Nationalism

The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty

If big government is the price of "good outcomes," the American right is increasingly willing to pay it.

|

You're probably old enough to remember a time when conservatives opposed the idea that it was the federal government's job to solve most problems. A time when they thought that individuals, families, and community groups, not politicians, were responsible for building a good life and a good society. A time when they believed that government power should be devolved whenever possible to the state and local level, away from the bloated behemoth in Washington.

The several hundred attendees of this week's National Conservatism conference have a different vision for American politics. The event brought together a variety of speakers to discuss and defend, in explicit terms, the need for a new nationalism.

As the Hudson Institute's Chris DeMuth put it, "our claim is that the government has abdicated basic responsibilities and broken trust with large numbers of our fellow citizens." It has done this by allowing a globalized economy to emerge and U.S. manufacturing supremacy to be lost; by not "securing our borders" or ensuring that immigrants are sufficiently assimilated into the culture; by either turning a blind eye to or actively encouraging the erosion of traditional Christian values. 

"The rising economic tide has swallowed entire regions," said pro-Israel activist David Brog. The result, according to Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance, has been "family decline, childhood trauma, opioid abuse, community decline, decline of the manufacturing sector and all the sense of dignity and purpose and meaning that comes along with it." And the answer to these problems, under the new nationalist view, is for conservatives to shed their aversion to big government. "We should care about a whole host of public goods," Vance concluded, "and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish those goods."

Practically speaking, the nationalist agenda is largely focused on the need for a federal "industrial policy." For Breitbart's John Carney, that means tariffs, and lots of them. Americans need to be willing to pay higher prices to protect the jobs of their fellow citizens, according to Brog. For American Affairs founder Julius Krein, "protectionism is not sufficient….It's not radical enough." The Manhattan Institute's Oren Cass laid out a plan involving research and development subsidies, infrastructure investments, preferential tax rates for favored firms, punitive taxes on companies that move jobs overseas, "trade enforcement" to make other countries play according to our rules, and more. "We should have a National Institutes of Manufacturing just as we have a National Institutes of Health," he said. 

What do all of these proposals—and the many others offered at the conference, from censoring porn to cracking down on opioids to preventing trans girls from playing on girls' sports teams—have in common? There is a tendency among the new nationalists to frame their movement as standing in opposition to supranationalism. Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism, laments in particular what he sees as a push toward a homogenous "new world order" in which umbrella institutions such as the European Union and the United Nations override the rightful sovereignty of states. 

Yet the true object of the nationalists' ire is much closer to home: They cannot abide individual Americans making social and economic choices they do not like. For consumers, the question might be whether to buy foreign or domestic. For a business owner, it might be where to open a factory. For a parent, it might be whether or not to attend drag queen story hour at the local library. Regardless, the new nationalists have decided not only that there is a right answer from a moral perspective but that government should force you to choose correctly.

"Today we declare independence," Hazony said, "from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism. From the set of ideas that sees the atomic individual, the free and equal individual, as the only thing that matters in politics."

For Cass, Vance, Hazony, and the others, the situation is binary: We can either accept a moral relativism in which no outcome is better than any other as long as it was freely chosen, or we can acknowledge that our society faces problems and embrace federal efforts to fix them.

That choice is a false one. When it comes to solving problems, there are numberless alternatives to government interference. They begin with individual initiative and personal responsibility, but they need not end there. Once upon a time, conservatives understood as a canard the progressive maxim that "government is simply the name for things we do together." Private actors do things together every day, via churches, charities, neighborhood groups, businesses, professional associations, and other civil society organizations (to say nothing of family and friends).

This point was drawn out during the conference by the ultraconservative Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen, the only person I heard voice any unease with the national conservative project. In American history, he noted, "the emphasis of [nationalism] was the explicit and desired and in many ways successful aim to weaken the more local, regional, neighborhood, and particular forms of identity within the nation—those identifications that had been the hallmark of the American political/cultural experience." According to Deneen, nationalism was the progressive idea that we should put "the national need before the sectional or personal advantage" and "that local government should cede its activities to the national government." In this moment, he said, "it seems natural for conservative to rally around the idea of the nation. But we should always be wary of simply occupying the ground recently vacated by progressives."

Alas, Deneen went on to support virtually all the same policy prescriptions as everyone else at the conference. Anti-individualism seems to be the unifying theory of the ascendant political right. If government infringements on personal liberty are the price of achieving good outcomes, conservatives are more than happy to pay it.

NEXT: Rand Paul Was Right to Delay Vote on Funding Bill for 9/11 First Responders

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You’re probably old enough to remember a time when conservatives opposed the idea that it was the federal government’s job to solve most problems.

    I’m old enough to remember when conservatives said they opposed that idea. Often their actions spoke otherwise.

    1. But at least they said it. Today the openly mock and deride anyone who suggests it.

      1. This has to be sarcasm. Liberals are literally censoring all opposing opinions while promoting racism against Caucasians.

        1. Hey, an ignorant whatabouter!

          1. You should kill yourself. Really.

            1. “Today we declare independence,” Hazony said, “from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism. From the set of ideas that sees the atomic individual, the free and equal individual, as the only thing that matters in politics.”

              “Independence”? That’s incorrect terminology. “Submissiveness” or “asskissingness” are the correct descriptors.

              Maybe we libertarians need to go back to voting Libertarian or at least not voting Republican.

              If conservatives want libertarian votes the least they can do is be honest enough to admit libertarian moral superiority over conservatism.

          2. Facts aren’t ignorance.

        2. Tissue bro?

        3. Liberals are doing no such thing. Statists on the left and right are advocating the repeal, in effect, of all of the freedoms in the first amendment.

          1. You know perfectly well that just like “progressive”, the appellation “liberal” has been used as a personal political identifier by American fascists for the last fifty years.

            1. True. The point was in the second sentence, however. Maybe I read too much into his comment, but he seemed not at all concerned about the nationalists and the new conservatives.

              1. Really wish I could edit. Meant “these nationalists and the new conservative movement”

          2. I’m not sure even (classical) liberal vs. statist is a useful description at this point.

            What we have are both parties, for different powers and different reasons, working very hard to re-enable various “tools of tyranny”, deliberately denied to government. If they can’t use it, they can’t abuse it, and the collapse back into dictatorship is pushed off.

            1. But if government, which is to say, the power hungry in government, have it available, it will get used, then abused.

              It’s idiotic to think the popular vote will keep control of these demonic powers like censorship, when human history shows otherwise. It’s popularity that caused various legislatures in ancient Rome, Greece, 1930s Germany, to grant “emergency powers” to a ruler who never gave them up.

              Our near future battle will be denying government censorship from escaping its walled cages in business and campuses into the wild of general life. Already people are pushing harrassment-as-brain-damage (see the brain scan!) as reasoning to bypass the First Amendment. Soon you have crap like the Egyptian military saying they need to ban CNN to protect the sensibilities of the population.

              1. CNN should be banned everywhere. It’s a propaganda machine not facts.

      2. Maybe you all haven’t been paying attention or you just haven’t used your brains. It is the main stream conspiracy news media that is dividing this country. Most people get their news form them. Te proof is in the 2 years of over 500,000 conspiracies/lies concerning Trump/Russia collusion. The news media were 24/7 bashing Trump and trying to get the people to believe that Trump was going to jail! The Mueller report exposed all of the lies and conspiracies by the news media. It also made the believers look like fools. The same thing goes with this article. I hope you all are not that dense that you don’t realize that there are Vietnamese that are nationalists, black Trump supporters that are nationalists, Hispanics that are nationalists and all of them love this country. See, this is a good example of how the media takes a word and twists it to mean something that it isn’t. The news media puts a whole other context on it and that is not what is meant by “nationalist”. Do you have the same definition for Germans who love their country? How about Africans who love their country? Chinese who love their country? They all love their country and in the correct intent of the word, they are nationalists. My suggestion is that you quit letting the news media to tell you what to believe. There is nothing racist about being a nationalist. I don’t see the news media trying to tell us that people who support BLM or ANTIFA are racist or black nationalists Why not?

        1. I agree with a lot of that. As I see it, this administration is an attempt to subvert the Washington cozy elite class, not to subvert individual liberty.

          When the 2016 election result was announced, I was as surprised as anybody. Found myself singing “ding, dong, the witch is dead”. So far it has been healthier than the Obama years.

          1. key word here is “so far” .
            Trump has spoken a lot about “libel laws” and shutting up criticism etc , but has not done anything concrete to limit freedom of speech or the press . Currently it is the left that is censoring views ( e.g Antifa, college campuses etc) . But it is totally possible that the right would start to do the same in the future .

            1. Yes, it’s possible.
              Which isn’t equal to ‘actually happening on a mass scale’ from the left.
              But by all means, let’s fight the possible and let the happening slide.
              What a fantastic solution

    2. Holy shit, you get a whole lot of Prog butthurt in these comments, be warned.

      1. Indeed. It’s a bullshit article anyway. The real threat is from progressives, as usual.

        1. The real threat is ignorant fascists like yourself really.

          1. When what you call “ignorant fascists” have been in charge, like the last two years, things in this country have gone very well, except for the raging butt-hurt experienced by progressives at seeing the orange man at the helm.
            When progressives were in charge, as in the 0blama years, things like the economy, unemployment, racial relations, etc. sucked.
            Nope, it is the progressives that are the threat.

