What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is their platform? Do they have any ideas to fix any ills perceived or otherwise? We all know their immigration stance these days. Their moral stances are all over the place now though. Their trade and economic stance is troubled and murky now. Their cohesion on topics as basic as the rule of law are troubled.

What does the American Conservative believe in and is it splitting down libertarian/religious lines?

I hope I didn't necro this thread, but I already asked someone another question so here goes:
1. Are you talking about the magazine or the people?

2. If you're talking the people, well I'll tell you that the reason is that there's SO MUCH dishonesty built into the modern Western political discourse that the cognitive dissonance is causing people to short circuit. Obama was disingenuous, but we haven't had an honest president who wasn't a fool since Reagan, and even Reagan was a fool to a degree. Note I don't mean fools are optimistic, I mean fools have faith in a paradigm that is demonstrably false and built on bad conclusions.

The issue is race politics. See, we keep telling ourselves because biological racial hierarchy doesn't exist (including ZOG-style antisemitism) that human ethnic groups aren't inherently antagonistic to each other, because of the basic structure of humans as apex predators, as well as the fact that previous systems worked with far less ethnic and racial antagonism because it operated on a naked class antagonism and used elite dominance to fold other groups of people into the ethnic fold over time (Magyars in Pannonia, the Medium level Latininzatation of Western Europe, Illyria and Moesia [Balkans and northern Bulgaria in modern times] in the Roman Empire, the creation of the Spanish Empire, the partial Normanizing of England and the English language, despite the Normans being a tiny, tiny minority). The problem in that both nationalism and democracy are designs as COUNTERS to elite dominance, by not just the bourgeois but the petit-bourgeois and franklins/free peasants in order to stop the pillaging of state resources to satiate the endless egos and appetites of the oligarchic elite.

There are two kinds of conservatives, hose who believe that societies are composed of atomized individuals, as per the Enlightenment, and the others who understand that society is composed of FACTIONS, in a functionally amoral struggle for power and influence. Both political parties have their heads up their asses, at least in rhetoric, and Trump wins as FDR won before him and Jackson before him, by understanding that CORRUPTION is the point, Corruption and consolidation are one and the same in terms of holding power. And all the abuses of so-called late-stage capitalism are a testament to the success of businessmen. Cheating is a part of the game. Screwing over people is a part of the game. This is because power is always relative, no one gains without someone else losing, and this includes expanding the franchise.

Hardcore Trump supporters are nascent white nationalists, not out of a sense they are better than POC (some are biological racists, but those are rare, cultural bigots are the bulk of POC haters), but because POC are the wedge the elite on all sides uses to divide and rule and thereby appropriate all the resources, and this is why real wages haven't increased since the 1970s, well that and mass female emplyment doubling the labor pool without ANY immigration. The left understands this and thinks if people could only concentrate on their common enemy, the enemy could be overcome. This is the Yalta mistake. There is no end of history, there will always be spheres of influence, there will always be a struggle for territorial and prestige and status. Defeat the current elite, and the state will devolve into a civil war where the biggest factions will fight for control of the levers of state, and like the Rusian Civil War and Revolutionary France and every Arab Civil War in the 20th century, will lead to the most despotic and brutal and bloodthirsty people taking charge. The state can only exist in one of two ways: the tyranny of an elite who's worst members will brutalize more and more to gain more power against their fellows in the elite (this is the danger of Imperialism) OR a relatively ethnically homogenous society in which everyone is treated well, but only because they are considered kin. When you have ethnic or religious minorities that do not want to integrate, or cannot, you take all the horrors of the anarchy of international politics and recreate it inside the state. This is why ALL empires collapse along ethnic lines

Conservatives as a mess because most of the leadership, including French, thinks that politics is morality. Trump understands politics is about POWER, and only POWER protects, and therefore, power must be sought out almost as if it were for its own sake, but really, just to keep from being brutalized and exploited in turn. This is not nihilism, this empathy, and political consciousness. It is about understanding what is the naked best interest of others are, even when naked best interest is robbing you blind, putting you in chains, or putting you in a death camp. The Democratic elite t least understand the difference between nihilism and pragmatism, which is why they screw over Bernie every chance they get. Because the elite wants to continue to appropriate state resources for their own benefit. Trump's greatest virtue is his lack of moral vision: the man is TERRIBLE at building consensus, but he's honestly trying to save the country from economic and racial civil war. Won't work, but he's trying to steer the Titanic straight for the iceberg and hope the destruction is total on less than four compartments rather than slicing open six.
 
