Discuss conservatism then and now, among other things.
4 Replies to “Michael Malice and Mollie Hemingway”
Conservatism had one essential foundation up to about 1990, it was anti-communist, and by extension, anti-socialist. Then the threat of communism appeared to recede and the new global enemy of western civilization appeared to be radical Islam. So conservatism rapidly switched gears and attempted to become anti-Islamic.
The problem with this was structural. To be anti-Islamic brings on the neo-conservative impulse for regime change, there is no point in opposing something but standing back and taking no action. And the other foundation of conservatism is libertarian, which is a live and let live philosophy. The natural extension of that vis a vis Islam is to say, well I don’t believe that, but if you wish to do so, be my guest, just don’t bother me with it. That is not going to provoke any such response as regime change and is anathema to neo cons who need to be starting wars to feel alive.
So around five to ten years after the Iraq invasion, the conservative movement essentially split into two rather distant subgroups, the neo-cons and statists (for which read Harper, Blayney, Richardson etc), and the alt right (to some extent, Doug Ford, Max Bernier, Donald Trump) with a populist leaning, and some acceptance of formerly shunned leftist viewpoints such as the foolishness of the Iraq misadventure and the benefits of an isolationist foreign policy. Perhaps they don’t share the same reasons, I suspect leftists like isolationism because their fellow travellers in China and elsewhere can make advances into the vacuum, whereas the alt right just wants to be left alone and damn the consequences.
Other conservatives attempt to straddle this divide (Jason Kenney comes to mind) and it is becoming increasingly difficult to do with the two self-defined conservative groups drifting further apart. Nobody said there had to be only two political positions, the left-right paradigm always included a centrist option but nobody said there had to be only three either. There could be a hundred and eleven, and some days I think maybe there are.
Indeed. The left is comfortable under one banner. Conservatives not so much.
Today everyone from the religious right to libertarians fall under the conservative label. They are a quarrelsome group who are willing to take their differences public. The left plays conservatives like a banjo. Easy baited and willing to fall upon themselves conservatives are best at destroying each other and the message. They would sooner win an argument then win an election.
I see conservatism as not only being the home for a range of libertarians from ideologically committed to fatally compromised but the only place where the debate in the role of the state exists and only just barely. To the left, it is decided that the state is supreme in all things, including the origins of all “rights” and whatever is permitted to exist of the unquestionably taxed and regulated private sector.
Human action and values that should not be involved in politics have been drawn in due to its corrupting influence. The fight for political power has left the non-debates on state legitimacy outside while being drawn into the leftist realms of battles over free stuff, national sovereignty, identity politics, and green theocracy where “success” depends on the superficial whims of the mindless majority mushy middle of the electorate. Within this context, Trump’s politically successful ideologically un-tethered populism has acted as a temporary diversion from the more principled “conservative” approach with mixed results. The big picture economic catastrophes still await unchecked.
The fundamental difference in your description lies in the cleavage of politics vs philosophy.
Politics plays to the base instinct of the mass. The “tell us what you want and we’ll get it for you” crowd. Philosophy would never entertain the question. Philosophy is how you live your life. Core beliefs that are unchanging. When confronted with a new situation you don’t need to think about it – you act. You know what is right.
Politics is the opposite. “What’s in it for me,” is the fundamental question.
Meshing of politics and philosophy comes at election time in democracies. If voting is important to you, you must decide which politician or party you want to vote for.
Conservatism had one essential foundation up to about 1990, it was anti-communist, and by extension, anti-socialist. Then the threat of communism appeared to recede and the new global enemy of western civilization appeared to be radical Islam. So conservatism rapidly switched gears and attempted to become anti-Islamic.
The problem with this was structural. To be anti-Islamic brings on the neo-conservative impulse for regime change, there is no point in opposing something but standing back and taking no action. And the other foundation of conservatism is libertarian, which is a live and let live philosophy. The natural extension of that vis a vis Islam is to say, well I don’t believe that, but if you wish to do so, be my guest, just don’t bother me with it. That is not going to provoke any such response as regime change and is anathema to neo cons who need to be starting wars to feel alive.
So around five to ten years after the Iraq invasion, the conservative movement essentially split into two rather distant subgroups, the neo-cons and statists (for which read Harper, Blayney, Richardson etc), and the alt right (to some extent, Doug Ford, Max Bernier, Donald Trump) with a populist leaning, and some acceptance of formerly shunned leftist viewpoints such as the foolishness of the Iraq misadventure and the benefits of an isolationist foreign policy. Perhaps they don’t share the same reasons, I suspect leftists like isolationism because their fellow travellers in China and elsewhere can make advances into the vacuum, whereas the alt right just wants to be left alone and damn the consequences.
Other conservatives attempt to straddle this divide (Jason Kenney comes to mind) and it is becoming increasingly difficult to do with the two self-defined conservative groups drifting further apart. Nobody said there had to be only two political positions, the left-right paradigm always included a centrist option but nobody said there had to be only three either. There could be a hundred and eleven, and some days I think maybe there are.
Indeed. The left is comfortable under one banner. Conservatives not so much.
Today everyone from the religious right to libertarians fall under the conservative label. They are a quarrelsome group who are willing to take their differences public. The left plays conservatives like a banjo. Easy baited and willing to fall upon themselves conservatives are best at destroying each other and the message. They would sooner win an argument then win an election.
I see conservatism as not only being the home for a range of libertarians from ideologically committed to fatally compromised but the only place where the debate in the role of the state exists and only just barely. To the left, it is decided that the state is supreme in all things, including the origins of all “rights” and whatever is permitted to exist of the unquestionably taxed and regulated private sector.
Human action and values that should not be involved in politics have been drawn in due to its corrupting influence. The fight for political power has left the non-debates on state legitimacy outside while being drawn into the leftist realms of battles over free stuff, national sovereignty, identity politics, and green theocracy where “success” depends on the superficial whims of the mindless majority mushy middle of the electorate. Within this context, Trump’s politically successful ideologically un-tethered populism has acted as a temporary diversion from the more principled “conservative” approach with mixed results. The big picture economic catastrophes still await unchecked.
The fundamental difference in your description lies in the cleavage of politics vs philosophy.
Politics plays to the base instinct of the mass. The “tell us what you want and we’ll get it for you” crowd. Philosophy would never entertain the question. Philosophy is how you live your life. Core beliefs that are unchanging. When confronted with a new situation you don’t need to think about it – you act. You know what is right.
Politics is the opposite. “What’s in it for me,” is the fundamental question.
Meshing of politics and philosophy comes at election time in democracies. If voting is important to you, you must decide which politician or party you want to vote for.