            1. And in those last two years, progressives have been given unprecedented leeway to act out against those “ignorant fascists”

              Allowing dissent is apparently the hallmark of fascism these days.

          2. What do Liberals pretend that Communism isn’t the worst political movement in history?

        2. “Today we declare independence,” Hazony said, “from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism. From the set of ideas that sees the atomic individual, the free and equal individual, as the only thing that matters in politics.”

      2. This thread is Tulpa pigeon chess all the way down.

        1. Then why don’t you do something about it, eunuch?
          “To be or not to be? That is the question.”
          Eunuch gets it wrong every morning

          1. The funny thing about pigeon chess players is that they do not understand the rules of pigeon chess.

            1. The funny thing about eunuchs is that they think they’re clever, convincing themselves that they’re winning when getting shit on.
              But no, eunuch, you get shit on because you’re weak and desperate, trying way too hard to be approved of. You’re contemptible, that is all.

    3. I’m about as old as anybody here, and I can vouch for the truth of this comment. Trump hasn’t somehow changed the GOP into some Big Government-loving, Top Men-supporting, quasi-socialist group of statists – he simply revealed them for what they are. Back in my day, we called them “Rockefeller Republicans” or “silk stocking Republicans”, laterally “Bush Republicans” or “RINO’s”. Of course, I’ve long known that it’s not the Big Government Republicans that are the RINO’s, it’s the small government “Goldwater Republicans” that are the oddball lunatic fringe of the GOP. When 90% of the party are RINO’s, you need to re-think your idea of just what it is the party stands for.

      1. This is at least partly true. We don’t have the profusion of small but influential political parties, taking some extreme positions to maintain their constituencies, that some democracies have. The way US politics is practiced, the major parties function on the issues by being slightly on one side or the other of a few, enough to sustain the appearance of difference and to hold a large coalition together. What we don’t know of either the rank and file or their leadership (such as elected representatives) is how many of their real opinions really are as presented, neither more nor less, and for how many their expressed opinions are just the tip of the iceberg, a small taste of the direction they really want to go in.

        Plus, we see another distortive phenomenon in elected representatives, and sometimes even in the rank and file: opinions that are stated strongly only because opposition makes them ineffective; people who would chicken out from what they say if they really had the chance to bring them to fruition. That was hilariously the case in Congress with repeal of Obamacare. But then, people thought the same of My Fight by Hitler. You never know.

      2. Wasn’t school cheerleader G.W.Bush secretly a Log Cabin Republican?

        1. Who cares?

    4. Your comment is to the point and spot on.

    5. I don’t want to make common cause with any nationalist, but today EPA proposes allowing Dow to spray chemicals that causes kids brain damage.

      one part of social and economic injustice that we have spent trillion trying to redressing is redlining, leaving blacks in the dirt. again the government stood by. and more broadly Jim Crow.

      so just exactly where do we decide government should keeps its hands off?

    6. I don’t get this discussion of C v. L. v Lib. v Neo Lib v. Neo Con

      I guess it parlor conversation for you guys.

      the essential question to me, is what does the various governments do with the taxes on the wealth we generate? the wealth we generate is wholly dependent on what our government does and has done.

      Africa is larger and has an abundance of land and natural resources. What it lack is government. USA is ascendant because of our government.

      The long con fully exposed under Trump is that R’s were conservative and by conservatism all would be blessed. Now we know that was basically a scam. Ask Rush. D’s since FDR always wanted to redistribute national income, mostly for useful projects that benefit everyone. Every once in a while a pocket gets lined. but not colossally and its not a hidden agenda.

      you could not list all the subsidies that go to all the private companies that paid little to no taxes this year. That is redistribution from me to the 1%.

      you can tax me a lot to clean up the air and water, but not to make Amazon the world’s largest predator or Dow to poison kids(see EPA today). You can tax me for drug diversion or rehab but not to help Purdue Pharma make record profits and incarcerate all its customers.

      nah the whole thing C v L v Neo Con v Neo Lib is silly.

    7. Stephie, you are further confusing the political landscape, when you say. “the RIGHT is willing to pay the price.” You join the chorus of Liberty writers that use conservative and right as synonyms. They are no. Conservatives have since 1972 been willing to use government to advance their agendas, even when it calls for increased governmental power. The RIGHT on the other hand only advocates the reduction of governmental power.

      Conservatives are strong on reducing governmental powers when dealing with economic issues but become advocates of more governmental powers (a left action) when it comes to some personal liberties.

  2. Conservatives probably should try something different after more than a half-century of getting their asses kicked by their betters in the culture war, but this doesn’t seem like the tonic that will make right-wingers suddenly competitive in the American marketplace of ideas, especially because our electorate is evolving in ways that will make it much tougher to maintain a coalition for backwardness and bigotry.

    But, by all means . . . carry on, clingers.

    1. carry on, clingers

      So sayeth the Reason gecko.

    2. It’s amusing how the NPC hicklib has such a teleological view of history. But then again, he thought that one-world government wasn’t ever debated or promoted when he was a dirt-munching mini-hayseed, so it’s understandable that he’d have a limited view of the human experience.

    3. Tell ya what rev, got a deal for ya:

      You and the progs recruit your army of woke, whiny virtue signalers, victims, wannabe socialist losers who resent wealth and success, and continue to pretend to be anybody’s “betters”……..

      And the rest of us who are happy, productive, paid back our student loans and other debts, and suffer no guilt or grievance will continue to mock and make fun of you. Sounds fair to me.

      Haha. Too funny. I’m new here, this guy is a parody account like OBL, right? What a doosh.

      1. He’s damn good at not breaking character though.
        I guess it helps to have only one note and a roll of word-of-the-day toilet paper too.

      2. Ahh yes, because it is only conservatives who are upstanding members of society.

        What an idiot.

        1. Never said I was a conservative, doosh bag. I said happy, productive, debt free, and free of guilt and grievance. I didn’t even say upstanding. Funny you make that connection. Maybe because the left bases everything on guilt and grievance. They definitely ain’t happy. Haha.

          What an idiot.

        2. “because it is only conservatives who are upstanding members of society.”

          Libertarians are also often upstanding members of society as well. Just not progtards. Who are nothing bu soulless filth. Like you are filth, Kiddie Raper.

      3. did you know HHS pays $300,000 for every medical resident? would you agree they should pay that back?

        of course you likely get your HC pre- tax thru your employer. would you care to pay that back? I have to buy HC after taxes.

        what other UMW subsidies might their be? I hear its about a billion /year to oil and gas, not to mention the military largely in business to protect oil and gas interests, say Strait of Hormuz.

        BTW. DOE spent about a billion developing fracking.

        Did you drink Tang as a kid or perhaps use DARPA developed Internet in you daily correspondence?

        so let me know which of your subsidies your are ready to let go of.

        1. you don’t have polio do you? or malaria? even AIDS? the boll wevil is largely not a problem for you. pelegra?

          the air you breath is about 100% cleaner than 30 years ago, so too the water you drink. hum…….

    4. Right after the atrocious 0bergefell decision, 70% of the country said it was moving in the wrong direction.
      Trump’s election followed.
      Looks like the worse in our society, the kind that thinks biology doesn’t matter, are the ones getting their asses kicked.
      Only morons, like Artie, listen to the media, who tell them different.

      1. Citation, please. Otherwise this is just a correlation/causation thing. They might have said the country’s moving in the wrong direction because of a host of other factors besides the official recognition of gay marriage. SoCon-statism will be the death knell of the GOP if they allow it to fester there.

    5. On the contrary Conservatives are winning. The average American thinks Conservatively but is afraid to say it out loud. Go outside for once and talk to people.

      Liberal “progress” is a degenerate cesspool of racism against the majority, celebration of perversion, promoting creepy ideas such as no problem with men pretending to be women and vice versa…

    6. because our electorate is evolving in ways that will make it much tougher to maintain a coalition for backwardness and bigotry.

      Unfortunately, there are still lots of people like you around: backwards, ignorant, intolerant bigots.

  3. “Today we declare independence,” Hazony said, “from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism. From the set of ideas that sees the atomic individual, the free and equal individual, as the only thing that matters in politics.”

    Fuck this guy.

    1. None of this surprises me. This was a long time coming. Can we now stop pretending that conservatism is some kind of natural ally for libertarianism? What a dumb idea.

      1. I suppose elements of conservatism can be, but not conservatism as a whole. Overall it’s based on group identity instead of the individual. Much like progressivism is.

        1. You are right, of course. To dismiss all conservatives, I would be committing the same collectivist error of which I often accuse them. The conservative coalition is a mixed bag of socons, neocons, classical liberals, and now, apparently, nacons. In my experience, though, sadly, the classical liberal faction is not that large.

        2. There is no equivalence between conservatism and progressivism. Progtards are pure evil.

          1. The “equivalence” is something the progtards lie to themselves about so they don’t have to think about how their whole ideology is built on lies.