Today conservatives believe only that beating Dems is all that matters and doing anything is OK if it helps them win. Rules don't apply to them if they inhibit beating Dems.
 
Today conservatives believe only that beating Dems is all that matters and doing anything is OK if it helps them win. Rules don't apply to them if they inhibit beating Dems.

I can agree with that, but honestly, it's hard not to see the Woke left as an existential threat to nearly everything Red America holds dear. They are revolutionaries, waiting for a Trotsky to form into a Red Army. Bernie Sanders is, other than pandering to the woke people, the most conservative candidate in that he's the most pragmatic (cut the military, socialize healthcare because health insurance is ruinous to the afflicted), and going back to the Eisenhower era where top-level taxes where 90% to control wealth accumulation (not riches, wealth) and try to drag wealth distribution back to the 50s levels. It won't work, but it bears repeating that Conservatives oppose the left, but they are not only corrupt, they are as revolutionary as the Democrats, only following Heyek as filtered through Ayn Rand.

Republicans need to the Abolition of Man, especially where CS Lewis says that a hard heart is no protection against a soft head.
 
I hope I didn't necro this thread, but I already asked someone another question so here goes:
1. Are you talking about the magazine or the people?

2. If you're talking the people, well I'll tell you that the reason is that there's SO MUCH dishonesty built into the modern Western political discourse that the cognitive dissonance is causing people to short circuit. Obama was disingenuous, but we haven't had an honest president who wasn't a fool since Reagan, and even Reagan was a fool to a degree. Note I don't mean fools are optimistic, I mean fools have faith in a paradigm that is demonstrably false and built on bad conclusions.

The issue is race politics. See, we keep telling ourselves because biological racial hierarchy doesn't exist (including ZOG-style antisemitism) that human ethnic groups aren't inherently antagonistic to each other, because of the basic structure of humans as apex predators, as well as the fact that previous systems worked with far less ethnic and racial antagonism because it operated on a naked class antagonism and used elite dominance to fold other groups of people into the ethnic fold over time (Magyars in Pannonia, the Medium level Latininzatation of Western Europe, Illyria and Moesia [Balkans and northern Bulgaria in modern times] in the Roman Empire, the creation of the Spanish Empire, the partial Normanizing of England and the English language, despite the Normans being a tiny, tiny minority). The problem in that both nationalism and democracy are designs as COUNTERS to elite dominance, by not just the bourgeois but the petit-bourgeois and franklins/free peasants in order to stop the pillaging of state resources to satiate the endless egos and appetites of the oligarchic elite.

There are two kinds of conservatives, hose who believe that societies are composed of atomized individuals, as per the Enlightenment, and the others who understand that society is composed of FACTIONS, in a functionally amoral struggle for power and influence. Both political parties have their heads up their asses, at least in rhetoric, and Trump wins as FDR won before him and Jackson before him, by understanding that CORRUPTION is the point, Corruption and consolidation are one and the same in terms of holding power. And all the abuses of so-called late-stage capitalism are a testament to the success of businessmen. Cheating is a part of the game. Screwing over people is a part of the game. This is because power is always relative, no one gains without someone else losing, and this includes expanding the franchise.

Hardcore Trump supporters are nascent white nationalists, not out of a sense they are better than POC (some are biological racists, but those are rare, cultural bigots are the bulk of POC haters), but because POC are the wedge the elite on all sides uses to divide and rule and thereby appropriate all the resources, and this is why real wages haven't increased since the 1970s, well that and mass female emplyment doubling the labor pool without ANY immigration. The left understands this and thinks if people could only concentrate on their common enemy, the enemy could be overcome. This is the Yalta mistake. There is no end of history, there will always be spheres of influence, there will always be a struggle for territorial and prestige and status. Defeat the current elite, and the state will devolve into a civil war where the biggest factions will fight for control of the levers of state, and like the Rusian Civil War and Revolutionary France and every Arab Civil War in the 20th century, will lead to the most despotic and brutal and bloodthirsty people taking charge. The state can only exist in one of two ways: the tyranny of an elite who's worst members will brutalize more and more to gain more power against their fellows in the elite (this is the danger of Imperialism) OR a relatively ethnically homogenous society in which everyone is treated well, but only because they are considered kin. When you have ethnic or religious minorities that do not want to integrate, or cannot, you take all the horrors of the anarchy of international politics and recreate it inside the state. This is why ALL empires collapse along ethnic lines

