David Austin Walsh’s intellectual history of the American right is excellent but overstates Trumpism's continuity with the conservatism that preceded it
With all due respect, I think you err in calling George W. Bush a responsible conservative (even “for all [his] faults”, which is an impressive understatement) since it’s hard to think of anything less responsible than the War on Terror & its ignominious slaughter of ~4.5 million lives & counting.
I think "movement conservatism" was always just a thin intellectual veneer over a largely reactionary base. Also, this review neglects to mention (don't know if the book does or not) that both parties once had liberals and conservatives/reactionaries in them, which began to change after the enactment of civil rights legislation in the 1960s and Nixon's Southern Strategy.
Oh yes - because opposing the new deal, communism, or foreign entanglements is some ‘fringe’ ideology only for kooks! This is the kind of lazy drive by attack & ad hominems we’ve come to expect in the current tribalist culture wars, but definitely nothing like a serious or honest analysis of the topic. To do that, one would actually have to understand & respect one’s subject, treat it honestly & grapple with it fully, which this author clearly does none of.
If you oppose communism calling Eisenhower "communist" yes, you are a fringe cook not so different from progressive cooks calling everything sligthly to the right to Jimmy Carter "fascism"
Moderate conservatism kept losing to the intensity of the left-liberals....like putting an icecube in an oven. Michael Malice called it "liberalism driving at the speed limit" and Sam Francis called them "beautiful losers". After a while the population caught on that the Republicans were not pushing the brakes hard enough and that is why we now see a return to paleoconservative viewpoints.....Read some more Michael Anton to discover why the electorate couldn't see a big enough difference between the 2 sides of the Uniparty.
This is a very poor analysis as it treats the “right” as self-contained. It does not consider the interaction with what was happening among progressives and the sharp turn in progressive politics—the Great Awokening—that predated Trump but gave him so much to work with. In particular, the increasingly prevalent view that all “responsible” conservatives did was lose politely. I discuss some of those patterns here. https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/the-original-intellectual-sin-of
Certainly Romney and McCain "lost politely"—then again, those losses came after a three-decade spell in which conservatives far more "responsible" and "polite" than Trump dominated their Democratic counterparts. Five of the last 7 presidential terms were won by those more "responsible" conservatives (good for 20 of those 28 years), and one could argue Romney and McCain lost to a once-in-a-generation political colossus. So the argument that Trump was an internal course correction because past conservatives, conservatives of a "friendlier" kind, would just lose and lose is extremely weak.
The losing in question is not electoral, but institutional and cultural. The utter hollowing out of school systems and universities matters way more now than various electoral victories. Even the degrading of previously popular entertainment franchises is part of the pattern.
Do you think the perception that responsible conservatives ”would just lose and lose” at least existed in the mainstream conservative movement (albeit incorrectly)?
Just to re-iterate the point about the institutional and cultural losing, we now have political officers/commissars (aka DEI officers, intimacy consultants, sensitivity readers, bias response teams) in lots of institutions; we have creeping Lysenkoism in medicine, in biology, and pushing more widely into science; we have Zhdanovism in culture (see the decay of entertainment franchises); we have genderwoo being used to undermine and replace parental authority; and lots and lots of folk on the centre-left who persist in claiming that there is nothing to see here and agreeing with someone like Christopher Rufo is the worst thing you can do. And mainstream conservatives have done what, exactly? Presided over this in office and ignored it out of office.
I think one reason moderate conservatives "lost the argument" is because the american right in the 70s and 80s won all the most relevant ideologic battles in those years. After the fall of USSR and many right wing instances got accepted by liberals as well, what did remain to the right except Rush Limbaugh and fringe conspirational thougt?
A lot of what happened is that many on the left decided that free speech was inherently “right wing” and so went for Marcusean “repressive tolerance”, developing techniques to suppress debate and ramp up institutional entryism. Much of what left-progressives push is bonkers, but is supported by a bodyguard of cancel culture and mobbing.
With all due respect, I think you err in calling George W. Bush a responsible conservative (even “for all [his] faults”, which is an impressive understatement) since it’s hard to think of anything less responsible than the War on Terror & its ignominious slaughter of ~4.5 million lives & counting.