          2. And Trumptards like you are pure, well, retard.

            1. Yet I have several dozen IQ points on you NYP. You are possessed of a tiny mind, with stunted dreams.

            2. So you think anyone should live here right? The fact that 100+ countries have strict borders makes them racist correct? It’s a great idea to let people break in right?

              We also have a problem with White supremacy right? Even though it’s socially acceptable to be racist towards White people, we have laws discriminating against Whites for employment…

      2. Some of my views might find a home in “rational” conservatism, while others might find a home among “rational” progressives. Then again, a decent portion of them fit neither “side” equally.

        1. Let me guess.. you decide what is and isn’t rational?

          1. To be fair, that’s not the sort of thing you can outsource.

            1. One hopes not! 🙂

          2. Of course I do, JesseAz. And I can’t imagine you rely on third-parties for that.

      3. Having been raised by Eisenhower Republicans, and matriculating into the adult world during the midst of the the Reagan Revolution (short lived though it was), it took me a very long time to learn that Republicans are not my friend.

        I can’t say that conservatism is my enemy though. The modern Republican Party and what it calls “conservatism” is not at all conservative. I am not a conservative but I did find common ground with the old conservative in our opposition to the State as the source of all good, common ground in fiscal responsibility, common ground in many (not all) cultural values.

        Today I have nothing whatsoever in common with the post 2015 Republican Party. I want nothing to do with those statists.

        1. Real quick, you said Trump “brags about assaulting women” then ran away. So, when and where?

          PS We all know what you’re talking about, the question is, why lie? Trump is a vulgarian, and unsuited for polite company. That alone is sufficient insult, but rather than take the high road and honestly discuss what he did, you lied through hyperbole. Why? Do you not realize you mute your own criticism by doing this?

          1. Careful, Tulpa – Brandy might beg for moderation again

            1. Just out of the blue. Just came on and said “censor people I don’t like” I mean wtf?

      4. Can we stop pretending that the American right are conservatives and not just religious progressives?

        1. If you want to be an idiot, sure.

          1. You’re right, that was stupid. I should have said the GOP.

            1. That pretty much works.
              Though the demise of McCain has left the progressive Rs a bit leaderless at the moment.

              1. Good. And apparently Flake was too weak to take up the mantle, same as Kasich.

    2. There is no contradiction between wanting to be part of a community (conservatism) and small government and individual liberties.

      The problem with libertarianism as a movement is that it really prioritizes the “atomic individual” above everything else. You see that constantly here when people argue, for example, that tariffs or taxes are unconditionally bad and that Americans would be better off if they were abolished. That kind of naive libertarianism doesn’t actually promote individual liberty, it’s just a different kind of individual greed from progressives.

  4. Conservatism is progressivism in the slow lane – Michael Malice

    Im glad Stephanie took the time to acknowledge that conservatives are the adults in this situation.

  5. Libertarians love to bash team red, completely ignoring the fact their only impacts have been through winning elections as republicans, and they’d be the first to walk the plank in “progressive utopia.”

    1. Nope. That’s not how libertarian ideas impacted me.

      1. “Not at all” would be how libertarian ideas impacted you, you sad prog fuck.

      2. Absolute libertarianism is as dog shit stupid as absolute communism. When your ideology requires everyone to think exactly like you, you’re the problem.

      3. Libertarian ideas have never impacted you.
        You’re a fascist and a Media Matters fifty-center who is paid to be here.

    2. It appears some libertarians just can’t get comfortable with tariffs, bigotry, statist womb management, massive military spending, general backwardness, torture, right-wing military belligerence, authoritarian immigration practices, gay-bashing, white nationalism, government micromanagement of certain medical facilities, abusive policing, government funding of schools that teach fairy tales are true, the war on doobies, endless detention without trial, and other elements of the Republican platform.

      This must baffle you, Ryan.

      1. This list is hilarious. Most of these things are currently democrat talking points.

        “endless detention without trial”
        Kamala says hi

        “government micromanagement of certain medical facilities”

        As opposed to the nationalization of healthcare? C’mon man, try harder.

        1. CA is expanding their war on doobies because people are not buying from government approved facilities as much as CA thought.

        2. The enemy of my enemy is sometimes also my enemy.

          “But the Democrats do it too!” is not a valid excuse.

          1. Was that supposed to be a useful observation?

          2. Name one time Democrats have taken a step towards freedom and not run blindly towards state control.

            1. Liberal judges struck down the conservative state laws that had for centuries made it a crime to be gay. Conservatives have spent lifetimes terrorizing gay people and to this day in places like Texas, Louisiana, Alabama the Republicans in charge refuse to take the unconstitutional sodomy laws off the books because they’re working to overturn the ruling that invalidated those laws. You don’t know shit.

              1. Whatever sodomy laws remain on the books in Texas, are about as relevant as the law making it illegal to carry wirecutters. Texas is a queer center. This is the injustice you choose to put front and center?

              2. Socialists have been worlds worse to gays than any conservatives ever dreamed of

              3. OG, everything you said is total bullshit.

        3. By that, he means that abortion clinics must be exempt from every single statute and code that applies to every single other Doctor or Dentist’s office , because Healthcare

          1. Also, endless detention of unaligned enemy combatants, who have forfeited all rights, and can be summarily executed by law, is different than endless detention of US citizens

          2. Incredibly you apparently do not understand that Republicans pass those regulations with the specific intention of getting around Roe v. Wade. Do you seriously believe those regulations were concocted in good faith? Are you ashamed of using state power to end abortion?

            1. All medical regulations are just tricks to undermine Roe v Wade?
              You’re a fun commenter, OG

              1. I do not know what happened with the abortion clinic.

                Medical facilities and hospitals are certified by non government organizations for the most part. The biggest is JCAHO. Then individual departments have others. If you are a trauma center it is the college of trauma surgeons, radiology the American College of Radiology and so on. These are not easy and few survive initial inspection and review 100%. Then you have time to respond and correct.

                The government generally defers to these agencies. Fees are paid by the facilities.

            2. Why not, when an illegitimate “state power” – the SCOTUS – took it out of the states’ hands, where it belongs under the Constitution.

              1. So. you think that control over one’s own body should lie in the hands of the government (State government or otherwise?).

            3. OG is a big fan of Kermit Gosnell.

              1. I assume you are being sarcastic 🙂

      2. EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!!

        Haha. What a doosh.

        1. If you’re going to use the word douche in every comment at least spell it correctly.

      3. “Authoritarian immigration” you mean the same laws as 100+ countries? Go tell Nigerians they should let everyone breaking in live there.

        How about hiring people by their race and bashing an entire race for faults of all races throughout history? That’s Democrats.

        What about promoting insanity like transgenders and other sick people?

      4. Funny, because I left the Democratic party over its support of tariffs, bigotry, statist womb management, massive military spending, general backwardness, torture, right-wing military belligerence, authoritarian immigration practices, gay-bashing, white nationalism, government micromanagement of certain medical facilities, abusive policing, government funding of schools that teach fairy tales are true, the war on doobies, endless detention without trial.

        You really have to be living under a rock, Kirkland, if you think that progressives or Democrats are actually better on any of these issues than Republicans.

    3. I can’t speak for anybody but myself, but I don’t “love to bash team red”. I’ve just learned the hard way not to trust them, in the sense that they’re coming from a different place than I am. Their underlying philosophy allows for intrusions into individual liberty that I can’t accept.

      Of course, team blue is doing its damnedest to shove me into team red’s arms. I’m honestly not sure what I’m going to do in 2020.

      1. We can all say “both sides” all we want. We can complain about the false dichotomy all day long. We can long for an effective Libertarian Party. But you can’t always get what you want.

        When a single democrat talks cutting spending, I’ll reconsider.

        1. I always try to take a pragmatic view of things. But even when a Republican takes my side on an issue, I have to ask “what will this cost me”? That’s pragmatism too.

          Sometimes it does work out. I have decided that on the state level I’m definitely voting Republican, because the Democrats in my state are leaving me no other choice.

          1. There’s this weird idea among people with little intelligence that it impossible to have an ally of convenience.

            1. I do it all the time, but I also keep in mind that said allies have their own priorities. Politicians look after their own careers and the fortunes of their parties first and foremost. No one should ever expect them to (politically speaking) take a bullet for your cause.

              I’ve gotten burned by the “vote for us, when we have control we’ll do it” followed by “we have control but we can’t do it because then we’ll lose control” Catch-22.

              1. That’s reality burning you. As long as there’s democracy, nobody can ever win. There’ll always be an equilibrium.

            2. It’s like they don’t mind Stalin, but Churchill seems a little too icky for them

              1. Stalin was a scumbag. I’ve never met one motherfucker who liked Stalin. Even the Soviets expressed hated towards him once he died. Now people who express admiration for Hilter, they’re a dime a dozen.

                1. No, there are some now really old Russians who like Stalin because they, personally, were doing better when he was in. Like he kept the snowstorms away or something. Or they like the fact that the people they dislike were doing worse then.

                2. “I’ve never met one motherfucker who liked Stalin. Even the Soviets expressed hated towards him once he died. Now people who express admiration for Hilter, they’re a dime a dozen.”

