krishna bound

5y

The main issue with conservatism to me is that there doesn't seem to really be any strong belief associated with it. The idea of any form of actual conservatism - social/societal conservatism or environmental for example (environmentalism used to be a heavy conservative stance, the climate stuff being """liberal"""/left is only a recent phenomenon in the last few decades) is far removed from practical politics and implementation. Like to me you cannot really be conservative but care more about the "market" than about the values created by such. Like why even be a "conservative" of if your biggest concern is how the market is organized rather than what social values the market breeds. Similarly, "conservatives" find themselves in a heavy overton window stuck between acceptability as introduced by liberals, where their only alternatives are to be either contrarian or absolutely insane conspiracy-theorists, because they cannot engage in actual social discourse without being held to the same standards as their constituents, which is completely against the entire theoretical point of conservatism; there's nothing actually being "conserved". For conservatism to be taken seriously, it needs to move caring about liberal economics, and secondly, it needs an actual identity instead of contrarianism to liberal policy. I've said this in other threads in the past, but at the start of the 1900s, there was literal a stronger alliance between Paleoconservatives and Marxists then there was between either of those parties and other political apparatuses, ESPECIALLY in non-white communities. Everything fell apart when conservatives swapped to basically became monocultural in politics with their liberal "opposition", and even today the vast majority of people really have no actual conservative representation. Also if you want to be taken seriously in your ideology as a conservative, I really think conservatives need to read more - I say this in a complimentary way, not in a condescending or demeaning one. Authors like Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, etc are fine if thats what youre interested in yourself, but people really should read stuff originating in what conservatives consider """other""" ideologies, whether it's marxist, post-modern, etc. - I think ignorance of fields of writing traditionally categorized as "against" conservatism has resulted in a further narrowing of what conservatism actually is.

theboy

5y

isn't conservatism just 'fuck you got mine', whether you're a king, or lord or businessman or beautiful boater or whatever?

it seems like it is just anti-solidarity at its core

krishna bound

5y

I disagree with you on a lot of this because I think the view is way too America-centric; I understand it's because it's conservatism as extrapolated by American Politics, but it's because it's so America-centric that I disagree with it even on the terms of politics as related to America itself. I want to say first though that I appreciate the well though out responses to it even if I disagree.

While you say traditionalism and nationalism are what conservatism is about today, I have to heavily disagree with that. I will agree that maybe someone like Tucker Carlson or someone like Curtis Yarvin represent that (maybe even someone like Fuentes, but I think he's more a joke than anything), but there really isn't a strong lineage of either of these ideologies in American politics. It did exist, but it's been largely eliminated; there are people who ARE nationalist or traditionalist in the US, but this doesn't really manifest itself anywhere in a rationally political form. The GOP, for example, is definitely not representative of any of this - it's certainly not anywhere near Tucker's politics for example. Abroad, sure, there are definitely examples of conservatism (without dipping into Middle Eastern religiousity) - Hungary or Poland for example (albeit barely hanging on); maybe even like BJP in India. There is a slight resurgence of conservative populism post-Trump, but realistically their apparatus in politics doesn't follow through in the same manner; the GOP as a whole certainly is not really nationalistic nor do they represent strong social values - if they do, they represent a contrarian version of such values as imposed in the overton window by their opposition, so they really don't represent much in the wider scheme of things.

I'm aware of people like Hawley or Cotton but I don't think these are good examples - they exist, and yes, they lean in this direction, but it's not really epistemological, it's agreeable at best. The problem with these politicians (and the conservative movement as represented by politics) is they still exist solely within the overton window of liberalism; they're only making bills about Big Tech or CRT or whatever other current culture war issue is hot because it's the current issue on the table. There is no real politician fighting for the establishment of values or societal structure consistently; they may care about culture war stuff (which overlaps, as it would of course) with actual conservatives, but do you see someone like Hawley proposing transformative legislature? If they aren't going to propose such, why not? Do they think America as it is now is a good representation of what needs to be conserved going forward, or can fix itself? If that's the case why now vs 10-20 years ago, did we only "just" figure things out and now we just need a little polish? The elephant in the room is always "at what point do we start/stop conserving" when it comes to culture, which is also why I feel conservatism struggles so much. Conservatives fear leaning into either religious clericalism or post-modern fascism, but if they aren't going to essentially find a strong root of epistemology for their belief, what's the actual point? It'll always be on the losing team.