Conservatives as a mess because most of the leadership, including French, thinks that politics is morality. Trump understands politics is about POWER, and only POWER protects, and therefore, power must be sought out almost as if it were for its own sake, but really, just to keep from being brutalized and exploited in turn. This is not nihilism, this empathy, and political consciousness. It is about understanding what is the naked best interest of others are, even when naked best interest is robbing you blind, putting you in chains, or putting you in a death camp. The Democratic elite t least understand the difference between nihilism and pragmatism, which is why they screw over Bernie every chance they get. Because the elite wants to continue to appropriate state resources for their own benefit. Trump's greatest virtue is his lack of moral vision: the man is TERRIBLE at building consensus, but he's honestly trying to save the country from economic and racial civil war. Won't work, but he's trying to steer the Titanic straight for the iceberg and hope the destruction is total on less than four compartments rather than slicing open six.

So power based on ethnicity is what conservatives represent these days? There are those of us that refute this dark vision of humankind and think it can overcome its reckless and xenophobic path.
 
Today conservatives believe only that beating Dems is all that matters and doing anything is OK if it helps them win. Rules don't apply to them if they inhibit beating Dems.

Can you honestly call them "Conservatives," (and not just "Republicans" as a party label) if that is the case. The two terms are actually not truly analogous. "Conservative," is an ideological stance, "Republican" a party affiliation. The two are not inherently joined at the hip. There ARE Conservatives in the United States who are not card-holding members of the Republican Party, and there are Republicans who are not Conservatives ideologically, including the President they currently have in the White House. I think your statement up there was typed too quickly, and not truly thought about enough. :undecide:
 
So power based on ethnicity is what conservatives represent these days? There are those of us that refute this dark vision of humankind and think it can overcome its reckless and xenophobic path.

That's what's it's going to be because that's the only thing that works. I'm not overly thrilled with it either. Please give me some benefit of the doubt. I didn't read the Dictator's Handbook because I wanted to become part of a corrupt power structure and such on the teet of patronage until either, I die or the state collapses. I wanted to understand why dictatorships, especially the worst kinds in Africa are so rock stable and what can be done about them. The results are fascinating. But first, you can't understand political science until you throw conventional morality out the window. Might doesn't make right, but the strong do what they can and the weak endure what they must unless it kills them and then it is the end.

There are happy endings in this world, but they must be earned and they are always bittersweet. The good news is that the Richard Spencer closet Neo-Nazis are so feared and so hated it's the only thing that has kept white nationalism from going mainstream. White people are afraid of them too. What we're probably gonna get is not a Hitler, but an Attaturk, ethnic deportations instead of genocide, a Treaty of Lausanne, rather than a return to the horrors of the Jim Crow era.

Thing is, these are humans you're dealing with. Fear is the appropriate response. All life, but especially humans are glass cannons, very easy to injure and kill, very destructive in our attacks. This means humans have to both paranoid and aggressive. We as individuals cannot tank,. and given the increasing plethora of weapons of mass destruction, neither can out societies. This cannot abolish war, MAD cannot abolish war, because what makes man, man, not even makes man great is his ambition and ruthless opportunism.

This is not about humanity. This is about the structure of power. We do not live in a moral universe. This universe punishes folly and hubris, not wickedness, at least in and of itself. That's why Stalin prospered in everything he did until the day he died. I mean yeah, he died paralyzed from a stroke, but he was only like that for a few days. Last year my grandma had a stroke and was paralyzed for MONTHS, finally refusing to eat and coming home to die. Josef Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao, Tamerlane, nearly every Mamluk Sultan, Ivan the Terrible, they were horrible tyrannical monsters, and they won at life. They died in power, in wealth, breaking and killing any who stood in their path. To say nothing of almost every cruel, utilitarian slave master in all of history, every Simon Legree, every guy who ever worked his slaves to death because there were a thousand more, and this would include Peter the Great, a guy who was trying to save Russia from it's worst impulses and recklessly went through serf lives trying to build a city from a swamp as quickly as possible.
 
