"My failure to embrace either side of the duopoly confuses a lot of people, but at this point in time, I’m a conservative who is anti-Republican. If that statement makes your mental processes short-circuit, you aren’t alone. I can almost see smoke pouring from the ears of a significant portion of my readership."
When the GOP idolizes a serial adulterer, has no problem spending like Democrats (though the Dems are working hard to re-calibrate the "big spenders" term with that $3.5T "infrastructure" bill), cheers us abandoning the Kurds and Afghans that fought alongside us against Islamic terrorism, and elevates a hack like Elise Stefanik over Liz Cheney, I think we're on solid ground arguing that the GOP is anti-conservative as well, or nihilistic at the very least.
it just me, or is it a possibility that if Trump runs again in 2024, that him and his MAGA base will ardently oppose the $3.5T boondoggle Dem spending bill.....because it is doesn't spend enough? So to own the libs they propose a $10T spending bill in response. When when all of us here oppose it, we are then called "liberal cucks" and "socialists".
I mean if MAGA populists really want some of their big government policies, maybe at the least they find someone other than Trump who can split the difference with us 50-50 on policy? But someone who has much better moral character and is not an insurrectionist. I'm sure that isn't hard to find. I'm pragmatic enough to vote for a fusionist in 2024. The question is if they are pragmatic enough to work with us.
We're going to be called liberal cucks or socialists regardless of our reasons for not hopping aboard #MAGA Express.
As for the #MAGA populists, I suspect that their approach would be to hide the price of the bill, and instead try and make another go with the Ahmari-ist "Greater Good" Conservatism and lead more with what that means, then the Dems who can't seem to get eyes off the price tag. It would involve wealth transfers to those who the populists deem worthy and to alleviate any rough spots from a resurgent Trump agenda, just as we saw with Midwestern farmers[1] when Trump tried to paper over the economic effects of domestic farmers losing their footing in the international agricultural markets.
I do notice that many of these "common good conservatives" or "common good originalists" assert their views in an amorphous way, lacking much in the way of specificity. On social media a few times, I tried to pick their brains and elicit more specificity about how their philosophy might apply to specific policies, and how it influenced their views on Federalism, the separation of powers, taxation, etc. The only needle that I could thread was their vagueness and unwillingness to respond directly to the specific points of concerns I had, except to say that classical liberalism has failed and we need a "new order"(whatever that means) on the right. I think you are probably right in these common good right populists being purposefully vague to hide the costs of their proposals, as well as other potentially negative consequential effects.
I think in many respects, they're the metaphorical dog that caught the car. Arguing for the common good in abstract is MUCH different than putting it into practice and having to make the inevitable trade-offs as one's common good is another's theft or loss of liberty.
The "common good" conservatives had a great chance to demonstrate how well their governing philosophy worked when COVID hit us, and completely whiffed like Javy Baez having a bad day at the plate[1].
To his credit, Rod Dreher was on the ball in late 2019 and early 2020 with his COVID warnings, but has been strangely silent on the topic since returning from Hungary, despite his self proclaimed localism and love of his local Louisiana, where COVID's hitting harder now than it ever did before. And folks like Rusty Reno[2] thoroughly discredited the idea that their conception of "the common" good extended into the health of the populace beyond their collection of sexual moral panics or need to fight the culture wars that keep their engines turning. It's the cultural equivalent of "Repeal and Replace" all over again, where tearing something down is the easy part - erecting something else in its stead is where the hard work really starts.
I agree completely Chris. I think during COVID, when mitigation required some attenuation of individual freedom temporarily, that it would've been very helpful to have a meaningful conversation regarding the proper balance of the common good vs. individual liberty. And how that sacrificing some liberty temporarily, will result in maximum liberty in the end. These common gooders would've helped a lot in emphasizing when the common good does matter(such as in World Wars and pandemics), even if I would disagree with most of their other proposals(especially during peacetime and not during a pandemic). Libertarians do have a point that emergencies can be exploited for purposes of unduly constricting liberty and unnecessarily expanding the size and scope of the state. But those points of view badly needed some intelligent counterpoint advocacy in favor the common good to provide some insight on what is the proper balance in normal times, and during legitimate emergencies.
These are good links. I'll have to look more into Rusty Reno as I've never heard of him until you mentioned him. Good stuff Chris.