I also disagree about conservatism not being linear like liberalism. Things like anarchism and fascism, sure, but modern conservatism is itself a branch of liberalism - branches of conservatism which aren't (say, Integralism), have essentially been blacklisted from even associating with conservatism. Conservatism can either fall under "brand of neoliberalism" or "brand of civic libertarianism" within the US, and even abroad there's a limit imposed by participation in globalism - look at the backlash for things Hungary does which 50 years ago would be considered "tame" policy-wise.

For paleoconservatism, okay, I admit I was being broad - you're correct not every paleoconservative was pro-government. However, what we now consider paleoconservative in retrospect historically definitely differs from the development of the ideology. Paleoconservative branched in the late 1800s/early 1900s (really before "conservative" had a definition or idea, so it's retroactive) and further branched around WW2, largely due to new ideas introduced by industrialization first and later by the social environment enacted by the war. It's not that you're wrong that prominent speakers existed who were small government, but it ignores a large sect of those encompassed by the ideology which did have political power especially outside the US, This is actually something which is better documented imo by europeans who visited the US during the 20s-80s; I'd recommend looking up Luigi Barzini for example, even though it was published in the 70s, "Americans Are Alone In The World" has an interesting history of this which comes from a different perspective of pre-war american conservatism and how it related to european conservativism.

Lastly regarding the environmentalism, sure, but at that point you're doing the same thing which you had accused me of doing, which is defining the word yourself. I'm not saying conservatives or libertarians are environmentalists in the terms of like, Greta Thurnberg or Extinction Rebellion. What I'm saying is that there is a lineage of conservatives who did actually care about environmentalism as a concept - i.e. thinking citizens should be able to sue corporations for pollution, or things such as pollution itself being a violation of the NAP, or more extremely, many of the non-naturalist and non-anarchist origins of landscape conservationism being from the far right. Just like how you said there was a large diversity of thought regarding market type or government size, there is as well for the place of environmentalism in conservatism historically.

krishna bound

5y

Me?

CLB Fractions

5y

nah i was asking @op lol. i guess i shouldve @'d him

Saint Aquinas

5y

I'm not really trying to make it American-centric even though I'm speaking about America. The Western World has experienced a similar trend in general. I wouldn't call it a coincidence that the rise in nationalism is occurring simultaneously.

"but there really isn't a strong lineage of either of these ideologies in American politics."

There is a strong lineage. I can trace the identity of the right back to thinkers. For instance, modern day neo-conservatism/rockefeller republicanism/bushism, is traced back to Lincoln with thinkers giving high praise for him. This is why most of the people under this belt tend to be more willing to expand the powers of the executive branch, trample on civil liberties, wage war, and ignore states rights. Additionally, the "compassionate conservatism" and maybe even an argument can be made that this side of conservatism is more inclusive to different groups on the surface can easily be seen by how these republicans approach politics. Likewise, paleoconservatism, the old right, ron paul libertarianism, or what I like to describe in new terms "The Alternative Right" (do not confuse this with the Milo/Richard Spencer types), can be traced back to people like Robert Taft, Russell Kirk, John C Calhoun, John Randolph, thomas jefferson, burke, Baptiste say, john locke, etc. The idea of tradition, local community, more focus on faith and being righteous, rather than power and control, is something that can be seen with the lifestyles of people that are descendants of this thought. Like I said earlier, it's not a coincidence that a lot of conservatives end up living in rural america. That tradition was talked about highly by people like Kirk. I'll even admit part of the reason I want to live in rural America, somewhere like the smoky mountains or some place in colorado partially has to do with this mindset. I do consider myself a Paleo styled rightwinger with a strong libertarian streak like Rothbard. As for the GOP, I think it's safe to say neither major party is really in touch with the base of their party. There are flashes from some politicians, but the average politician is not. Trump did however did really strongly connect with the base so this might be a bigger trend moving forward for the GOP.

" they're only making bills about Big Tech or CRT or whatever other current culture war issue is hot because it's the current issue on the table. "

Josh Hawley wrote a book about teddy roosevelt. He's the real deal which is why I don't ever want him in office. I'll concede Cotton is a fraud when it comes to this. He's just a neocon in populist clothes. As for the cultural/traditional issues, I must disagree. There's been quite a few. Honestly, the politicians that usually mean what they say are often the least intellectual when it comes to college education in some ways. Sarah Palin didn't strike me as someone that didn't believe what she said. Buchanan spoke highly about culture and tradition and he's been writing about it for decades. Now he isn't a politician, but he helped create the groundwork like goldwater did for reagan, for the trump revolution. I could probably name a few more talking about culture and tradition but you might just go back to the overton window argument. It's a valid point, but I still have to push back. Sometimes people have to see where the country is truly moving in order to really see the light. Like, how long did it take us to realize endless wars are a bad thing? Besides Ron Paul and Buchanan, who was really that critical of pretty much every war since the start of the 20th century? Nobody. Now, people are pretty much moving past American Fopo at least being a disaster post-WW2. I wouldn't say this is disingenuous. I would say this is just the truth being realized.

