An existential identity crisis now grips the American right:
A political movement once united by a commitment to limited government, moral order, and a robust defense of American ideals now appears fractured, its purpose clouded by populist grievances and ideological drift
[…]
An existential identity crisis now grips the American right. A political movement once united by a commitment to limited government, moral order, and a robust defense of American ideals now appears fractured, its purpose clouded by populist grievances and ideological drift. The urgency of this moment demands a return to first principles, along with a reexamination of what conservatism means and what it seeks to achieve in an age marked by cultural upheaval and political polarization.
Since the turn of the century, a once-robust definition of conservatism has gradually devolved into “anything that’s not ‘woke.’” This shift has been driven in part by the Democratic Party’s efforts to banish common sense as political heresy and clamp down on free speech. As the left quickly learned, abandoning the moderate middle provided ample substrate for new political coalitions on the right to develop and flourish.
[…]
By the time Donald Trump won his second term, much post-election analysis correctly framed his victory not as a triumph of conservative ideals, but as a mere repudiation of a decadent and debauched Democratic Party.
[…]
But now, as the left has captured major institutions and inverted traditional morality, conservatism is often reduced to mere opposition. It is, after all, easy to shout “no!” And it feels good, too.
[…]
Conservatism is not a rigid ideology promising utopia; it is a disposition?—?a state of mind grounded in timeless principles. It recognizes human nature as it is and has been throughout the ages, and points toward a distinct approach to governing ourselves. Conservatism values obedience to a transcendent moral order, reverence for tradition and our forebears, prudence in decision-making, humility regarding our place in history, and the pursuit of justice in a fallen world. These harmonious values make conservatism a timeless philosophy that aligns seamlessly with self-governance.
To understand these principles, and to understand how to implement them in the 21st century, there is perhaps no better guide than Russell Kirk’s Roots of American Order, first published a half-century ago in 1974.
So many problems with this. The basic conflict within the right is that capitalism itself is a leftist ideology. It requires homogenization of human widgets in order to work. Capital has an inherently tendency toward wokeness. Then there is the problem of the $5 trillion in US tax revenues to be fought over. It’s the biggest recurring pot of gold in the world. EVERYBODY wants control of it. Which leads to endless scheming.
“Kirk began with ancient Israel, which is not remembered primarily for military might or territorial conquest, but for its ordered moral and spiritual life. He argued that ‘until human beings are tied together by some common faith, and share certain moral principles, they prey upon one another.’”
In my social circles, ancient Israel is remembered for saying “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” in Psalm 137:9.
“Unlike its neighbors, Israel unified an ordered soul under monotheism with an ordered polity under divine law.”
According to most historians, Egypt invented monotheism, although India’s notion of Brahman is hard to pin down chronologically. Ancient Greece had various forms of henotheism and monotheism. Israel’s monotheism was really henotheism until the Israelis decided they had to lie to the Greeks about being monotheistic.
When I saw this post I first thought I ought to read Kirk’s book. Now that I have seen the above details, I suspect I might skim it, if only to highlight its archaeological inaccuracies.
If conservative politics is going to have any place for Christians, it is going to have to re-read a few passages in the Gospels — such as the 27th chapter of Matthew:
23
And the governor said, Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24
When Pilate saw that he could gain nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see you to it.
25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Oh, wait a minute, one of the co-authors of this was Mike Pence. That’s the guy who claimed that Trump lost the second election and there was no point investigating it for rigging. Does anyone in the present audience think that Mike Pence is a genuine conservative? Or is he a Republican in name only?
“Conservative” became a bad word for the right, along with everything it has failed to do, all of its non-accomplishments, its association with religiosity, and its mainstream defenders.
It has no place in the future because it’s a trap position for losing.
Also, the only real issue worth of anything today is demographics. The country can survive years of bad management if it has its founding white population, but it will become something else the moment white people disappear.
And censuses are misleading. No one cares if whites are still a majority on paper; what matters is the demographics in reproductive age, under-40 people.
Looks like bad-faith RINO stuff, but it’s nice to see a reference to Kirk’s A Creature of the Twilight. A creepy clever book.
What was this once-robust definition?
As to the substance, “Northern conservatism” was mocked as an ineffectual, decorative opposition back in ?? century.
Was he wrong about this? If not, when did anything change in this regard, much less back and forth?
Kgaard says:
To me “capitalism” seems more of an anti-concept than any sort of “ideology”. In that references in favor thereof turn out to be nebulous, absurdly narrow («what do you mean people used to sell and buy in ancient Mesopotamia?»), overly loaded narrow («and under “capitalism” proper we understand specifically Microsoft, as opposed to Apple, which is tainted “capitalism”»), etc.
Of course, if it is a leftist anti-concept indeed, attempts to promote it fall under sucker moves Moldbug warns about: «to be a heel—to play your enemy’s enemy on TV, for that enemy’s purpose».
Gaikokumaniakku says:
One of the main themes in Old Testament, obviously IMHO, was the struggle to pull people out of utter barbarism (making themselves a golden calf, etc etc) and stay out. Which makes it a good example of why random imitations are silly.
Gaikokumaniakku says:
In practice, Brahman sort-of-monotheism, even if it existed (as an unimportant thing) before, seems to become prominent mostly as an adaptation to the overlords embracing any sort of syncretinism. The overhaul of Trimurti obviously originated as dumbing down for the Brits, after all.
The Pharisee in New Testament are a rather typical degenerate theocracy.
Even conquered, they were so full of themselves and such obnoxious pests, that the occupying governor deemed it easier to get along and go along as long as the mob is at least not incited against Rome this time, than try and crucify enough of them that the rest would stop inciting mobs and act like they are a Roman province.
Which was a preview for the can of worms that still isn’t empty. In wars with theocracies it seems adaptive to separate the hostile zealots from other PoW (summary execution optional). Which popped up in ?? century.