wallace campaign, neither party was "conservative", yet there existed a substantial part of the population that was. The "right-liberals" courted the "conservatives" as a means of achieving power. But the "conservatives" were more numerous, and engaged. Eventually, some pied pipers appeared, in Gingrich, Buchanan, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Trump, and now Carlson, to steer the believers in patriarchy toward seizing influence from the "right-liberals". The latter now hang out at the Bulwark, the Dispatch, and so forth; the former fly their Trump flags high and contemplate the virtues of political terrorism.
In my view, the modern Republican Party has become a partnership for raw power, not an entity based on agreed policy objectives. It is funded at the national and state levels by the oligarch wannabes, aided and abetted at the local level by small-business owners, and reliant upon the everyday fans of patriarchy and rigid social structure (especially in the lower tier) to win elections. Their mutual dependencies provide powerful incentives to stick together.
This is *exactly* my point of view on what has happened. (Though I would make the addendum that the Slaver-society of the Old South was Conservative to the core.) Thanks for unpacking it further...!
Wow. Up until I read this, I just assumed Conservatives were being insincere when lobbing "RINO" bombs at anyone and everyone breaking with TFG. Turns out support for the TFG is an efficient means of sorting this coalition into Right-liberals and Conservatives.
There is also a significant cross-term; where Right-liberals are radicalized into "fascist-like" as a result of Sarah's triangle-of-doom and the inability to ever admit you've been had.
This is good. This definition of conservative makes it an un-American political theory. It’s strange to think that one time Republicans were radical liberals and Democrats were upholding the ancien regime of slavery. Principles around individual freedom and rights of association allied to a framework for self government that recognized a pre-existing pluralistic nation is such a strange and unusual thing. No wonder it struggles to grow outside the US.
Yes, I would say that Conservatism is un-American; but the thing is, is that Conservatism involves the persistence of a very old (and in earlier historical contexts, very practical) worldview. Perhaps the real conclusion to draw - as you are drawing here - is what a radical break Liberalism represents, from past beliefs about human nature. (I capitalize "Liberalism" to indicate that it compasses both the Right- and the Left-wings of a common Liberal tradition).
The Republican Party WAS the party of Lincoln. Yes, they were progressive. Many Democrats were the party of segregation in the South, in my lifetime...Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace, were all Dixiecrats. I remember all of them. My father voted for George Wallace when he ran for president in 1968. He was popular with young, blue-color men, in the South and Midwest. How things change.
"The curious byways of American politics however have led the Right-liberals to go into political coalition with the Christian conservative populists"
I don't get this. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see why a pro business/socially liberal person would find the Christian Right to their liking. When I think of the Christian Right I see a group who is see paternal and socially conservative.
It seems they would be absolutly the opposite of one another.
The problem is that your pro-business/socially liberal types always thought they could humor the Nat Cons to get their votes, but keep them quiet with red meat to chew on, but they lost control.
Up until I think 2004, it was blue blue blue because of the solid support for unions. Populist economics. (Manchin being a relic of this era, a Democratic governor before the flip.
"Was MAGA always the inevitable endpoint of conservatism?"
The answer is Yes.
But that requires us to properly understand just what "Conservatism" is. We need to distinguish it from Liberalism - which is the political philosophy of individual rights and limited government which dates back to the Age of Revolutions in the latter 18th century. The Liberal Revolution smashed the Ancien Regime, otherwise known as the Patriarchate, that throne-and-altar conception of society as organized in terms of vested hierarchy and privilege. The cardinal value of this Regime was ANTI-equality. They understood "freedom" in terms of knowing your place and fulfilling your God-given role in society. Liberalism was aimed like a dagger at this worldview and this anthropology.
Conservative values are the values of Patriarchy. The Patriarchate/the Ancien Regime was brought down by Liberalism, but Patriarchal *values* persist. And not for no reason - Patriarchal values were essential to keep civilization going, when zero-sum competition reigned, levels of economic productivity and technological innovation were in the basement, and life was nasty, brutish, and short.
Those values are less practical for us today, but they still have a tight grip on the minds of many. And one of the most enduring aspects of the Patriarchal worldview is the DENIAL of true universal political equality. The Conservative doesn't *really* believe that we're created equal.
Conservatives are not to be confused with Right-liberals, who really are very different from them. Right-liberals value political equality, but they value individual liberty and small government (which is not to be equated with limited government) more. One of the biggest differences is that Conservatives are permanently tempted by the attractions of authoritarian conservative populism (more succinctly referred to as Fascism), while Right-liberals are diametrically opposed to the Fascists.
The curious byways of American politics however have led the Right-liberals to go into political coalition with the Christian conservative populists; their interests are aligned to the extent that they are skeptical of the Left-liberal emphasis on egalitarianism and a robust measure of equality of outcomes.