Can you honestly call them "Conservatives," (and not just "Republicans" as a party label) if that is the case. The two terms are actually not truly analogous. "Conservative," is an ideological stance, "Republican" a party affiliation. The two are not inherently joined at the hip. There ARE Conservatives in the United States who are not card-holding members of the Republican Party, and there are Republicans who are not Conservatives ideologically, including the President they currently have in the White House. I think your statement up there was typed too quickly, and not truly thought about enough. :undecide:

I'm interested in how you would define Conservative. Cause there are multiple ways to be a conservative, and then there are stipulations. Like for all the stuff I just posted, at heart, I'm a Burkean Conservative. I believe in Burke's vision, but I understand that real-life poses some severe constraints on what is possible. You could say, I'm not, but you could, Trump is DEEPLY conservative in the continental tradition
 
Can you honestly call them "Conservatives," (and not just "Republicans" as a party label) if that is the case. The two terms are actually not truly analogous. "Conservative," is an ideological stance, "Republican" a party affiliation. The two are not inherently joined at the hip. There ARE Conservatives in the United States who are not card-holding members of the Republican Party, and there are Republicans who are not Conservatives ideologically, including the President they currently have in the White House. I think your statement up there was typed too quickly, and not truly thought about enough. :undecide:
It is too difficult to parse the differences and figure out who is what. Those two groups have failed to differentiate themselves so they get lumped together. Where are those balanced budget folks?
 
It is too difficult to parse the differences and figure out who is what. Those two groups have failed to differentiate themselves so they get lumped together. Where are those balanced budget folks?

The burden of differentiation is not on them. Otherwise, one gives them full license to pursue all manner of disingenuous, manipulative, and contrived rhetoric that would have to be taken at face value. Like, on the other side of the coin, declaring oneself a "Democrat," would have to automatically mean must be assumed, without question, to stand for modern Liberal and Progressive causes. No, the differentiation is not upon the so-labelled, but upon those who can show educated judgement, discernment, and knowledge of how the socio-political spectrum actually works.
 
The burden of differentiation is not on them. Otherwise, one gives them full license to pursue all manner of disingenuous, manipulative, and contrived rhetoric that would have to be taken at face value. Like, on the other side of the coin, declaring oneself a "Democrat," would have to automatically mean must be assumed, without question, to stand for modern Liberal and Progressive causes. No, the differentiation is not upon the so-labelled, but upon those who can show educated judgement, discernment, and knowledge of how the socio-political spectrum actually works.
No. If some segment of the right wants a specific label, they better figure out how to separate themselves from the rest. It is not my job to figure out what you stand for. If you cannot make it clear, too bad. (general you).
 
No. If some segment of the right wants a specific label, they better figure out how to separate themselves from the rest. It is not my job to figure out what you stand for. If you cannot make it clear, too bad. (general you).

Do you realize how ridiculous the end result of such a viewpoint is. Let me give you an example. In 2016, a lot of people assumed Trump was a Conservative and Clinton was a Liberal, just because of their party labels. Neither was even remotely true. Giving automatic credence to socio-political self-labelling is as ludicrous as giving such automatic credence to religious self-labelling. Next thing you know, automatic credence will be given to professional and educational self-labelling, and then life achievements, and then right into chaos and bedlam...
 
Do you realize how ridiculous the end result of such a viewpoint is. Let me give you an example. In 2016, a lot of people assumed Trump was a Conservative and Clinton was a Liberal, just because of their party labels. Neither was even remotely true. Giving automatic credence to socio-political self-labelling is as ludicrous as giving such automatic credence to religious self-labelling. Next thing you know, automatic credence will be given to professional and educational self-labelling, and then life achievements, and then right into chaos and bedlam...