That is true. I've read a lot about this Adrian Vermuelle/Sohrab Ahmari push for this common good conservatism stuff. I see your points, as there is just too much of a gulf on economic issues, to bridge these gaps. Their redistributionist beliefs put them closer on a league with the populist left. I think the primary overlap between limited government conservatives and the populist right lies on cultural/social issues. On foreign policy and economic issues, the populist right will have to compromise significantly on their stances if a post Trump fusion is possible with them.
As I commented on Steve's beautifully written column on Bush 43's speech yesterday, I didn't always agree with Bush 43 on some policy matters, but that I never once regretted having voted for him twice. There was a lot of people who hated 43, but they weren't coming those who now make up the MAGA base. I remember wondering at times when 43 was President, that why wasn't he fighting back harder against the far left, and allowing them to draw an unfair caricature of him. It was hurting his approval numbers, and was part of the reason(though not the entire reason) the GOP had the bloodbath that it did in the 2006 and 2008 elections. He just had that above the fray mindset. Fast forward to today, and I better understand why he did what he did. I don't think any other President could've stopped the trends of tribalism any better than Bush 43 tried to do such. But his efforts are noble and I really applaud him for trying his best. I miss our 43rd President, and will always appreciate his service to our nation as President.
For many years in the past, whenever I hear about violent extremists within our country and the threat to overthrow our Constitutional order, I mostly downplayed it by claiming that these are very small numbers of extremists, and that the fact that they are marginalized from a numerical standpoint. Nowadays, I'm not as confident. While I'm glad that we stopped the 1-6 insurrectionists and prevented them from achieving their goals, the fact that they were dangerously close to putting the lives of members of Congress and our Vice President in imminent danger, is not heartening at all. The fact that an enormous plurality of Americans minimize and rationalize what happened on 1-6 is very concerning to me. The unfortunate fact is that many Americans have a short term political memory, and because of that, I worry that we will go into the 2022 and 2024 elections not having learned our lesson and done enough to prevent another potential insurrection in the future.
While it is still not likely to happen for now, if we lose our government and country to a violent insurrection, we are not getting our Constitutional Republic back. We will be getting something much worse. When you look at history at almost every example of violent revolutions that overthrew an existing government worldwide, one similar pattern emerges. That the successor is almost invariably totalitarian/authoritarian in nature, and much worse than the existent government that was overthrown. Only in very few instances, and I mean VERY few, that the outcome of a revolution leads to a liberal democracy/republic or something headed towards that kind of governance. And only when the prior government was a dictatorship(examples include Romania's Ceaucescu in 1990). In every instance where the prior government was a liberal democracy/republic, violent revolutions have invariably resulted in a government that is a dictatorship. One of the latest examples is Myanmar, as they've now gone back to the military junta that had before. When you have people like Mike Flynn, and others in the MAGA base calling for martial law and citing Myanmar as a positive example, then we have every right to be concerned.
That political quiz you took is interesting. I'll have to take it and see where I fall. But I suspect that I will be close to the upper right corner, and not too much different from where you landed, David. I consider myself strongly conservative with a big libertarian streak. Like you and others here at the Racket, I can't count how many times I've been called a lefty, liberal, a commie Biden apologist, a RINO, and other pejoratives too long to list here. And that because I criticized Trump on the non-conservative things he did.
Regarding your last paragraph about you not finding the Democratic and Libertarian parties acceptable to join, I feel the same way. Obviously I cannot be a Democrat because my views are way too far apart from where the party is. Like Joe Biden, his party has veered significantly to the left over the past few decades(Biden tends to move where his party goes, and perches in the middle among them. He is moderate within his party, but not within the overall spectrum. Still, I'm glad its him and not Bernie Sanders, thank goodness). This is no longer the party of Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Max Cleland, and Joe Lieberman, among others. Even more left leaning Democrats like Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and Bill Clinton would not be welcome in today's Democratic party. As for the Libertarian Party, my views are few ticks more libertarian than many Trump-skeptic and MAGA conservatives. The problem I have with the LP is that they tend to be more libertine then demonstrably libertarian(Especially when they nominated Johnson/Weld. They took a position mandating bakeries "bake the cake!", among other non-libertarian views). Also their views on national security and foreign policy, are the biggest reasons why I cannot join the LP, despite my strongly libertarian views on economic, constitutional, and some cultural matters. Their views on those matters are completely unmoored from reality. Free market principles that Libertarians love are excellent, and I share their enthusiasm for it. But they won't stop Islamic jihadists who have a hardened desire to shed innocent blood. The profit motive will not restrain those who are morally depraved as these Islamic extremists are. And that why I part company with many libertarians in supporting a strong national defense and robust national security.
