What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Patine]

I think this is particularly true for conservatives right now.

The Right Honourable William Ewart Gladstone, when he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom under the LIBERAL PARTY of the United Kingdom, had a platform, ideology, and governing style very similar to that of the modern mainstream camp of the REPUBLICAN PARTY of the United States today.

 

[Mouthwash]

That's not really an answer to my question. I asked you what in contemporary American conservatism points towards the sort of mass self-segregation you propose; whether the Republican Party is authentically conservative is as secondary to that question as whether Chick-Fil-A is authentically conservative. Denouncing false conservatives doesn't tell us what the authentic conservatives are doing, and what in that behaviour points towards this self-segregation, this collective voluntary renunciation of mainstream institutions. And if there are no authentic conservatives, or if they are too rare enough to support the sort of project you envision, what elevate that project above simple utopian fiction?

I mean, these sorts of groups already number in the low millions. The Benedict Option is gaining steam in more mainstream religious circles. Pundits like Tucker Carlson and Ahmari (remember the OP, dude?) are openly questioning the merits of unconstrained capitalism and technology.

This is wrong. Economic progressives were entirely destroyed in the US in the 1980s-90s. The move to deregulation was not 'progressive', it was 'reactionary'. It exists for the purpose of destroying the middle, and driving labor into poverty. All of Reaganomics, and what follows, is exclusively about the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy.

I'm pretty sure that conservatives shouldn't have to own a system that celebrates 'innovation', 'disruption', and 'creative destruction'.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm pretty sure that conservatives shouldn't have to own a system that celebrates 'innovation', 'disruption', and 'creative destruction'.

Economic conservatives have no interest in 'innovation', 'disruption', and 'creative destruction'. They would bring that to a screeching halt in a heartbeat, given the chance,

 

[Patine]

I'm pretty sure that conservatives shouldn't have to own a system that celebrates 'innovation', 'disruption', and 'creative destruction'.

Except that they all do already, because none of them are following their respective religions as they were originally intended in spirit, but have turned them to cynical, militant, warped, perverse, oppressive moral cesspools, and modern "conservative" groups views of "tradition" and "the good old days" are NEITHER how things EVER used to be, nor any healthy or realistic way they should be or humans should be living, ESPECIALLY those with any moral fibre at all. But, MAYBE (though I'm being probably being generous here), it's like the quote from Nietszche (sp) - "a monster I am, lest a monster I become," as a justification. Still, a highly self-destructive mentality, in the end.

 

[Hrothbern]

Power is mostly a creature of habit

Habits escape moral judgments or rational considerations and like routines cost hardly energy.

EDIT
And I am afraid that most endeavours for change and renewal are so badly articulated and badly based on sound evidence and resource planning, that they are a "habit" as well and only supporting the existing power.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

This is wrong. Economic progressives were entirely destroyed in the US in the 1980s-90s. The move to deregulation was not 'progressive', it was 'reactionary'. It exists for the purpose of destroying the middle, and driving labor into poverty. All of Reaganomics, and what follows, is exclusively about the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy.

I don't agree but I think I can understand why you would say that. (I agree on the effects of those politics, just not on how to call them.)
I think it's a lot easier nowadays to call reactionary the economic politics of the 80's than it was at the time. If you draw a parallel between those and late 19th century capitalism, fair enough.

Progressive : ability to improve, emancipation, freedom, innovation
Conservative : status quo, tradition

Bear in mind that the politics of the 80's are not only domestic. It's also the time that established the New World Order.
Free market, free trade, international organizations, rule of international law, "democracy", general prosperity, growth, full employment...
Even on the domestic side : privatization of school fundings, private insurance, private, private, private : the dogma was (and still is, to some extent) that "private" was more efficient, rational, scientific than "public".
We can argue on the effects of these politics (actually we won't, because we agree) but I stand by the fact that they are progressive. If they do not believe in it, at the very least they sell an idea of progress for the human individual and/or society, from the Wheel cart all the way up the end of the tech tree.

In the same manner, communism was a progressive ideology in the marxist and until some point of the Sovietic era. Man could transform himself by means of technique and willpower and become a better self. Society could become more just, more free, more productive, more advanced, more, more.

What about Party Left nowaday ? I believe the bulk of the political offer, on the left of the political spectrum, pipedreams about a return to the golden era of the 1960's.
When they don't, most of them are defending an existing social system or opposing changes : they are anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, anti-, anti-...
And that makes them conservatives or even, as you put it, reactionary.

Progressive : "The future will be better tomorrow." (Dan Quayle)
Conservative : "The future is now." (Snake Plissken)

Apart from the faith-like belief in progress as a rational thing,
Those terms are slippy. If you stand for the same thing now as you did in the 1960's, then you've become a conservative. Because the point of progress has been moved. Thresholds have been passed, points of reference are not the same anymore.