Yeah, I don't think you understand how coalitions work. The Republicans are a Conservative coalition, where Trump the man doesn't mean your definition of conservative, but he has promised to champion the conservative cause, something he has done with gusto in the courts and nearly every executive order. Clinton is probably as amoral as it comes, but she would make policy to placate the liberals who were leading her campaign. In fact, the reason I refused to vote for Hillary was she was too corporatist on Dodd-Frank. I regard nothing less than the reinstitution of Glass Stegal a political imperative because the separation of investment and commercial banking must be AIRTIGHT. That and her laugh and mannerism told me this was someone who was either a total psychopath or so power-hungry she might as well be. IMpressions can deceive but intuition is a powerful thing and frankly, not only did my gut tell me she shouldn't be president, my guy told me I shouldn't be alone in the same room as her.

You are kind of right about Hillary not really being a liberal, but she's the exception that proves the rule. She lost a great many votes because she refused to engage with the Bernie Sanders wing of the prmaries.
 
Do you realize how ridiculous the end result of such a viewpoint is. Let me give you an example. In 2016, a lot of people assumed Trump was a Conservative and Clinton was a Liberal, just because of their party labels. Neither was even remotely true. Giving automatic credence to socio-political self-labelling is as ludicrous as giving such automatic credence to religious self-labelling. Next thing you know, automatic credence will be given to professional and educational self-labelling, and then life achievements, and then right into chaos and bedlam...
No. Trump wore himself on his sleeve and made it quite clear who he was and what he stood for. The inability of the right to see what that meant (and is clear now) is just their blindness. Trump was quite clear. The depth of his depravity was hidden though. Their are two issues here, don't confuse them. One is candidates being clear and the other is voters and party groups establishing their platforms. Candidates generally don't like clarity because it narrows their pool of voters.
 
No. Trump wore himself on his sleeve and made it quite clear who he was and what he stood for. The inability of the right to see what that meant (and is clear now) is just their blindness. Trump was quite clear. The depth of his depravity was hidden though. Their are two issues here, don't confuse them. One is candidates being clear and the other is voters and party groups establishing their platforms. Candidates generally don't like clarity because it narrows their pool of voters.

But, conflating the "Republican Party," with the whole of the "Conservative ideology," is also very wrong-headed. Also, is the base Republican platform, at it's heart, entirely "Conservative," by ideology or only partially so. I'm inclined to say the latter.
 
But, conflating the "Republican Party," with the whole of the "Conservative ideology," is also very wrong-headed. Also, is the base Republican platform, at it's heart, entirely "Conservative," by ideology or only partially so. I'm inclined to say the latter.
So, who are the conservatives and what is their platform?
 
So, who are the conservatives and what is their platform?

The problem with definition here is how the American political party system works. The two main American political parties are NOT like political parties are defined in other nations in the modern day (except for the "parties-of-power," that dominate several Post-Soviet States, like United Russia, Nur-Otan, or New Azerbaijan, for instance), and not even like American "Third Parties." They are not truly built around real ideological coherence or conformity outside of a very broad "big-tent" arena for both. Even though both chambers of Congress have a "whip" for each main party's caucus, this position is NOTHING like the "whip" for each party in a parliamentary system. While the Republican Party does favour Social Conservative ideals, it also favours Libertarian ideals at many points, which are not classically "Conservative," and it is, properly speaking, Economically LIBERAL as it's default stance in that regard.
 
All that is correct. Does it mean that conservatism only exists at the individual level? If it cannot coalesce around a person, core principles, or something, then it is pretty useless.
 
All that is correct. Does it mean that conservatism only exists at the individual level? If it cannot coalesce around a person, core principles, or something, then it is pretty useless.

It can USUALLY exist or not at the political party level - but not in the broad-based, ideologically non-coherent, and big-tent party structure with no true "whip" or other enforced party discipline of the two main American parties, where each's definition is quite broad, and their ideological boundaries even blur with each other at the adjacent extremities.
 
It can USUALLY exist or not at the political party level - but not in the broad-based, ideologically non-coherent, and big-tent party structure with no true "whip" or other enforced party discipline of the two main American parties, where each's definition is quite broad, and their ideological boundaries even blur with each other at the adjacent extremities.
Can you list the top items on a conservative agenda? 3? 5? 10?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom