One of the issues with popular conservatism is it is concerned with preserving existing conditions of privilege. In this country, given our history, this means that it tends to be racist or racist adjacent.
This was true when it was the Democrats who were the conservatives and it remains true when the GoP are the conservatives.
One of the issues with popular conservatism is it is concerned with preserving existing conditions of privilege. In this country, given our history, this means that it tends to be racist or racist adjacent.
This was true when it was the Democrats who were the conservatives and it remains true when the GoP are the conservatives.
When I was growing up in western PA in the 60s and early 70s it was solidly Democratic. That was largely because of the steel industry, mines, and labor unions.
We were pretty racist--and the area is still pretty racist (or was, the last time I was there about 2 years ago). It is also pretty solid red. The "conservatives" switched parties.
You also have the whole in group and out group dynamic working. If you look at photographs of the political leadership of the parties and their congress people you will likely notice that the GoP is predominantly white and male. The Democrats are not.
This says something about how the group perceives itself, what the boundaries are as to who is in the group and who is not. Rightist media and "grass roots" political action have contributed towards narrowing these in-group boundaries even further--getting rid of RINOs, electing Real Americans (which has a very specific connotation of whiteness and Anglo-Saxon heritage).
The very principles that are (selectively) valued in American conservatism have their roots in Anglo-Saxon political philosophy (with a side order of French from the Revolutionary period, but taht gets complicated when you consider Burke's attitude towards the French revolution).
It would be MORE surprising that American conservatism WASN'T racist or racist adjacent than if it was.
One of the issues with popular conservatism is it is concerned with preserving existing conditions of privilege. In this country, given our history, this means that it tends to be racist or racist adjacent.
This was true when it was the Democrats who were the conservatives and it remains true when the GoP are the conservatives.
When I was growing up in western PA in the 60s and early 70s it was solidly Democratic. That was largely because of the steel industry, mines, and labor unions.
We were pretty racist--and the area is still pretty racist (or was, the last time I was there about 2 years ago). It is also pretty solid red. The "conservatives" switched parties.
You also have the whole in group and out group dynamic working. If you look at photographs of the political leadership of the parties and their congress people you will likely notice that the GoP is predominantly white and male. The Democrats are not.
This says something about how the group perceives itself, what the boundaries are as to who is in the group and who is not. Rightist media and "grass roots" political action have contributed towards narrowing these in-group boundaries even further--getting rid of RINOs, electing Real Americans (which has a very specific connotation of whiteness and Anglo-Saxon heritage).
The very principles that are (selectively) valued in American conservatism have their roots in Anglo-Saxon political philosophy (with a side order of French from the Revolutionary period, but taht gets complicated when you consider Burke's attitude towards the French revolution).
It would be MORE surprising that American conservatism WASN'T racist or racist adjacent than if it was.