"However, what we now consider paleoconservative in retrospect historically definitely differs from the development of the ideology."

What do you think a paleoconservative is? I honestly don't think paleoconservative had a real developed ideology that progressed at all. I think it's been the same concept since the beginning. It was the original style of conservatism that existed and then some conservatives branched off. I don't know of any real shift that removed the old right from being a valid way to look at paleoconservatism. I might need to look at newer scholars, but the paleocons I follow still pretty much adapt the style of thinking I'm discussing. And honestly, even up until the 90s and 2000s, paleoconservatism was still the same and I don't see any real shift since then. Trump's win in 2016 slightly vindicated paleoconservatism and he touched upon the same issues that the Paleo-Right discussed in the 00s with Ron Paul, and most of the same things Buchanan did in the 90s. The only thing I might say now is you can find people larping around as Paleocons such as Nick Fuentes who aren't market based conservatives and want to focus more on religion and cultural issues without discussing economic growth in the market-based sense. I don't think this means the Old Right is gone. I think it just means the Neocon right has been replaced with a New Right. The Old Right is still there but just as week as what it once was.

Alright. I see your point about enviromentalism. I misinterpreted what you said.

Saint Aquinas

5y

Nah, I'm on the right. I do like some people on the left. Chomsky, greenwald, tulsi gabbard, dennis kucinich, etc.

krishna bound

5y

I think you're confusing terms here between the modern definition of the word conservatism as it pertains to the GOP and its adjacent parties vs the historical umbrella term of what the wider "conservatism" as it applies to right wing ideology pertains to. While it's true that not all non-left ideology is necessarily conservative, the allyship between conservatism and other ideology in that direction has always been strong, whether inside the US or abroad - however, what I'm more saying is that modern conservatism has basically blacklisted much of what otherwise would fall under the umbrella of conservatism, and that's in part because there really has never been a strong lineage of those ideologies in any meaningful or transformative sense in US history, and abroad, most of those ideologies have basically just belonged to failing or targeted states. As I was saying in the beginning, I think this is in part due to ideological density; conservatism has adapted over time to include ideas which are fundamentally incompatible with the core identity of "conservatism" if such in any meaningful way distinction from liberalism - plus, as I also said, if conservatism is fine with sharing the philosophical commonalities of liberalism (not 2020 "liberalism", but "liberalism" as a philosophy), then modern conservatism will always just be political contrarianism. The historical lineage of most conservatism in the US is essentially philosophically liberal in nature one way or another, with those who have actually strayed far from liberalism being either considered "leftist" or "third position" (despite not sharing virtually any "left" ideology in any meaningful sense beyond maybe economics), or altogether be blacklisted from overarching public discourse. This is not to say that there haven't been times where attributes of individuals or parties overlapped in that direction in a validating manner, but rather that there has never fully been a time where there has been a shared epistemological root.

I think you're also misunderstanding what I'm saying about culture war stuff. It's not that I think that many republicans are fake in the sense of not believing things - I am sure, for example, many republicans are actually anti-abortion, and aren't just saying that for voters. What I'm more saying is that while many republicans may have social ideas or values which are on the contrary side of culture war issues, there are very few if any which are willing to challenge values outside of the overton window of which they exist in (not just politicians, but anyone part of this political collective - pundits too for example), and this tends to be not because they don't believe things per-se, but rather because what they do value comparatively is actually incompatible with those other views, so they find themselves confined to the realm of the window set by the opposition. Someone like Buchanan (or maybe Ron Paul) is a good representation of someone who is actually beyond this obstacle, so I'll agree on that, but in reality both of these people have been negligible in terms of wider influence, even if they've had their historical moments (i.e. Bucanan's famous RNC speech). I just don't think that the majority of people who they represent broadly within the US, even if they agree, agree in a meaningful manner of which has resulted in any ideological diversity or representation. If they do, it's so varied or inconsistent that it's resulted in candidates like Trump, who are wildcards in a faux-populist sense, more than it has, say, an American equivalent of Orban in Hungary or something of the sort. Of course, this is a multi-factor thing, so there's a lot to be said there - and at that point it leaves criticism of the ideology and gets into criticism of culture separately, so I'll leave that there. I also kind of disagree with the last part - because the war comment is partially correct, but let's look at cultural issues, like say, gay marriage (note to moderators: this is just for reasons of political theory and theoretical situations). How many conservatives would be willing to repeal gay marriage with a distinct definition of why they should do so? I know twitter liberals think all conservatives are foaming at the mouth to do this - and yeah, 100% many on-the-ground voters want this - but what is the philosophical reason why most want this? Can it be formulated in a manner in which the philosophical reasoning differs from simply citing a branch of liberalism? How many conservatives know that the original formulation of "separation of church and state" was not just because of "fears of church influencing the state" as paraded now, but rather "fears of state influencing the church"? I know you're correct that many voters who represent conservatives do believe the "slippery slope of culture" and would be willing to repeal things if given the chance, but I don't think many of them can actually formulate why they think that beyond it being threatening to their individualist communal norms; compare this to say, the philosophy behind something like Integralism, Fascism, or even like, AnCap-ism, and you'll see more what I mean, there's an actual root of why some issues have certain decisions, the decisions aren't just made on the whim of cultural juxtaposition as they're introduced as problems to communities.