                  Unsurprising if you hang out with neo Nazis the way you do.

        2. We can start by cutting military spending and dismantling the police state.

          1. We can start by cutting entitlements.

      2. I can understand and sympathize with someone who voted for Trump because of Hillary. But I can’t understand someone who cheers every Trump tweet, who cheers when he mocks the disabled or brags about assaulting women or admires authoritarian dictators.

        I can understand someone holding their nose to vote for him, I can’t understand someone who willingly shoves their nose in his ass for a good long sniff.

        1. “brags about assaulting women”

          He did that?

        2. “I can’t understand someone who willingly shoves their nose in his ass for a good long sniff.”

          Well, there seem to be as many people who can’t understand why you light what little credibility you have on fire to go after him.

          Like, when you say “brags about assaulting women.”

          What fascinates normal people is that you’re totally blind to your own bias.

          1. I’m not remotely surprised you ran away from this.

            1. Bragging about grabbing women by pussy without permission was an admission of sexual assault in light of the fact that there are over a dozen women who say Trump pulled some version of that move on them.

              1. Except that he never said he did it.
                He said “they’ll let you”, which is completely not “without permission”.
                As for those “over a dozen”; did you know that one of the claims of sexual harassment was asking for a phone number.
                They’re about as credible as that Blasey-Ford liar.

                1. OG is a dirty lying piece of shit. So this isn’t unusual for him.

        3. You just described the past 3 years around here, and particularly every post by LastoftheShitferBrains and LC1789, to name two of the bigger Trumpsuckers.

          1. I live in your head bitch. You worthless fucking progtard. Time for you to go.

      3. Both Team Red and Team Blue actually simply deliver what different parts of America want.

        The reason neither of them delivers small government, low taxes, and individual liberties is because almost no American voter wants that. The Libertarian party isn’t going to change that.

    4. No more than bashing team blue. I’d like it if one of the teams were closer to Libertarians. At one point, that was arguably the red team. But they’ve been moving the other way lately, however:

      “completely ignoring the fact their only impacts have been through winning elections as republicans”

      Nope. The impacts have been through promoting ideas that have been ultimately adopted, to varying degrees, by both red & blue teams (drug legalization and gay marriage, for example). Also, reform of eminent domain abuse after Kelo. Reform of civil asset forfeiture. And Heller and Citizens United. The question for libertarians isn’t ‘Are (L)ibertarian candidates winning?’ but rather ‘Are (l)ibertarian ideas spreading?’

      1. Well said.

      2. Forcing people into participating in religious rites they dont agree with is not a victory. A real libertarian ideal would be to get government out of the marriage business and merely into contract enforcement.

        1. Amen.

        2. “Forcing people into participating in religious rites they dont agree with is not a victory”

          Not it isn’t. But that’s not happening — no church is forced to perform same-sex weddings (or any weddings at all for non-members for that matter). If you mean the bakers, florists, and photographers, I agree with you there as well — and court decisions have going in the right direction there, too. As for getting government out of the marriage business entirely? That would be ideal, but at this point, that’s a pipe-dream.

          1. As far as libertarian pipe dreams go, getting rid of state regulated marriage licensing is among the more realistic

        3. Oh whatever. Who fucking cares if there’s a marriage certificate in the public record. For some fucked up reason you can’t stand seeing gays get married. What the fuck is wrong with you?

          1. That is not what he is saying at all. In principle he is correct. Government should not be in the marriage business. What about polygamy for example?

          2. Marriage requires consummation.
            Homosexuals can’t consummate anything, since it takes the two, opposite sexes to do so.
            The most homosexuals can do is forms of mutual masturbation.
            Thus, there can be no such thing as homosexual marriage.
            It is simple science.

            1. Jeezus christ, retiredfaggot, even by your standards that’s fucking stupid.
              Shouldn’t you be on Brietard or Federalist spewing that anti-gay drivel?

              1. Have you ever had something that resembles a, you know, idea?
                All we’ve ever seen you post is impotent shit flinging

              2. @No Yards Penalty
                He’s right though.

              3. NYP, you should really just commit suicide. Best thing for you really, your comments are going nowhere.

            2. “Marriage requires consummation.”

              Not according to the legal definition, which in the eyes of government is all that matters.

        4. Yeppers.

    5. And they WOULDN’T be the first to walk the plank if these ascendant socon-statists take over?

  6. I was interested in reading this piece, but then I noticed it’s written by Stephanie Slade. She’s as bad as any conservative because she literally wants to turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale by banning access to abortion care.

    #StandWithPP
    #SaveRoe
    #SUPER-PRECEDENT

    1. Some people seem to figure it’s always the right time to convene a meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Control And Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

      1. Just wait til they nationalize healthcare and then the marxist government gets to decide whether your baby gets to live or not.

        So. much. freedom.

      2. “Ladyparts Clinics”

        Darn it, Art. You were doing so well. Then you had to go and make this transphobic mistake once again.

        Reproductive health centers are not “ladyparts clinics.” Remember what you learned in your years of STEM training — transmen and non-binary people can get pregnant too. You wouldn’t say a pregnant transman has “ladyparts” would you?

        Do better. Make your reproductive rights advocacy more trans-inclusive.

        #ArtHasUnresolvedTransphobia

        1. Are you saying a transperson or a non-binary person cannot be a lady? It seems you are the transphobic one here, not Artie.

        2. That’s why the radical right wing nut job TERF Dr Wen was fired from Planned Parenthood yesterday, a lack of abortion access for Men

        3. Haha. Now that’s some funny shit right there.

        4. 100+ countries and the vast majority of Americans do not support mentally retarded freaks.

          “Trans man”=woman with a mental disorder.

          “Non binary” = freak with mental problems.

          You think you’re all sophisticated repeating propaganda, but very soon you’ll be laughed at for supporting these degenerates.

    2. Sometimes the best part of OBLs parody posts are people responding to them.

    3. Aside from the satire on Ms. Slade, why is being anti-abortion (look at some of the red-state laws passed) considered libertarian by your Satire? Why is a libertarian who promotes retaining Roe v. Wade not a libertarian O Satirical One?

      1. Libertarians are not supposed to be anarchists.
        In the US, libertarians accept that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and such unconstitutional things as the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade should not have taken the decision about making abortion legal out of a state’s hands.
        Article 1, Section 1, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

        1. There is more to libertarianism than American gun=nuttery, cop gobbling and slavish devotion to a stupid piece of paper, retiredfaggot.

          1. “Poop!”
            -no yards penalty

          2. NYP, shouldn’t you be off killing yourself at this point?

    4. Yes, that’s certainly what she wants. Anyone who is opposed to abortion on demand is secretly hoping for America to degenerate into a fascist theocracy.

    5. Yeah, because its a libertarian value to kill people when they are too young to defend themselves.

  7. “It has done this by allowing a globalized economy to emerge and U.S. manufacturing supremacy to be lost”

    “We should have a National Institutes of Manufacturing just as we have a National Institutes of Health,”

    Yeah. That’ll fix everything,

    1. Seriously, why don’t they just “be done with it” and start proposing 5-year plans.

  8. You’re probably old enough to remember a time when conservatives opposed the idea that it was the federal government’s job to solve most problems.

    Reagan was canceled years ago. Now we’re in a war of attrition. Each side will smash the other’s cherished liberties until the last liberty is standing. And then that winning side will drop the huge club of government and we’ll all enjoy that one last freedom.

    1. The freedom to go to Taco Bell?

      1. Now that’s barely a freedom worth defending

        1. All restuarants will be Taco Bell

          1. Enjoy-joy your meal, sir.

            1. Amd be sure to clean yourself thoroughly with those three sea shells later when your Taco Bell passes.

          2. All hail the victors of the Franchise Wars!

      2. In the future all restaurants will be Taco Bell.

      3. could be worse.

        1. Could be Chipotle

          1. exactly. ew

        2. Better all restaurants be Chick-fil-a. That would enrage all the filthy progtards.

    2. Misunderstood is that government has attempted to solve so many problems that they have overrun society and our ability to have the liberty we were promised.
      Most conservative requests, for government to fix something, come in the form of “GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY!”

      1. Sure, but Reason, libertines, and progressives have a narrative to maintain

  9. “Today we declare independence,” Hazony said, “from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism. From the set of ideas that sees the atomic individual, the free and equal individual, as the only thing that matters in politics.”

    Yeesh, I want no part in this.

  10. “The rising economic tide has swallowed entire regions,” said pro-Israel activist David Brog. The result, according to Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance, has been “family decline, childhood trauma, opioid abuse, community decline, decline of the manufacturing sector and all the sense of dignity and purpose and meaning that comes along with it.”

    This is ironic because the misuse of the term “rising economic tide” to describe economic decline is more accurate than the correct term would be. The fact is that unemployment hasn’t been better for unskilled labor since the 1960s, and wages are rising steadily for that group–faster than the rate of inflation, as well. Most unskilled workers have never had it so good. Why all the doom and gloom rhetoric? It’s bad enough when the left tries to pretend the economy is awful despite what our lying eyes are telling us. Listening to this, you’d think unemployment rates were rising and wages were stagnant.