It might not all be very clear and you might not agree. Consider this an alternative point of view.

 

[Traitorfish]

I mean, these sorts of groups already number in the low millions. The Benedict Option is gaining steam in more mainstream religious circles. Pundits like Tucker Carlson and Ahmari (remember the OP, dude?) are openly questioning the merits of unconstrained capitalism and technology.

Do these groups represent a genuinely coherent tendency with American conservatism? It is one thing to say that a single-figure percentage of Americans sympathise with these ideas, but how many are acting upon them in any reproducible way?

Further, do such groups as are putting it into practice really represent a coherent subculture? You cite Dreher, a convert from Methodism to Eastern Orthodoxy, and Ahmari, a convert from Shi'ism to Catholicism: do we imagine that these individuals are in typical of even the most conservative wings of their respective denominations, let alone an American conservative tradition with an historically fraught relationship to the robes-and-incense model of Christianity? I appreciate that America is a strange place that makes friends of enemies, but can we really venerate tradition while forgetting how much of that tradition was forged by intense sectarian rivalries?

 

[Mouthwash]

Do these groups represent a genuinely coherent tendency with American conservatism? It is one thing to say that a single-figure percentage of Americans sympathise with these ideas, but how many are acting upon them in any reproducible way?

Not many, but that is because of their modern lifestyle. They're more open to the truth these days, though.

Further, do such groups as are putting it into practice really represent a coherent subculture? You cite Dreher, a convert from Methodism to Eastern Orthodoxy, and Ahmari, a convert from Shi'ism to Catholicism: do we imagine that these individuals are in typical of even the most conservative wings of their respective denominations, let alone an American conservative tradition with an historically fraught relationship to the robes-and-incense model of Christianity? I appreciate that America is a strange place that makes friends of enemies, but can we really venerate tradition while forgetting how much of that tradition was forged by intense sectarian rivalries?

Denomination is fading quickly as a line of division, probably owing to our apocalyptic circumstances. But whatever the case, our best allies are going to be traditional conservatives disillusioned with the practices of mainstream conservatism, like myself - meaning those more open to a change in lifestyle and religious renewal (which often manifests as conversion). Personally I 'converted' towards the religious branches of Judaism, but if I was a Christian you can bet I'd be scouting out Old Order communities to join.

 

[Patine]

They're more open to the truth these days, though.

Truth? There is absolutely no truth in these movements, just revisionist, mythologized, rewritten, and non-existent histories and past eras being produced as justification for a "new era" that will not work. It is the same attempt to revise and rewrite and history and create a false past that never was to justify a future that cannot as Oceania, as presented in Orwell's novel "1984," or even as real world North Korea or Iran are attempting. In pointed this out in several posts on this thread, most directly tagging you, and all of which you refuse to respond to, leading me to believe you have no credible response or defense to them that will hold any water, but will just be reciting old, tired lines that wear thin and are a blatant lies in the cold light of day.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't agree but I think I can understand why you would say that. (I agree on the effects of those politics, just not on how to call them.)
I think it's a lot easier nowadays to call reactionary the economic politics of the 80's than it was at the time. If you draw a parallel between those and late 19th century capitalism, fair enough.

Progressive : ability to improve, emancipation, freedom, innovation
Conservative : status quo, tradition

Bear in mind that the politics of the 80's are not only domestic. It's also the time that established the New World Order.
Free market, free trade, international organizations, rule of international law, "democracy", general prosperity, growth, full employment...

We are speaking a different language here. We can't accomplish a meeting of the minds when we aren't even talking about the same things.

Even on the domestic side : privatization of school fundings, private insurance, private, private, private : the dogma was (and still is, to some extent) that "private" was more efficient, rational, scientific than "public".
We can argue on the effects of these politics (actually we won't, because we agree) but I stand by the fact that they are progressive. If they do not believe in it, at the very least they sell an idea of progress for the human individual and/or society, from the Wheel cart all the way up the end of the tech tree.

The purpose of these policies was to make the rich richer by the direct application of taking from the not-rich and giving to the rich. These policies literally do not exist, in any way, shape, or form, outside of regressive wealth redistribution. These policies are the literal opposite of progressive.

In the same manner, communism was a progressive ideology in the marxist and until some point of the Sovietic era. Man could transform himself by means of technique and willpower and become a better self. Society could become more just, more free, more productive, more advanced, more, more.

Well, and? Socialism as practiced by the Soviet block failed. And was never tried in the West. It's not relevant to anything.

What about Party Left nowaday ? I believe the bulk of the political offer, on the left of the political spectrum, pipedreams about a return to the golden era of the 1960's.
When they don't, most of them are defending an existing social system or opposing changes : they are anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, anti-, anti-...
And that makes them conservatives or even, as you put it, reactionary.