You're correct that paleoconservative doesn't really have a strong individual ideology which defines it, but in the broadest terms I've more associated paleoconservatism with the early developed thought of "culture and nationalism" being the primary driver of political force, with all else - say, economic issues, etc. - being backseat to preservation of cultural and nationalist identity are the forefront. Someone like, say, Curtis Yarvin or a lot of now considered far-right authors I think come from that lineage of thought, and that's mainly because it differs so strongly from mainstream conservative lineage which has always branched in different directions in modern history. I will admit that I agree and I do actually think Buchanan (and again, someone like Tucker Carlson) is a good representation of this to a degree though, with Buchanan's RNC speech being more on the nose for this - it's just that I think most other self-identified paleoconservatives differ heavily, and lean more into various branches of something I'd compare more to Reaganism. To me though I think this is in part because there's paleoconservative as a historical signifier and paleoconservative as a self-identifier; I think the two have very different definitions depending on this, but because there really isn't a term for early non-liberal conservative belief in the US especially, the paleoconservative tag is all I can really use to refer to that historical period - especially when it comes to non-white thinkers/writers who leaned heavy conservative or right wing in the pre-WW1 or pre-WW2 period but were excluded from popular wider discourse.

crinewinedining

5y

Tulsi is not left

Saint Aquinas

5y

What do you think conservatism is and where do you get your interpretation from? From my perspective, it seems like you are trying to define it in a way I don't think most conservatives would both now and historically. I do concede conservatism, from my perspective, and classical liberalism are very similar. I think Locke even conceded Burke and him are pretty much in agreement with everything. Burke's writing is a chore to read through and a lot of people still ask "did he even have any ideas?". From my perspective and most right-wingers I study, I would say conservatism in the truest sense is just classical liberalism with a particular moral and traditional identity.

"Someone like Buchanan (or maybe Ron Paul) is a good representation of someone who is actually beyond this obstacle, so I'll agree on that, but in reality both of these people have been negligible in terms of wider influence,"

I radically disagree with this. Trump vindicated both of these thinkers and they laid the groundwork for his presidential run. Trump's big issues in 2016 were attacking the Foreign Policy consensus in the U.S., immigration, corruption, and talking about the plight of the middle class. Without these 4 issues being addressed by Trump, he doesn't turnout new voters and he doesn't take votes away from the Obama coalition. Paul and Buchanan made these key issues. Like I said before, Buchanan in a lot of ways is like Trump's Goldwater. It's similar history and I can go further in my a***ysis on this. I'm a big follower of this because I come from the Ron Paul era and the similarities are impossible to ignore. I know it's anecdotal, but I do think it's important to provide perspective from this branch of conservatism or right-wingerism since we are talking about these people. I do concede there are not that many people really willing to challenge ideas outside the O-Window. That's one of my frustrations with the right in 2021, but to say conservatism doesn't really have ideas or an ideology at this moment or it's inconsistent is a big leap. A small amount of intellectuals =/= no ideas. You could argue the left is in a similar predicament but I don't follow the left since that's not my fight. I'd also point out it's usually been a small number of intellectuals laying the groundwork for revolutions in politics. It's never been a large number of people.

"How many conservatives would be willing to repeal gay marriage with a distinct definition of why they should do so?"

In 2021? I mean boomers have a number of arguments. I won't speak on the younger right since there's divisions, but there are definitely people explaining why whether it's because they want religion more involved in government or some weird argument about it leading to social decay. I don't accept these arguments, but the socially conservative right has a coherent ideology when it comes to social issues. You can trace the reasoning for this from socially conservative thinkers. Honestly, pretty much every branch of conservatism can be traced back to thinkers who provided the framework for this perspective even if the average voter can't name the thinkers. I'm sure most people, even critics of capitalism/laissez-faire can't name the important thinkers behind it, but that doesn't mean the argument has no roots.