    To the extent that the unemployment rate falling, the labor participation rate rising, and wages rising faster for unskilled labor than the rate of inflation is attributable to public policy, almost all of it is attributable to Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation and almost none of it is attributable to the trade war. Not only are things much better than what is being painted here, they’re also great in spite of what these people are proposing rather than because of it.

    Creative destruction is a feature of capitalism, not a bug, but it was Marx who made the idea of creative destruction famous. It was his observation that capitalism always needs to destroy entrenched interests with technology and innovation in order to make way for future growth. Capitalists came to understand and appreciate this principle the way any out-group might embrace an epithet used against them–like Trump supporters came to refer to themselves as “deplorables”. It was in that spirit that Margaret Thatcher said she took great joy in seeing an inefficient coal mine closed.

    Postal delivery being wiped out by email. Taxicabs being wiped out by Uber. Retailers being wiped out by Wal*Mart and Amazon.
    Domestic manufacturers being wiped out by foreign competitors. It was these things and many more like them that made the economy so good today. Yesterday, on Bloomberg’s “What’d You Miss?”, they had a chart showing that it’s never been so easy to get a job with a criminal record! Thank goodness for free trade and the creative destruction it brings. We’d stagnate and suffer without it.

    1. “The German Marxist sociologist Werner Sombart has been credited[1] with the first use of these terms in his work Krieg und Kapitalismus (War and Capitalism, 1913).[6] In the earlier work of Marx, however, the idea of creative destruction or annihilation (German: Vernichtung) implies not only that capitalism destroys and reconfigures previous economic orders, but also that it must ceaselessly devalue existing wealth (whether through war, dereliction, or regular and periodic economic crises) in order to clear the ground for the creation of new wealth.[3][4][5]”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

      If the economic thinking of these “Conservative Nationalists” is indistinguishable from the thinking of Marxists on the issue of creative destruction, then fuck the Conservative Nationalists. They’re wrong for all the same reasons the socialists are wrong.

  11. “You’re probably old enough to remember a time when conservatives opposed the idea that it was the federal government’s job to solve most problems. A time when they thought that individuals, families, and community groups, not politicians, were responsible for building a good life and a good society. A time when they believed that government power should be devolved whenever possible to the state and local level, away from the bloated behemoth in Washington.”

    Slade is right, again. Watching the right embrace the Marxist critique of capitalism is nothing short of disgraceful to people who grew up opposing communism.

    1. all Politicians, Republican or Democrat have realized for a long time the only way to win and stay in power is give the people everything they want and everyone apparently wants everything. didn’t some former writer of teh constitution note that all democracies devolve into socialist nations or some such thing and yes socialism is devolving not evolving

  12. I’m sure John, Jesse, et al. will be along shortly to offer up some sort of whataboutism and exhort us all to get us on the Team Red Train.

    “C’mon, what’s more important – liberty, or PWNING THE LIBS???”

    1. You’re going to love socialist libertopia. Sure they’ll have to break a few hundred thousand eggs but the ends justify the means.

      And as of right now the left can’t silence your opinions, so who cares? Enjoy them while the Right is still around to defend your right to speak freely.

      1. Enjoy them while the Right is still around to defend your right to speak freely.

        This is the same Right who wants to “send back” a critic of theirs even though she is a citizen?

        This is the same Right who screams when Twitter bans actual Nazis, but who will demand that the state punish me for burning a flag?

        Go ahead and assert “The Right Is Better Than The Left” all you want, but they are both pretty darn bad, and neither one meets any sort of libertarian ideal for respect for liberty.

        1. “but they are both pretty darn bad”

          And? That was never questioned. Why is it always straw men and red herrings with you.

          1. Pedo Jeffy always display such a bullshit twisted version of reality. Incredibly stupid and dishonest.

            No wonder he is so hated.

        2. The same right who want to ‘send back’ a critic?

          Perhaps, if you on the left weren’t so adamant about sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching LALALALALA, you might actually have gotten the real content and not be locked in kicking and screaming tantrum mode.

          “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how……it is done. ”

          That’s the ‘send them back’ phrase that started all this. Not quite the same thing you’re talking about. At all.

          1. Is that actually the quote?

              1. only a leftist could turn “why don’t they go” into “we should force them to leave”.

                1. 100 million leftists, and most of the so-called journalists. You are being hoaxed.

          2. You must have missed Trump’s rally last night.

            1. He quoted the statement you fucking moron. Your inability to understand things is legion.

        3. Jeff, I know you’re top stupid to parse statements… but trump never called for government to send her back, he basically asked her to self deport. Can you ever have a lucid comment? The point is that her policy choices have failed Somalia. So if she wants to prove they work, make it work there.

          You fucking retard.

          1. trump never called for government to send her back

            Trump’s rally cultists did, though.

            I said “the Right” wants to send them back.

            1. Only if we send you with her

        4. I like how jeff complains about whatabousim in his first post and then immediately does it. You’re fucking dumb baby jeffrey.

        5. We want to send back an unAmerican parasite. Who cares where she’s born, she’s not an American and never will be.

    2. Unfortunately, it’s not just a question of “pwning the libs”. The Left has specific ideas of how they want to remake society, and we’re going to have decide how to deal with that.

    3. Why is so much of your time spent complaining about other people?

      1. He learned it from you, dad.

        1. Then he probably needs to stop complaining about me so much, socko.

            1. How much time do you think you’ve spent trolling this comment section over the years? Seriously, how many hours and days do you think that accumulates to? Think of all of the worthwhile and fulfilling things you could have done with that time.

      2. Why is so much of your time spent complaining about other people?”

        Isn’t that what the internet is for, and even before the internet i remember as a child my parents and grandparents complaining about the government. Religions may come and go but governments are here forever

        1. “Isn’t that what the internet is for”

          I have no problem with it (as you can see) , the issue is Jeff is a bitch who complains about it, while constantly doing it.

          1. “I’m sure John, Jesse, et al. will be along shortly to offer up some sort of whataboutism”

            I mean, fuck man, is it any wonder Jeff gets treated like he’s a retarded child? His post is literally the textbook definition of a “troll.”

    4. “I’m sure John, Jesse, et al. will be along shortly to offer up some sort of whataboutism and exhort us all to get us on the Team Red Train.”

      Of course you’re sure of that, you’re an idiot.

    5. Jeff, do you understand what a fucking running joke you are? It’s okay to admit you’re too fucking stupid to understand anyone else’s arguments so you substitute strawmen arguments.

    6. I’m sure John, Jesse, et al. will be along shortly to offer up some sort of whataboutism and exhort us all to get us on the Team Red Train.

      “C’mon, what’s more important – liberty, or PWNING THE LIBS???

      You’re hardly the one to be calling people out on whataboutery. Besides, John provides cogent arguments and evidence.

    7. The way the US system works is you pick one of two sides in every election. That’s just a fact. You can bash your head against the wall and deny it but it isn’t going to change anything.

      Neither of the two sides are principled; their positions are governed by the wishes of voters. If you think they have principles, you’re again delusional.

      Of course, there is some percentage of the electorate that is as ignorant as you and actually believes they vote on principle, but you’re just fooling yourself: you vote out of self-interest.

  13. “It has done this by allowing a globalized economy to emerge…” (Chris DeMuth)

    But of course, the US “allowed” it. I guess this means that the US should make every person in the world, somehow bow to their wishes? Yeah, because the US government, or the one the speaker fantasizes, is both omnipotent and omniscient. “Globalization” has been around for as long as humanity. The only actual thing to change is the technology which keeps expanding the “size” of the globe.
    Chris DeMuth may just have uttered the stupidest thing I have heard this year. And, considering the mindless drivel coming from so many directions this year, that is, indeed, an accomplishment.

    1. Yes. Globalization happens because transporting people and goods anyplace in the world has never been quicker. You had global trade when the other side of the world was months away, how much more when it is a day away?

      1. Exactly. The trade routes from the Far East to Europe was part of globalization, and the silk road was officially established by China in 130 BC. And, of course, trade among mediterranean nations predates that considerably. At this time, that encompassed much of the “known-world.”

    2. You’re missing a big part of the story, which is how the U.S. government during the Cold War (and basically always has) crafted trade policy in the interest of furthering geopolitical goals. They’ve been willing to take the economic hits that have come along with lopsided trade balances because they were battling for global hegemony, and doing so put countries in Asia and Latin America more firmly on our side. Frankly, one of the more baffling aspects of libertarianism-leaning-toward-anarcho-capitalism is the persistent belief that we’ve been engaging in free trade at any point in the history of this country. We most definitely have not.

  14. Individuals must sacrifice for the glory of the state.

    Paying higher taxes (aka tariffs) weakens our enemies and makes America stronger (or so they claim). So get on board with the program! You’re a patriot, aren’t you?

    Everyone knows manufacturing is the path to prosperity and national greatness. Everyone. Knows. This. So of course “we” need a National Institute of Manufacturing to plan the national economy around manufacturing, rewarding friends and punishing enemies (aka crony capitalism). And if you disagree, it must be because you hate America.