Ummm. No. There is no 'left' in existence today, at least not of any measurable size, which anti-capitalist or anti-globablist. A few people on the fringe, but 95+% of the Democratic party doesn't have that as a goal. It is not a thing. It's not of any relevance to the political debate.

Progressive : "The future will be better tomorrow." (Dan Quayle)
Conservative : "The future is now." (Snake Plissken)

Quayle was a regressive conservative who may have used such phrases, and opposed such policies. I don't know who the other guy was.

Apart from the faith-like belief in progress as a rational thing,
Those terms are slippy. If you stand for the same thing now as you did in the 1960's, then you've become a conservative. Because the point of progress has been moved. Thresholds have been passed, points of reference are not the same anymore.

It might not all be very clear and you might not agree. Consider this an alternative point of view.

We just aren't speaking a common language.

 

[Mouthwash]

We are speaking a different language here. We can't accomplish a meeting of the minds when we aren't even talking about the same things.

I mean, yeah, if your definition of conservative is 'greedy ogre-person' then there's not much common ground to reach.

Ummm. No. There is no 'left' in existence today, at least not of any measurable size, which anti-capitalist or anti-globablist. A few people on the fringe, but 95+% of the Democratic party doesn't have that as a goal. It is not a thing. It's not of any relevance to the political debate.

Doesn't Corbyn talk about neoliberalism a lot?

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Doesn't Corbyn talk about neoliberalism a lot?

And he's anti, and he's conservative, in his own way.

I take words at face value and that's a language of its own, granted.

 

[Patine]

I mean, yeah, if your definition of conservative is 'greedy ogre-person' then there's not much common ground to reach.



Doesn't Corbyn talk about neoliberalism a lot?

Once again, you seem unwilling or unable to rise to my challenge and tell me when this time period where a true consensus on "tradition" and "religion" existed that objectively made for a better society for all, and back it up with facts. I don't believe such a time EVER existed, and I've seen no real evidence to indicate it did. You constantly PROCLAIM such a time existed, as a backbone of your arguments, but you refuse, despite several proddings, to tell me (and everyone else here) when it was, and prove it in a more meaningful way than just saying it was so.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not many, but that is because of their modern lifestyle. They're more open to the truth these days, though.

What internal motion do you imagine exists within society that will overcome this "modern lifestyle"? Again, it doesn't seem sufficient to note that these ideas exist or even that they are widely held to validate them as a political project: there must be some existing motion towards their realisation.

Denomination is fading quickly as a line of division, probably owing to our apocalyptic circumstances. But whatever the case, our best allies are going to be traditional conservatives disillusioned with the practices of mainstream conservatism, like myself - meaning those more open to a change in lifestyle and religious renewal (which often manifests as conversion). Personally I 'converted' towards the religious branches of Judaism, but if I was a Christian you can bet I'd be scouting out Old Order communities to join.

Do you imagine that this is a view widely held by Catholic and Orthodox Christians? It's easy for Protestants, or indeed Jews and Muslims to embrace non-denominationalism, because in those traditions, no particular body or institution has a monopoly on religious truth, but that's really not the case for adherents of the various One True Churches. In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, religious life is structured around certain very strictly-defined rites, doctrines and institutions, overseen by a clearly-delineated hierarchy of ordained priests. You can't switch out the Most Blessed Sacrament for a non-denominational sermon and pretend that you're still practicing Catholicism.

 

[Estebonrober]

. In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, religious life is structured around certain very strictly-defined rites, doctrines and institutions, overseen by a clearly-delineated hierarchy of ordained priests. You can't switch out the Most Blessed Sacrament for a non-denominational sermon and pretend that you're still practicing Catholicism.

It is rather insulting to have some Catholics start to pretend otherwise. The OP has a muslim who converted to Catholicism (converts are always the most zealous in any faith, why is that?) who basically wants to align with the southern baptist version of evangelism. If I wanted fire and brimstone Christianity I'll just go join the southern baptists in the first place and throw stones at people while perpetrating the exact sins I'm throwing stones at!

 

[Patine]

Not many, but that is because of their modern lifestyle. They're more open to the truth these days, though.



Denomination is fading quickly as a line of division, probably owing to our apocalyptic circumstances. But whatever the case, our best allies are going to be traditional conservatives disillusioned with the practices of mainstream conservatism, like myself - meaning those more open to a change in lifestyle and religious renewal (which often manifests as conversion). Personally I 'converted' towards the religious branches of Judaism, but if I was a Christian you can bet I'd be scouting out Old Order communities to join.

What internal motion do you imagine exists within society that will overcome this "modern lifestyle"? Again, it doesn't seem sufficient to note that these ideas exist or even that they are widely held to validate them as a political project: there must be some existing motion towards their realisation.