While I do not consider myself a Republican, I will support Republicans on a case to case basis. We will still have good ones worthy of our support. People like Liz Cheney, Bill Cassidy, Peter Meijer, Ben Sasse, Anthony Gonzalez, and Jaime Hererra-Beutler, deserve our support while they defend themselves against MAGA opposition. I have and will contribute some money to their campaigns.
This article from the Atlantic may be relevant to folks here:
"What’s happening is that as former Republicans and conservatives break from old groups, they turn newly suspicious eyes on old certainties."
"Once, Republicans and conservatives filled hours of cable-TV time and sold millions of books to argue the supreme importance of truthfulness, sexual fidelity, and financial integrity in a national leader. Then their party nominated and elected a president who gleefully transgressed every one of those human decencies. The minority of Republicans and conservatives who couldn’t execute the pivot were left to wonder how to reconcile what our old friends had said with what they now did."
"Once, Republicans and conservatives advertised themselves as strict upholders of constitutional principle. They brandished pocket copies of the Constitution as props. Then the leader of their party incited a violent attack on Congress in an effort to overturn an election result. The minority of Republicans and conservatives who upheld legality were forced to confront the fact that their old friends had minimized and condoned the attack, and even glorified the attackers as 'political hostages' and 'political prisoners.'"
"Once, Republicans and conservatives defined themselves as the party of life. Human life was so precious that the law should require women unwillingly pregnant to give birth anyway. Then came a deadly pandemic, and suddenly “life” became less important than protecting the spring-break revenues of hotels and restaurants, or indulging the delusions and fantasies of people who got their scientific information from YouTube videos and Reddit threads. And again dissident Republicans and conservatives were left to wonder: What do we have in common with you?"[1]
"My failure to embrace either side of the duopoly confuses a lot of people, but at this point in time, I’m a conservative who is anti-Republican. If that statement makes your mental processes short-circuit, you aren’t alone. I can almost see smoke pouring from the ears of a significant portion of my readership."
When the GOP idolizes a serial adulterer, has no problem spending like Democrats (though the Dems are working hard to re-calibrate the "big spenders" term with that $3.5T "infrastructure" bill), cheers us abandoning the Kurds and Afghans that fought alongside us against Islamic terrorism, and elevates a hack like Elise Stefanik over Liz Cheney, I think we're on solid ground arguing that the GOP is anti-conservative as well, or nihilistic at the very least.
I saw you had a substack as well. Do you have a link to it?
It's over here: https://www.notesfromthevoid.cc/
I'm working on getting back to my weekly tempo. I'm super-impressed at the pace you and Steve maintain, keeping this place fresh.
It isn't easy sometimes. We may have to throttle back a bit at some point.
I'll check yours out. Your comments are always insightful. We may have to give you a guest spot sometime!
*blushes*
it just me, or is it a possibility that if Trump runs again in 2024, that him and his MAGA base will ardently oppose the $3.5T boondoggle Dem spending bill.....because it is doesn't spend enough? So to own the libs they propose a $10T spending bill in response. When when all of us here oppose it, we are then called "liberal cucks" and "socialists".
I mean if MAGA populists really want some of their big government policies, maybe at the least they find someone other than Trump who can split the difference with us 50-50 on policy? But someone who has much better moral character and is not an insurrectionist. I'm sure that isn't hard to find. I'm pragmatic enough to vote for a fusionist in 2024. The question is if they are pragmatic enough to work with us.
We're going to be called liberal cucks or socialists regardless of our reasons for not hopping aboard #MAGA Express.
As for the #MAGA populists, I suspect that their approach would be to hide the price of the bill, and instead try and make another go with the Ahmari-ist "Greater Good" Conservatism and lead more with what that means, then the Dems who can't seem to get eyes off the price tag. It would involve wealth transfers to those who the populists deem worthy and to alleviate any rough spots from a resurgent Trump agenda, just as we saw with Midwestern farmers[1] when Trump tried to paper over the economic effects of domestic farmers losing their footing in the international agricultural markets.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932
I do notice that many of these "common good conservatives" or "common good originalists" assert their views in an amorphous way, lacking much in the way of specificity. On social media a few times, I tried to pick their brains and elicit more specificity about how their philosophy might apply to specific policies, and how it influenced their views on Federalism, the separation of powers, taxation, etc. The only needle that I could thread was their vagueness and unwillingness to respond directly to the specific points of concerns I had, except to say that classical liberalism has failed and we need a "new order"(whatever that means) on the right. I think you are probably right in these common good right populists being purposefully vague to hide the costs of their proposals, as well as other potentially negative consequential effects.