    Are we on the path to fascism yet?

    1. Path to fascism? I thought we were on The Road to Utopia!

      1. road to nowhere.

        ~~David Byrne

        1. Anyone can see the road that they walk on is paved in gold, it’s always summer, they’ll never get cold, never get hungry, they’ll never get old and gray.

          1. How many roads must a man walk down, before he calls him a cab?

            1. Danny Glover on line 2 …

          2. But the road I must travel, its end I cannot see.

    2. “Individuals must sacrifice for the glory of the state.”

      But enough about Obamacare.

    3. What do you mean “yet”? What you’re seeing in the Republican party now has been there all along. But it was always “they”, “them” and “the other” getting it in the neck, so why worry? Maybe you didn’t want to see the authoritarian conformist behind the cries of freedom and liberty.

      But now the mask is off as these rugged individualists cheer for Men With Guns to put people back in their place. Every other liberty they claimed to value is a price they’ll gladly pay.

        1. I would not want to damage Esmeralda’s reputation by permitting your paranoid antisocial internet needle-dick nerd cunt fixations to go unanswered. I never use a sock. Ever. I’m not a fucking child.

      1. I love how this post completely ignores the actual fascism of Democrats who continually call for the Federal government to control every aspect of the economy.

        1. Well, it’s Tony, what did you expect?

    4. Are we on the path to fascism yet?

      Yes both parties are racing to see who can get us to fascism first since the one who gets there first sets the rules and gets to stay there

    5. We’ve been on that road since January 20, 1932.

    6. Another strawman you autistic dummy?

    7. If I have paid higher taxes (aka tariffs), I sure haven’t noticed.

      You conveniently left out the fact that we all possess freedom of choice regarding when and where to spend our money. As individuals. Not collective victims.

      Yo dog, you sure about this “radical individualist” thing? You don’t sound like one. Just sayin.

      Haha

      1. Weird how I haven’t once seen him bitch about income, payroll, or excise taxes.
        And by weird, I mean entirely consistent

        1. Consistent with his progressivism, that is, not internal logic of his stated beliefs

    8. Paying higher taxes (aka tariffs) weakens our enemies

      Actually, paying higher consumption taxes (aka tariffs) reduces our deficits, reduces the theft the US government commits against future generations, high income earners, and foreign investors, and reduces the strength of a totalitarian regime employing slave labor.

      Are we on the path to fascism yet?

      Given our massive debt and the propensity of progressives for new social spending, yes, we are. However, the progress towards that has been slowed a bit over the last couple of years.

  15. More rabid spittle will surely follow this post, but I have to say it. Conservatism is dead in the country. We still call predominant ideology on the right “conservatism” simply because we don’t have a name for it yet. It’s a stretch to even call it an ideology, it’s developed into nothing more than partisan team cheering and personality worship.

    It’s not conservative in the Burkean sense (Burke actually being one of the early classic liberals). It’s not conservative in the sense of elevating cultural institutions above the state. It’s not conservative in the sense of social conservatism either, as it’s trashed all ideals of traditionalism and Judea-Christian morality. We have a disrespectful and philandering liar in office and the Christian Right who claim to be conservative can’t get enough of him, sending their church leaders to anoint him with oil. And it’s most certainly not conservative in the Nockian, Kirkian, Buckleyan sense. It’s all about cronyism now. Spending is higher and higher, with deficits approaching one trillion, and no one on the right cares. A sitting senator says “hey wait, what about spending cuts to go along with the new spending bill” and he’s mocked by both the left and the right. Fiscally speaking, there is zero difference between the left and the right now.

    Post 2015 American Conservatism does not resemble the old right Americanism so much as it resembles the old right European conservatism, just with a cruder veneer. It’s thoroughly statist through and through.

    1. “More rabid spittle will surely follow this post,”

      You intend to post more?

    2. We still call predominant ideology on the right “conservatism” simply because we don’t have a name for it yet.

      If there’s any “conservatives” in this era, they exist primarily on the center-left, desperately trying to maintain the socio-economic status quo they’ve established over the course of the last 30-40 years. John McCain’s funeral was something of a dirge for that group–a bunch of supposedly “opposing” Uniparty members coming together to honor the faux-bipartisanship that they prop up as a holy talisman.

    3. More rabid spittle will surely follow this post

      We don’t want to embarrass ourselves. We just admit defeat. We can’t ever hope to match your mastery of the rabid spittle genre, Brandybuck.

    4. Who on the “Christian right” has sent “their church leaders to anoint him with oil”?

      Serious question, I haven’t heard this.

      “Just the facts, ma’am.” Haha.

  16. Hey, is it ‘Conservative Nationalism’ or ‘National Conservatism’–you’ve posted two pieces on this conference and created two names for it.

    Kinda makes a person think that the real name might be ‘Leftist Fever Dream’

    1. Trump bragged about assaulting women donchaknow.

  17. […] Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., this week. (See my colleague Stephanie Slade’s excellent writeup of the event.) Other speakers at the conference explicitly singled out private companies like […]

  18. >>>You’re probably old enough to remember a time when conservatives opposed the idea that it was the federal government’s job to solve most problems.

    what we were fed anyway. not much changed when they held the reins.

    1. And then ostensibly libertarian pundits told them that they needed to come up with their government solutions to problems like universal healthcare.

      It is not as if they have not been getting mixed messages.

      1. seriously. why i don’t rtfa anywhere anymore and only comment here

  19. […] Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., this week. (See my colleague Stephanie Slade’s excellent writeup of the event.) Other speakers at the conference explicitly singled out private companies like […]

  20. Yet the true object of the nationalists’ ire is much closer to home: They cannot abide individual Americans making social and economic choices they do not like. For consumers, the question might be whether to buy foreign or domestic.

    Given that domestic producers are saddled with taxes and regulations that foreign producers are not saddled with, this is already not a choice free of government involvement.

    For a business owner, it might be where to open a factory.

    Again, opening factories in places that are free of US federal regulations is already not a choice free of government involvement.

    For a parent, it might be whether or not to attend drag queen story hour at the local library.

    Since the local library is funded in part by tax dollars for the purpose of lending books, this is already a choice government is deeply involved in. Drag queen story hours not only are offensive to some tax payers, they have nothing to do with the actual mission of libraries, namely circulating paper books.

    Regardless, the new nationalists have decided not only that there is a right answer from a moral perspective but that government should force you to choose correctly.

    Progressives have forced massive involvement of state and federal governments in business, social, and private lives. Conservatives recognize that they can’t change that in the short term, but what they can do is at least try to contain the damage from that involvement and make it more friendly to conservative causes.

    I can’t figure out, Stephanie, whether you are deluded enough to believe that we live in a free society and free market that conservatives are trying to hijack, or whether your article is actually just a cynical attempt at propaganda. Either way, stop it: your mask has slipped.

    1. “Drag queen story hours not only are offensive to some tax payers, they have nothing to do with the actual mission of libraries, namely circulating paper books.”

      Yea, libraries shouldn’t have any story hours at all. Not consistent with the mission of promoting literacy. Children get no benefit of being read to. Parents shouldn’t be able to bring their children to a public library story hours at all, right? Or is it just dressed up guys reading that can’t be allowed even if the parents in that neighborhood don’t care if it’s a dressed up guy.?

      1. Yea, libraries shouldn’t have any story hours at all.

        I spent a lot of time in public libraries growing up; they never had story hours. The reason why they do today is because public libraries are trying to find a new mission after their original mission has been made obsolete.

        Children get no benefit of being read to. Parents shouldn’t be able to bring their children to a public library story hours at all, right?

        People can have drag queens read to their kids all they like and take them wherever they want to. But what liberal or libertarian principle says that I should be forced to pay for such activities?

        1. Then you object to public libraries. Why should you be forced to pay for them at all?

          Story hours, lectures by writers, are nothing new. Computer access and ebooks are something libraries have kept up with as they should if we are going to have libraries at all. Music and video collections are also nothing new.

          I can’t think of a libertarian argument for public libraries but I have fond memories of them. As a younger kid I went often and the librarian would find books she thought a boy would like, Treasure Island, Last of the Mohicans, The Three Musketeers, The Hobbit, those kind of books and I read them. In my early teens the local small branch was where you hung out after school. There were girls there scoping the boys, it was a friendly place.

          So I have mixed feelings and thoughts about it. How about public parks, concerts, holiday celebrations like fireworks on the Fourth of July?

          1. Now the librarians find trannies they think a boy would like…

      2. How about we leave taxpayer sponsored drag queens out of the equation at least until the little kiddies are old enough to read to themselves.

        Why is it so important to push this on little kids?

        1. Progress uber alles

        2. So Bugs Bunny is right out.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KFSYtWf4gqg

          I do not recall any concern from my parents about Looney Tunes on Saturday mornings.

          So either we object to public libraries on principle or just do not bring your children there for the tranny story reading.

          1. Warner Bros also has characters getting shot, or burnt and then playing the banjo (because they’re now in blackface, you see).

            1. There was smoking, drinking, gambling, violence, guns, can’t believe we lived through that.

          2. So you would be fine with a religious group in the publicly funded library and would oppose the certain ACLU lawsuit, right?