We are seeing now however how that coalition is exploding, spectacularly - and in a manner which threatens to bring down the Founders' Experiment.
A suggestion to the Bulwark Editors.
I never read the entire set of comments, ever. May be read a dozen top comments and move on.
As of this note, I read all 389. It is the best discourse in my experience. And civil! Compare this to any contemporary political blog.
Consider editing this set and publish as a book. Must read for all right liberals. Though, may be just 1% of the voting public.
At least please remove the paywall for the post and the commentary.
Absolutely agree.
It’s the ultimate modeling for discourse.
Ayo there Logical! How goes it back at the old farm..?
This is very well-stated. I find the distinction between "conservative" and "right liberal" very helpful.
This label-clarifying is apt and quickly explains where we are, in terms of strong undercurrents that are not always readily visible. Unfortunately, the distinction between "conservative" and "right-liberal" is not going to be appreciated and adopted very far beyond these virtual pages.
So: The Burke>Buckley>Reagan tradition is not "conservative", but rather "right-liberal" in nature. Until Trump and with the exception of the brief George Wallace campaign, neither party was "conservative", yet there existed a substantial part of the population that was. The "right-liberals" courted the "conservatives" as a means of achieving power. But the "conservatives" were more numerous, and engaged. Eventually, some pied pipers appeared, in Gingrich, Buchanan, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Trump, and now Carlson, to steer the believers in patriarchy toward seizing influence from the "right-liberals". The latter now hang out at the Bulwark, the Dispatch, and so forth; the former fly their Trump flags high and contemplate the virtues of political terrorism.
In my view, the modern Republican Party has become a partnership for raw power, not an entity based on agreed policy objectives. It is funded at the national and state levels by the oligarch wannabes, aided and abetted at the local level by small-business owners, and reliant upon the everyday fans of patriarchy and rigid social structure (especially in the lower tier) to win elections. Their mutual dependencies provide powerful incentives to stick together.
Good analysis! They also have a propaganda machine, which my be their strongest play. They have a Pravda. They have their Pyongyang Times.
This is *exactly* my point of view on what has happened. (Though I would make the addendum that the Slaver-society of the Old South was Conservative to the core.) Thanks for unpacking it further...!
Wow. Up until I read this, I just assumed Conservatives were being insincere when lobbing "RINO" bombs at anyone and everyone breaking with TFG. Turns out support for the TFG is an efficient means of sorting this coalition into Right-liberals and Conservatives.
There is also a significant cross-term; where Right-liberals are radicalized into "fascist-like" as a result of Sarah's triangle-of-doom and the inability to ever admit you've been had.
Succinct. Crisp. Fantastic.
This is good. This definition of conservative makes it an un-American political theory. It’s strange to think that one time Republicans were radical liberals and Democrats were upholding the ancien regime of slavery. Principles around individual freedom and rights of association allied to a framework for self government that recognized a pre-existing pluralistic nation is such a strange and unusual thing. No wonder it struggles to grow outside the US.
Yes, I would say that Conservatism is un-American; but the thing is, is that Conservatism involves the persistence of a very old (and in earlier historical contexts, very practical) worldview. Perhaps the real conclusion to draw - as you are drawing here - is what a radical break Liberalism represents, from past beliefs about human nature. (I capitalize "Liberalism" to indicate that it compasses both the Right- and the Left-wings of a common Liberal tradition).
The Republican Party WAS the party of Lincoln. Yes, they were progressive. Many Democrats were the party of segregation in the South, in my lifetime...Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace, were all Dixiecrats. I remember all of them. My father voted for George Wallace when he ran for president in 1968. He was popular with young, blue-color men, in the South and Midwest. How things change.
"The curious byways of American politics however have led the Right-liberals to go into political coalition with the Christian conservative populists"
I don't get this. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see why a pro business/socially liberal person would find the Christian Right to their liking. When I think of the Christian Right I see a group who is see paternal and socially conservative.
It seems they would be absolutly the opposite of one another.
"Let Them Eat Tweets" is a great explanation of how this works. https://books.google.com/books/about/Let_Them_Eat_Tweets.html?id=k4iQEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description
The problem is that your pro-business/socially liberal types always thought they could humor the Nat Cons to get their votes, but keep them quiet with red meat to chew on, but they lost control.
One of them wants to be John Wayne and the other one wants Jesus to be John Wayne. It's as simple as that.
I don't see how your thesis aligns with the vast majority of West Virginians voting bright red for Trump. Maybe I missed something.
WV is Christian conservative populist land.
Up until I think 2004, it was blue blue blue because of the solid support for unions. Populist economics. (Manchin being a relic of this era, a Democratic governor before the flip.