I think in many respects, they're the metaphorical dog that caught the car. Arguing for the common good in abstract is MUCH different than putting it into practice and having to make the inevitable trade-offs as one's common good is another's theft or loss of liberty.
The "common good" conservatives had a great chance to demonstrate how well their governing philosophy worked when COVID hit us, and completely whiffed like Javy Baez having a bad day at the plate[1].
To his credit, Rod Dreher was on the ball in late 2019 and early 2020 with his COVID warnings, but has been strangely silent on the topic since returning from Hungary, despite his self proclaimed localism and love of his local Louisiana, where COVID's hitting harder now than it ever did before. And folks like Rusty Reno[2] thoroughly discredited the idea that their conception of "the common" good extended into the health of the populace beyond their collection of sexual moral panics or need to fight the culture wars that keep their engines turning. It's the cultural equivalent of "Repeal and Replace" all over again, where tearing something down is the easy part - erecting something else in its stead is where the hard work really starts.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrtFtwyGslU
[2] https://www.thebulwark.com/how-rusty-reno-infected-first-things/
I agree completely Chris. I think during COVID, when mitigation required some attenuation of individual freedom temporarily, that it would've been very helpful to have a meaningful conversation regarding the proper balance of the common good vs. individual liberty. And how that sacrificing some liberty temporarily, will result in maximum liberty in the end. These common gooders would've helped a lot in emphasizing when the common good does matter(such as in World Wars and pandemics), even if I would disagree with most of their other proposals(especially during peacetime and not during a pandemic). Libertarians do have a point that emergencies can be exploited for purposes of unduly constricting liberty and unnecessarily expanding the size and scope of the state. But those points of view badly needed some intelligent counterpoint advocacy in favor the common good to provide some insight on what is the proper balance in normal times, and during legitimate emergencies.
These are good links. I'll have to look more into Rusty Reno as I've never heard of him until you mentioned him. Good stuff Chris.
That is true. I've read a lot about this Adrian Vermuelle/Sohrab Ahmari push for this common good conservatism stuff. I see your points, as there is just too much of a gulf on economic issues, to bridge these gaps. Their redistributionist beliefs put them closer on a league with the populist left. I think the primary overlap between limited government conservatives and the populist right lies on cultural/social issues. On foreign policy and economic issues, the populist right will have to compromise significantly on their stances if a post Trump fusion is possible with them.
As I commented on Steve's beautifully written column on Bush 43's speech yesterday, I didn't always agree with Bush 43 on some policy matters, but that I never once regretted having voted for him twice. There was a lot of people who hated 43, but they weren't coming those who now make up the MAGA base. I remember wondering at times when 43 was President, that why wasn't he fighting back harder against the far left, and allowing them to draw an unfair caricature of him. It was hurting his approval numbers, and was part of the reason(though not the entire reason) the GOP had the bloodbath that it did in the 2006 and 2008 elections. He just had that above the fray mindset. Fast forward to today, and I better understand why he did what he did. I don't think any other President could've stopped the trends of tribalism any better than Bush 43 tried to do such. But his efforts are noble and I really applaud him for trying his best. I miss our 43rd President, and will always appreciate his service to our nation as President.
For many years in the past, whenever I hear about violent extremists within our country and the threat to overthrow our Constitutional order, I mostly downplayed it by claiming that these are very small numbers of extremists, and that the fact that they are marginalized from a numerical standpoint. Nowadays, I'm not as confident. While I'm glad that we stopped the 1-6 insurrectionists and prevented them from achieving their goals, the fact that they were dangerously close to putting the lives of members of Congress and our Vice President in imminent danger, is not heartening at all. The fact that an enormous plurality of Americans minimize and rationalize what happened on 1-6 is very concerning to me. The unfortunate fact is that many Americans have a short term political memory, and because of that, I worry that we will go into the 2022 and 2024 elections not having learned our lesson and done enough to prevent another potential insurrection in the future.
