The Conservative Movement in America, particularly after the Second World War, was formed to stand in opposition to the Leftism, the core tenants of which were widely accepted, but did not seem a threat because the social mores and traditions of society served as an ablative barrier to insulate most people from the consequences thereof. Conservatism, in America, is and always was for the preservation and protection of those unique and marvelous elements and principles which made America, and its Anglopheric inheritance, both unique and good. But to a large degree those elements that make up uniquely America were never really critically examined, at least not in the 20th Century, and the Conservative Movement had to figure out where it stood before it could move forward or upon what basis to resist the monolithic Leftism that sought to fundamentally transform America into something else. To a large degree, the Conservative Movement went from a fringe ideology to mainstream acceptability, and has if not stopped or reversed Leftism as a whole, has slowed it down and even won reversals and victories. The idea of high taxes, rule by experts, and social guidance with a generous and benevolent state was formerly widely accepted because that ablative social armor protected people’s sense of “normalcy”; yet the Conservative Movement have, if not completely dismissed the such ideas, has succeeded in minimizing them into only being in contention, with at an increasingly poorer footing.
But that ablative armor is wearing thin, such that many people not involved in the broader Conservative Movement and ignorant of this (and those who do know better but find it useful to ignore) did not see the broader changes and counter-currents. Many only noticed that their sense of “normalcy” was suddenly threatened by said thinning ablating armor and either came to, or were convinced of, the conclusion that Conservatives didn’t conserve anything and were either ineffectual members of the “surrender caucus” or even part of some insidious plan as members of a “uniparty” or “swamp”.
Christopher DeMuth, for example, take umbrage against the conservatism of Buckley and Reagan as being complicit in the Progressive march through the institutions due to icky individualism and free markets at the expense of community concerns and civic virtue, with the seeming conclusion that only be diminishing the individual and empowering the state can stop the Progressives who seek to… diminish the individual and empower the state.
“Today we are in a new era of conservative discontent. The national conservatives are at the ramparts against the new status quo of woke progressivism in government, the military, business, education, culture and media. Many of them are also dismissive of the conservatism of Buckley & Co. and Ronald Reagan and their legacy of journals, think tanks and policy doctrines that became a settled Washington establishment by the 2000s and 2010s.
“In their view, that establishment was complicit in progressivism’s political ascent. American conservatism became unduly attached to libertarian individualism, unfettered markets and free trade as ends in themselves—which helped set the stage for anything-goes cultural corruption, the decline of community, family and religion, and the rise of global corporations and institutions that decimated the American heartland.”
That idea of community, family, and religion is their sense of “normalcy” and they decry anyone who didn’t put their personal sense of “normalcy” above dissent via government power are all equally evil. This false assumption can even be seen by the once veritable “Ace of Spades” who Kabooms himself by accuses “Baseball Crank” who writes for the National Review of being a minion of the Left with the “proof” being “Baseball Crank’s” surprise that the Left were being so open about their actual goals. That Ace “patrol[s] the right” here while complaining about “Baseball Crank” allegedly doing the same just goes to show that only the “GOPe” cares about not being hypocritic. A “rhetorical steamroller” that ain’t.
And in hopes of preserving their own sense of “normalcy” for themselves, have become willing to toss out many if not most of those very same American elements, or pillars, of society so that their own sense of superficial “normalcy” can be more easily imposed directly. Thus, they toss out the those things that led to, or allowed, their sense of “normalcy” to even exist, and instead try to create a superficial fundamental from their fundamental superficial “normalcy”. They see freedom as the freedom to do wrong and to take liberty with moral virtue, and thus to protect virtue liberty must be curtailed; that this new Post-Conservative Right assume concomitantly that the Left/Uniparty has power, and that eliminating protections against said power is the only thing that can destroy the Left/Uniparty, belies an assumption that their own sense of “normalcy” nearly universally felt when their only proof is that to them it is normal and any dissent must be a tiny minority that can be easily swept aside when the populist revolt is allowed to fight with both fists… as if this Left/Uniparty are but unarmed soyboys ready to collapse like Chinese infrastructure.
For they of the Post-Conservative Right (even those that call themselves “National Conservatives” or “Common Good Conservative”), liberty and virtue are dichotomies and you can not increase one without decreasing the other as if it were a zero-sum game. But it is possible to have the freedom to choose and the wisdom to choose wisely, and both are inseverably part and parcel of America. You can not diminish one without diminishing the other. But for that sake of superficial “normalcy”, they are willing to try.
They reject one of the great accomplishments of America and its Anglo-Saxon inheritance: Placing the rules above the rulers. That in America is is expected for the government to govern under the law rather than for rulers to rule arbitrarily and capriciously over us is seen not as a protection from government tyranny, but an obstacle for them to rule over others in order to prevent their sense of “normalcy” from being desturbed. Why, the “rule of law” is but a sneaky way for those outside normalcy to get away from being crushed which then allows them somehow to crush normalcy despite equal application of the law and the neutrality of the rules—which begs the question of just who the real “soy boys” are.
Continue reading →