Do you imagine that this is a view widely held by Catholic and Orthodox Christians? It's easy for Protestants, or indeed Jews and Muslims to embrace non-denominationalism, because in those traditions, no particular body or institution has a monopoly on religious truth, but that's really not the case for adherents of the various One True Churches. In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, religious life is structured around certain very strictly-defined rites, doctrines and institutions, overseen by a clearly-delineated hierarchy of ordained priests. You can't switch out the Most Blessed Sacrament for a non-denominational sermon and pretend that you're still practicing Catholicism.

It is rather insulting to have some Catholics start to pretend otherwise. The OP has a muslim who converted to Catholicism (converts are always the most zealous in any faith, why is that?) who basically wants to align with the southern baptist version of evangelism. If I wanted fire and brimstone Christianity I'll just go join the southern baptists in the first place and throw stones at people while perpetrating the exact sins I'm throwing stones at!

All of this makes me believe it is far more obvious less even attempted to be hidden with any sincerity that the crowd @Mouthwash so praises and speaks of as following and reviving "the correct path" and preparing to bring society back "into moral line, by force, if need be," are in truth just as despicable, vile, perverse, hypocritical, power-hungry, and morally bankrupt as those they condemn, if not moreso, and just use the guise of "religion" and "tradition" to justify their two-faced evil as surely as Hubbard and McCavagie.

 

[Truthy]

You gotta quit it with the run-on sentences man

 

[Mouthwash]

What internal motion do you imagine exists within society that will overcome this "modern lifestyle"? Again, it doesn't seem sufficient to note that these ideas exist or even that they are widely held to validate them as a political project: there must be some existing motion towards their realisation.

I don't see any, but it is our only hope regardless - the closer we are to that vision, the better off things will be.

Anyway, I know better than to believe trends are the future (the twentieth century is the proof of that). As to why it would swing around to my vision, that's because my vision happens to grounded in human nature, which bubbles up every so often in revolt against inhuman systems.

Do you imagine that this is a view widely held by Catholic and Orthodox Christians? It's easy for Protestants, or indeed Jews and Muslims to embrace non-denominationalism, because in those traditions, no particular body or institution has a monopoly on religious truth, but that's really not the case for adherents of the various One True Churches. In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, religious life is structured around certain very strictly-defined rites, doctrines and institutions, overseen by a clearly-delineated hierarchy of ordained priests. You can't switch out the Most Blessed Sacrament for a non-denominational sermon and pretend that you're still practicing Catholicism.

I saw this article a few days ago, about a letter Dreher received from a Southern Baptist. Doesn't seem like they have too many problems with one another.

 

[caketastydelish]

I think the meaning of "American Conservative" is changing. Based off of what I've read the vast majority of people who watch Fox News are retirement age. In other words, there are younger conservatives, but their likes and dislikes/lifestyles/points of view are very different than their baby boomer counterparts.

On the (younger) left you have the "social justice" people, reading and writing Buzzfeed articles, Tumblr blogs, etc.

The younger conservatives, likewise as mostly just countering the younger liberals/progressives, as the older left isn't even on their radar.

The younger left has "safe spaces" dedicated on college campuses and their humanities university lectures and the younger right has the same thing with Milo Yiannopoulos and Trump rallies except they use a different word for it other than "safe space".

If you say anything that the younger liberals deem to be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/whatever, they will say you "triggered" them. Likewise, when a younger liberal mention being triggered, the younger conservatives will mock them for it. Trump particularly pisses off younger liberals, which is why younger conservatives enjoy him a lot more than Romney and McCain who were just generic GOPs and didn't say nearly as much over the top anti-social justice stuff as Trump does.

The MRA vs Feminism thing, for example, is a borderline non-factor with the older generation R's and D's. Same cannot be said for the under 35 crowd.

As the baby boomers die off politicians and mainstream news outlets will have to adjust to stay relevant to what the newer generation cares about.

 

[Patine]

I don't see any, but it is our only hope regardless - the closer we are to that vision, the better off things will be.

Anyway, I know better than to believe trends are the future (the twentieth century is the proof of that). As to why it would swing around to my vision, that's because my vision happens to grounded in human nature, which bubbles up every so often in revolt against inhuman systems.



I saw this article a few days ago, about a letter Dreher received from a Southern Baptist. Doesn't seem like they have too many problems with one another.

You still haven't answered and responded to my challenge to your declaration - that is one of the very backbones of your argument - that I have made several times now. I'm convinced you have no answer (but don't want to admit that, and thus THINK silence and refusing to directly respond will lend your viewpoint continued credibility and believability, which it has not even had, at all, from the start, SOMEHOW), and that you're whole argument is on foundations of mud, but you also hope reciting worn out scripts and the "if you can't bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullfeathers," and militant scare tactics will suffice instead.