I think "movement conservatism" was always just a thin intellectual veneer over a largely reactionary base. Also, this review neglects to mention (don't know if the book does or not) that both parties once had liberals and conservatives/reactionaries in them, which began to change after the enactment of civil rights legislation in the 1960s and Nixon's Southern Strategy.
Oh yes - because opposing the new deal, communism, or foreign entanglements is some ‘fringe’ ideology only for kooks! This is the kind of lazy drive by attack & ad hominems we’ve come to expect in the current tribalist culture wars, but definitely nothing like a serious or honest analysis of the topic. To do that, one would actually have to understand & respect one’s subject, treat it honestly & grapple with it fully, which this author clearly does none of.
If you oppose communism calling Eisenhower "communist" yes, you are a fringe cook not so different from progressive cooks calling everything sligthly to the right to Jimmy Carter "fascism"
One isolated and random example does not a trend nor a fair generalization make. Its guilt by association and weak, lazy unintellectual smearing.
We can see your posting history.
Do you have an actual point or coherent comment?
Moderate conservatism kept losing to the intensity of the left-liberals....like putting an icecube in an oven. Michael Malice called it "liberalism driving at the speed limit" and Sam Francis called them "beautiful losers". After a while the population caught on that the Republicans were not pushing the brakes hard enough and that is why we now see a return to paleoconservative viewpoints.....Read some more Michael Anton to discover why the electorate couldn't see a big enough difference between the 2 sides of the Uniparty.
Responsible conservatism a thing; until it wasn’t.
This is a very poor analysis as it treats the “right” as self-contained. It does not consider the interaction with what was happening among progressives and the sharp turn in progressive politics—the Great Awokening—that predated Trump but gave him so much to work with. In particular, the increasingly prevalent view that all “responsible” conservatives did was lose politely. I discuss some of those patterns here. https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/the-original-intellectual-sin-of
Certainly Romney and McCain "lost politely"—then again, those losses came after a three-decade spell in which conservatives far more "responsible" and "polite" than Trump dominated their Democratic counterparts. Five of the last 7 presidential terms were won by those more "responsible" conservatives (good for 20 of those 28 years), and one could argue Romney and McCain lost to a once-in-a-generation political colossus. So the argument that Trump was an internal course correction because past conservatives, conservatives of a "friendlier" kind, would just lose and lose is extremely weak.
The losing in question is not electoral, but institutional and cultural. The utter hollowing out of school systems and universities matters way more now than various electoral victories. Even the degrading of previously popular entertainment franchises is part of the pattern.
Do you think the perception that responsible conservatives ”would just lose and lose” at least existed in the mainstream conservative movement (albeit incorrectly)?
Just to re-iterate the point about the institutional and cultural losing, we now have political officers/commissars (aka DEI officers, intimacy consultants, sensitivity readers, bias response teams) in lots of institutions; we have creeping Lysenkoism in medicine, in biology, and pushing more widely into science; we have Zhdanovism in culture (see the decay of entertainment franchises); we have genderwoo being used to undermine and replace parental authority; and lots and lots of folk on the centre-left who persist in claiming that there is nothing to see here and agreeing with someone like Christopher Rufo is the worst thing you can do. And mainstream conservatives have done what, exactly? Presided over this in office and ignored it out of office.
https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/the-original-intellectual-sin-of
I think one reason moderate conservatives "lost the argument" is because the american right in the 70s and 80s won all the most relevant ideologic battles in those years. After the fall of USSR and many right wing instances got accepted by liberals as well, what did remain to the right except Rush Limbaugh and fringe conspirational thougt?
I suggest anyone reading this exchange I found on Substack some weeks ago: https://substack.com/@danieloppenheimer/note/c-57984343
A lot of what happened is that many on the left decided that free speech was inherently “right wing” and so went for Marcusean “repressive tolerance”, developing techniques to suppress debate and ramp up institutional entryism. Much of what left-progressives push is bonkers, but is supported by a bodyguard of cancel culture and mobbing.