            But, but, Establishment clause, right?

            1. Yes I would.

            2. I would also oppose the banning of books like Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, two others I enjoyed growing up.

    2. Both Republicans and Democrats have a history with progressivism. The late 1800s and early 1900s (progressive era) saw both parties enact policies detrimental to the individual and freedom in general. Today the left is completely and utterly wacko and beyond hope.

      1. Pretty much this. The dominant forces on the left – the ones currently wresting control of the party away from the septuagenarians – are not remotely amenable to libertarian influence.

  21. This is somewhat interesting, but I don’t see how it justifies the headline or much of our attention. All ideologic or partly ideologic -isms are going to have effects on individual liberty, and all but radical libertarianism are going to be less than…well…radically libertarian. In general the “left” in the USA is much less libertarian than it was 50 years ago, while the “right” has remained about equally libertarian over that time, as it seems to me. Do we see any evidence that this “conservative nationalism” is coming to the fore, and/or that it’s any different from what has long existed?

    How about some polling data analyzing where self-identified “conservatives” are on substantial issues affecting liberty in the USA? Or elsewhere? Or is Ms. Slade’s contention that the people she’s referring to are opinion leaders (actual, not wannabe), and that the opinions have not filtered down yet to the less-interested-but-still-somewhat-engaged who’d be the subject of polls? Also, could we get some more details about the ideas of these opinion leaders, and selected fairly rather than to bring out a contention about them?

    1. The first rule of ReasonClub:

      The threat from the right is always viewed as worse than the reality being forcibly imposed by the left.

      1. Fantasy > reality
        is the fundamental principle of progressivism

        1. I would agree this far.

          Fantasy is not equal to reality.

          Fantasy is a subset of reality. Humans are creative and invent stories and fables. Delusions are something else.

          1. Delusions are a form of fantasy.
            Specifically, delusion is fantasy taken for reality.
            Not reality in a mythological, or metaphorical, sense – but as substitute.

            Reality presents us with stimuli that we must process and translate into information that creates a pattern for how we interact with the outside world. Fantasy, in the mythological sense, is important for framing that process. As we grow, we take in more stimuli and have to figure out where each piece fits and what those patterns tell us. (This is the unparalleled genius of the Greeks – they had an instinct for understanding that remains unsurpassed, and the talent to weave accurate fantasy as stories of Man and Existence.)

            Now, each of us add up and process stimuli unique to ourselves and our paradigms evolve and develop based on both our fantasy and our experiences through life. Quite literally, we make sense of the world this way.

            Far from being an entirely conscious process, the majority of development is instinctive and unconscious. Our 5 senses combine, and we get a picture (imagination) that we combine into series to create a whole (fantasy).

            Roughly, it corresponds to id (instinctive sense), ego (imaginative sense), and superego (fantastic sense).
            The point of this system is to be able to anticipate/predict actions and reactions, to be an effective actor.
            Accurate perception at each level is key. If id is off, ego is distorted, and superego is mistaken. If one has trouble hearing, one misunderstands sounds, one gets the wrong picture. Thus when one responds in the appropriate manner according to their ego conclusion, one gets an unexpected reaction.

            When one frequently meets with unexpected reactions, one’s superego will come to the wrong conclusions. Their paradigm of cause and effect will be erroneous, and they will struggle with inconsistency of anticipation/expectations.

            But it’s usually ego that errs, which compounds and leads to inaccurate superego. One can be stupid either because they lack imagination or because they have too much imagination. In either case, their math is off and leads to mistaken fantasy. But since ego/imagination is where we see ourself, order can get messed up – id/instinct and superego/fantasy come into conflict.

            This is where delusion comes in. Delusion is faulty fantasy that is so rigid in translation that it must take (external) stimuli sensed by instinct and cover or replace it with (internal) fantastic stimuli to maintain itself.
            When this happens chronically/pathologically, the result is a psychotic.

            Fantasy can be quite selfish and come to dominate both ego sense and even id sense (mind over matter).
            Thus faith is Man’s greatest power and Man’s greatest weakness.

            And I’ll stop myself there.

            [Long, not quite right example involving lawn mowing deleted]

            1. Or to put it more basically a delusion is pathological.

      2. Says more about your bias than that of Reason.

        1. Says everything about your obliviousness.

    2. It’s no doubt true that conservatives have been anti-libertarian in many ways all along, but it’s becoming a lot easier to make the case now that they are also becoming more visibly activist about it, thanks to Trump.

  22. “censoring porn to cracking down on opioids to preventing trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams”

    One of these things is not like the others?

      1. The chick with a dick.

        1. “There’s no such thing as a chick with a dick – just dudes with tits!”

  23. Looks like individuals are going to have a tough time of it for a bit, with both the “progressives” and the “conservatives” ganging up on anyone who wants to just be left alone.

    1. Yep. You don’t get elected by promising to leave people alone.

  24. “As the Hudson Institute’s Chris DeMuth put it, “our claim is that the government has abdicated basic responsibilities and broken trust with large numbers of our fellow citizens.” It has done this by allowing a globalized economy to emerge and U.S. manufacturing supremacy to be lost; by not “securing our borders” or ensuring that immigrants are sufficiently assimilated into the culture; by either turning a blind eye to or actively encouraging the erosion of traditional Christian values. ”

    Sounds about right. The left has convinced the right that big government is inevitable, so now the right is demanding that it at least work for us rather than tearing us down.

    1. None of these is a legitimate concern of government, and none could be effectively addressed without violating the Constitution.

      1. Agreed, but, again, “The left has convinced the right that big government is inevitable, so now the right is demanding that it at least work for us rather than tearing us down.”

        The right has been persuaded that fight is lost, and it has moved on.

      2. Fairly certain that “securing and defending our borders” is one of the most oft mentioned duties of the federal government in the US Constitution

  25. No conservative wants the fed to fix “most” problems, nor do most of us believe that the fed is even good at fixing the problems it is Constitutionally enumerated to handle. I just want the govt to do its fucking job and stop ignoring laws that are politically inconvenient. Telling the govt to enforce the border isn’t a slippery slope towards authoritarian rule. Fuck off with the strawmen.

    1. Enforce the border but ignore the inconvenient asylum law?

      1. Asylum isn’t a blank check. And if you support the enforcement of laws, surely you support the enforcement of legal deportations, right?

  26. Reason: A publication for leftists to criticize conservatives while pretending to be libertarians.

    1. What is leftist about Reason, exactly?

      1. Libertarianism has its intellectual roots in what is called classical liberalism.

        Smith, Rousseau, Locke, others departed from communal and national rights theory into one based on free markets and individual liberty.

        None of that applies to what we call left right or Democrat Republican today. Libertarians took some of these ideas and formulated concepts based on natural rights, individual autonomy and limited government.

        It is still a radical departure from normative politics in America. It also has some leverage in political thought.

        Saw today that Rand Paul is under consideration as envoy to Iran. That is interesting. He might be the one outsider (l) who could pull off a deal.

        1. And then there’s Reason.

      2. Aside from:

        Support for a UBI
        Support for government involvement in healthcare
        Support for censorship
        Support for prosecution of process crimes
        Support for investigations because they might exonerate you
        Support for attempting to smear a SCOTUS nominee with sexual assault because abortion must be defended at all costs

        Yeah, I can see why you struggle with that.

        1. Oh look, here comes Tokyo Rose Skippy to tell us all how libertarianism is a lost cause and how we should just all get on the Trump Train because otherwise Elizabeth Warren aka Stalin in a Skirt will send us all into the gulags.

          1. Aww, look at Jeffy “We gotta be nice to socialists” is here to White Knight.

            You’ve sure be free and loose with the “fascism” accusations today, Jeffy. Why, that sure seems like the demonization and collecitviszing you (falsely) claim to be against.

            But hypocrisy was always your strong suit.

  27. […] From this analysis of a recent “National Conservatism […]

  28. Tariffs are better taxes, and smaller government, than income taxes.

    1. Can you elaborate?

      1. There is nothing left to offer.

        Better taxes. That is a false premise to begin with.

        Smaller government. Laughable. There is nothing smaller about it.

        Compare that with income tax. Are you proposing tariffs instead of income tax? It is an additional tax.

        1. Well, that was definitive. It’s false because… yes.

          Different taxes have different effects. Some are more distortionary and damaging than others. Wealth taxes are by far the worst. Income taxes (corporate and then individual) are the second worst, and then tariffs and consumption taxes are the least distortionary. We’ll let the land tax fanatics jump in at this point, but the Georgians are far from convincing.

          Compare that with income tax. Are you proposing tariffs instead of income tax? It is an additional tax.

          Yes, he is. And Reason and you lost their minds over that. See, taxes are necessary to fund the welfare state so cutting income taxes is bad, but taxes are necessary to fund the welfare state so tariffs are bad.

          The logic is inescapable.

          1. Well said Skippy!

          2. Income taxes are essentially internal tariffs on labor…

            1. Income taxes, particularly graduated rate income taxes, are taxes on productivity which is why they are so destructive. Consumption taxes, which is essentially what tariffs are, are far, far less damaging.