While it is still not likely to happen for now, if we lose our government and country to a violent insurrection, we are not getting our Constitutional Republic back. We will be getting something much worse. When you look at history at almost every example of violent revolutions that overthrew an existing government worldwide, one similar pattern emerges. That the successor is almost invariably totalitarian/authoritarian in nature, and much worse than the existent government that was overthrown. Only in very few instances, and I mean VERY few, that the outcome of a revolution leads to a liberal democracy/republic or something headed towards that kind of governance. And only when the prior government was a dictatorship(examples include Romania's Ceaucescu in 1990). In every instance where the prior government was a liberal democracy/republic, violent revolutions have invariably resulted in a government that is a dictatorship. One of the latest examples is Myanmar, as they've now gone back to the military junta that had before. When you have people like Mike Flynn, and others in the MAGA base calling for martial law and citing Myanmar as a positive example, then we have every right to be concerned.
That political quiz you took is interesting. I'll have to take it and see where I fall. But I suspect that I will be close to the upper right corner, and not too much different from where you landed, David. I consider myself strongly conservative with a big libertarian streak. Like you and others here at the Racket, I can't count how many times I've been called a lefty, liberal, a commie Biden apologist, a RINO, and other pejoratives too long to list here. And that because I criticized Trump on the non-conservative things he did.
Regarding your last paragraph about you not finding the Democratic and Libertarian parties acceptable to join, I feel the same way. Obviously I cannot be a Democrat because my views are way too far apart from where the party is. Like Joe Biden, his party has veered significantly to the left over the past few decades(Biden tends to move where his party goes, and perches in the middle among them. He is moderate within his party, but not within the overall spectrum. Still, I'm glad its him and not Bernie Sanders, thank goodness). This is no longer the party of Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Max Cleland, and Joe Lieberman, among others. Even more left leaning Democrats like Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and Bill Clinton would not be welcome in today's Democratic party. As for the Libertarian Party, my views are few ticks more libertarian than many Trump-skeptic and MAGA conservatives. The problem I have with the LP is that they tend to be more libertine then demonstrably libertarian(Especially when they nominated Johnson/Weld. They took a position mandating bakeries "bake the cake!", among other non-libertarian views). Also their views on national security and foreign policy, are the biggest reasons why I cannot join the LP, despite my strongly libertarian views on economic, constitutional, and some cultural matters. Their views on those matters are completely unmoored from reality. Free market principles that Libertarians love are excellent, and I share their enthusiasm for it. But they won't stop Islamic jihadists who have a hardened desire to shed innocent blood. The profit motive will not restrain those who are morally depraved as these Islamic extremists are. And that why I part company with many libertarians in supporting a strong national defense and robust national security.
While I do not consider myself a Republican, I will support Republicans on a case to case basis. We will still have good ones worthy of our support. People like Liz Cheney, Bill Cassidy, Peter Meijer, Ben Sasse, Anthony Gonzalez, and Jaime Hererra-Beutler, deserve our support while they defend themselves against MAGA opposition. I have and will contribute some money to their campaigns.
Well said. I'll consider Republicans on a case-by-case basis as well.
This article from the Atlantic may be relevant to folks here:
"What’s happening is that as former Republicans and conservatives break from old groups, they turn newly suspicious eyes on old certainties."
"Once, Republicans and conservatives filled hours of cable-TV time and sold millions of books to argue the supreme importance of truthfulness, sexual fidelity, and financial integrity in a national leader. Then their party nominated and elected a president who gleefully transgressed every one of those human decencies. The minority of Republicans and conservatives who couldn’t execute the pivot were left to wonder how to reconcile what our old friends had said with what they now did."
"Once, Republicans and conservatives advertised themselves as strict upholders of constitutional principle. They brandished pocket copies of the Constitution as props. Then the leader of their party incited a violent attack on Congress in an effort to overturn an election result. The minority of Republicans and conservatives who upheld legality were forced to confront the fact that their old friends had minimized and condoned the attack, and even glorified the attackers as 'political hostages' and 'political prisoners.'"
"Once, Republicans and conservatives defined themselves as the party of life. Human life was so precious that the law should require women unwillingly pregnant to give birth anyway. Then came a deadly pandemic, and suddenly “life” became less important than protecting the spring-break revenues of hotels and restaurants, or indulging the delusions and fantasies of people who got their scientific information from YouTube videos and Reddit threads. And again dissident Republicans and conservatives were left to wonder: What do we have in common with you?"[1]
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/never-trumpers-democrats-now/620055/