" it's just that I think most other self-identified paleoconservatives differ heavily, and lean more into various branches of something I'd compare more to Reaganism."

Who are you referring to here?

"To me though I think this is in part because there's paleoconservative as a historical signifier and paleoconservative as a self-identifier"

I actually agree with this, but I don't necessarily think this is part of the reason things are complicated. I think a lot of people just call themselves paleocons to avoid being called neocons. As for Reagan the candidate, I do think his rhetoric was Paleoconish and Fusionism is the original form of paleoconservatism. With the decline in the family structure and the breakdown of economies in Middle America, it gave rise to more people wanting action from government and condemning the capitalist structure they perceived to really only help corporations and privileged Americans with names. This is why I think even Buchanan moved to the left on economics and why Tucker would praise Warren's economic platform. However, like I said before, the right is a big tent and it makes sense why this happened. I don't agree with this strand of conservatism and I do think it's just soft-liberalism. Gabbard is kinda like this except she wants a larger government + doesn't approach the culture war from the same perspective, but the goals are similar in a lot of ways. The right is complicated. It's important to understand it.

Saint Aquinas

5y

Yeah agree to disagree.

JohnnyFive

5y

people are getting used to the american left going more left that theyre not getting that tulsi is center left lmao just a normal ass democrat.

Synopsis

5y

Braindead ideology

krishna bound

5y

I contrast conservatism as a political concept with the wider philosophical idea of cultural conservation, and I generally look to epistemological conflict between branches considered "left" and "right"; when I generally talk about conservatism, I talk about it as a means of "ideologies that are not left". While I know that ideology is not a binary in practice, I believe that if you look philosophically at the root and traces of them, they really do fall into this dichotomy under respective umbrellas. My personal problem with modern conservatism is exactly what you say yourself - it is literally just classical liberalism with a particular identity. I think that's a problem, which is why I reiterated about the identity crisis of conservatism and also why I think conservatism is fated to never win any culture wars in the long term. If you want to say my language is skewed and that makes it hard to debate, I'd agree, but the real issue is we lack hyper-specific terminology and language to differentiate many concepts without using terms with multiple meanings.

I honestly disagree with you about Trump, and it's not because I particularly hate him, it's because I don't think Trump is truly representative of anything, and if he's the best the conservative movement in the US has produced after generations, I think it's safe to say they're absolutely f***ed in the future. Trump talked big but in reality his coalition and administration accomplished little in terms of advancing lasting transformative conservative change in the US. While I agree with some policy he proposed at times (or drafted under him), I don't think after he got into the actual White House he represented the right wing populist ideology tacked onto him very well - even him and someone like Tucker were basically at odds. If you want to say that Trump's 2016 campaign was proof of the existence of a latent right wing coalition existing in the US, I'd 100% agree, but Trump completely spoiled that immediately after his campaign. Had Bannon stuck around would it be different? It's hard for me to say, but it's disappointing in more general terms. I also would say I'm glad we agree on the overton window thing because I think that's really the biggest existential threat to long term conservative politics.

I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying about politics and definitions; it's not that I think people cannot formulate arguments for why certain things should be certain ways in their eyes, but rather that I doubt the ability of these people to take these views and present them as sub-attributes of a consistent ideology. This is less a practical debate and more of a philosophical one, but I generally believe the reason why they largely lack the ability to do this is because they exist as a derivative of liberalism - hence why I mention I don't think it's possible for any contrary ideology to challenge the reigning regime of liberalism unless this root is fundamentally different, otherwise it will always slide back in said direction.

For that quote I'm not referring to anyone specific (i.e. no specific political figures), I'm more referring to the general sect of people who identify as paleoconservative but have no real defining politics which separate them practically from the GOP, even if their speeches are different. I don't think in most practical politics there are really radical paleoconservatives that exist with ongoing influence; many exist on, say, social media (especially twitter), but their influence rarely leaves that contained sphere. Basically what you say in the last paragraph about paleocon vs neocon is what I'm saying, that many self-identified paleocons are actually just neocons at the end of the day, and that's tainted the influence and extrapolation of what the ideology would otherwise be an umbrella for.

Jody

5y

What would it take for you to vote blue in the midterms?

Synopsis

5y

Braindead ideology

Synopsis

5y

Braindead ideology

Saint Aquinas

5y

Nothing. I like my congressman.