              1. So how many taxes do we have?

                All of them. We pay progressive tax on income to federal, state and local. We pay sales tax to all of the above. We pay property tax. We are indirectly paying tax on tariffs by presidential decree. We pay FICA for Medicare and social security. We pay tax on capital gains. Congress just raised minimum wage which is a wealth transfer tax.

                Ronnie was not a perfect President. He did have a way with words. His summary of how government works.

                “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

              2. I would rather see a national sales tax and property tax completely replace an income tax. You can’t dig up your plot of land and ship it to the Caymans. And you can’t buy everything directly from China.

                1. So you are fine with renters who have no land property ownership paying nothing while home owners pay for the schools, parks, and libraries pay for all of it.

                  Sales tax. This much for the bad things, gasoline, soda pop, tobacco, beer. Then we can talk.

                  1. That’s why I included the sales tax with the property tax, because of the renters who don’t own property. But it has to be universally applied – no exemptions. Otherwise we get those lobbyists representing X trying to persuade lawmakers to pass laws lumping X in with Y because Y is exempt from sales tax even though X is nothing like Y.

                    “This much for the bad things, gasoline, soda pop, tobacco, beer”

                    Bloomberg? Is that you?

  29. “There is a tendency among the new nationalists to frame their movement as standing in opposition to supranationalism. Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism, laments in particular what he sees as a push toward a homogenous “new world order” in which umbrella institutions such as the European Union and the United Nations override the rightful sovereignty of states.

    Yet the true object of the nationalists’ ire is much closer to home..”

    Nope. Yoram Hazony was correct. Anyone who isn’t actively opposing the increasing centralization of government power across international borders can’t claim to be a libertarian. That’s why Reason is a joke.

    Maximum decentralization of government power is the most libertarian thing to advocate, if you look at the big picture. That would imply “nationalism” with respect to foreign policy, but actually the opposite of “nationalism” domestically and internally.

    Big-government, progressive-nationalist folks who style themselves as libertarians primarily indulge a certain fantasy where the bigger central government steps into the role of a hero and champion, seizing unlawful power and conquering the the lesser decentralized state and local governments, in the name of securing “rights” that the same central government has deigned to define and modify with impunity. This is very short-sighted.

    1. Not sure what you are getting at here, other than your fourth paragraph, which I basically agree with.

      Are you trying to say that Reason is made up of “progressive-nationalist folks” somehow wanting the central government to seize unlawful power?

      1. You’re a bit slow, aren’t you? Progressives aren’t nationalists these days. They had their run in the 30’s and 40’s with that but fascism got a bad name (even though that precisely describes their economic philosophy). Now they’ve hopped on the international train because the 100MM deaths in that camp somehow don’t count or didn’t register.

      2. “Are you trying to say that Reason is made up of “progressive-nationalist folks” somehow wanting the central government to seize unlawful power?”

        I meant to say there are “nationalist” folks in the domestic sense of being pro-expansive federal government with sovereignty over the states, and there is the more typical use of “nationalist” which can refer to many things but is at least premised on national sovereignty vis a vis any kind of international or supranational bodies, and even a skepticism toward “entangling alliances” as Thomas Jefferson put it.

        If you are a consistent advocate of less decentralized government, you may fall on under the “nationalist” label in the latter context but not in the former.

        In my opinion, libertarians at Reason and elsewhere tend to make both types of mistakes, advancing more centralized government power in the name of securing liberty. The “progressive-nationalists”, I was unclear, would mostly be a distinct group that nevertheless shares the same viewpoint as many “libertarians” in this regard.

        1. I think I get what you’re saying, but using the term ‘nationalist’ might be confusing here.

          So: Reason libertarianism advocates the FedGov over state and city gov as champion of individual rights, as that perspective sees local gov as more prone to infringe on those rights – thus power must be centralized to keep decentralized Gov in check?
          And that is what you mean by “nationalist” in this context?

  30. Conservative nationalism is just another form of collectivism.

    1. So is language

      1. Nardz – That’s exactly why language must be abolished.

        “It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words.”

        1. Berkeley agrees

  31. Does anyone here actually believe that the current versions of liberals or conservatives, as represented by the Democratic or Republican parties, actually support individual liberty?

  32. Thanks for the heads up, Steph. The Trump coalition is beyond my worst nightmares. The combination of the alt-right and Christian right is just as deadly as Bernie’s progressives and Pelosi’s liberals.

    And it’s been a quarter century since libertarians offered any viable alternatives. Americans are ready, willing and eager for the lost dream of pro-liberty libertarians. The anti-government wackos have perverted fiscal conservatives of all stripes.

    The people want 90% of what government provides … having paid for it all, willingly, before government stepped in. Remember when libertarians promoted privatizing … better and cheaper ways for people to get what they’ve always wanted?

    Today’s cult has no ideas how to do anything better, which is why big-government progressives have been kicking our ass for decades. in the Court of Public Opinion. Oh yes, they have. Crawl out of your tribal cave, into the light of day … as Trump’s GOP has ALREADY added more new debt than Obama did AFTER 8 years.
    (CBO debt forecast for 2023) … starting from the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President, from Obama, who began with the second-worst recession since the 1930s!

    Sorry, but sneering ain’t enough to get the job done. Never has been. Never will be.

    ul

    1. Fuck off, hihn

      1. That was cowardly, loser.

  33. Contards are actually authoritarians and statists?
    So surprised.

    1. “Poop!”
      -NPC

  34. “The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty”

    Reason’s Globalism Is About Subverting American Liberty

    Enriching Emperor Xi.
    Enriching the international ruling class.
    Impoverishing the American working class.
    Importing big government voters to America.

    1. You seem proud of your fascist hysteria-mongering.

  35. “But we should always be wary of simply occupying the ground recently vacated by progressives.”

    Surely, though, this is as good as a definition of “conservative”. Since Reagan and Thatcher this is the first time they have adopted a new idea, and as usual it is one that progressives abandoned as failed a little while ago. The nation state itself is a case in point; the state was a concept which grew out of classical liberalism, and offered the prospect of all those under a territorial umbrella sharing a concept of “nationality” on an equal footing. Jew, homosexual or socialist, your rights could be violated within your territory but you were in some sense a citizen the same as those doing the violating, and separate from non-citizens and citizens of elsewhere. Then came the French revolution, the Napoleonic wars. the age of empire, and finally blood-and-soil nationalism and the Shoah. By this time, at the latest, progressives gave up nationalism as the unintended consequences had become so appalling. It is no coincidence that conservatives have increasingly picked up a baton so manifestly suited to beating in the heads of Jews, homosexuals and muslims or atheists, and so obviously catastrophic in its record. Never abandon a bad idea which has become entrenched: THAT is conservatism. Libertarianism is a different animal, and more suited to today’s progressives.

    Many conservatives to this day refuse to accept a vast range of scientific realities, such as the relativity of time and space, the superficial nature of “race”, the plasticity of sexuality, evolution whether by or not by natural selection and climate science. But they quickly accepted the uses of relativity in creating nuclear weapons, and the once-popular ideas of weaponising weather or pathogens. Their role is to stand athwart history crying “not yet, it’s not horrific enough”.

    The developments documented above only show that most conservatives were never libertarians to begin with, nor the right entitled to a monopoly on the term. Conservatives have been getting on with banning drugs, condemning others’ sexual proclivities and the beliefs of those of another or of no religion, incarcerating those of the wrong race and so on since time immemorial.

    1. Progressives today are as far from classical liberals as conservatives are.

      I agree that libertarians are distinct from both.

      Trumpism reduces to faith in “only I can fix it”. It is neither progressive nor conservative and the furthest from libertarian you can be. Republicans have reduced corporate taxes and cut some regulations which needed to be done. It does not make them libertarian.

      I have been very interested in posters here who reject libertarian principles in favor of choosing along the axis of republicans or democrats who have a chance of winning elections.

  36. Succintly, this is why most anarcho-capitalists hold the views they do: Statists are Statists are Statists…

  37. How the Left/Right got their names and their meanings. Please note, this is not opinion. Regardless of why Marx chose “LEFT” as the designation for his movement, Lenin and Trotsky continued to refer to Communism as a movement of the left.
    Over the years the name spread to describe governments that were totalitarian, including the National Socialism of Hitler and the Fascism of Mussolini. And at the end of the 19th century and the early 20th Century, it included people who advocated a move toward more government. The “Right” got its name and meaning merely by default, it was all that was left, (oops) I mean it was the only other choice.
    Now, stay with me here, if advocating more government (as Communism did) is “Left” and 100% government is the “extreme left”, then the advocacy of less government would have to be “Right” and 0% government would be the “extreme Right”, on a Single Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum.
    Conveniently, the English Language has words that substantiate this assertion. Please note, that 100% government is totalitarianism, where the government makes all decisions for individuals & businesses. (Note the word “total in a totalitarian.), and Anarchy being 0% government where individuals and businesses are free to make all of their own decisions is derived from the Greek meaning “no rule” or no government.
    This is not just conjecture; gentle reader, nor is it just my opinion. An advocate of more government is not necessarily a communist or fascist or Nazi but is calling for a move toward 100% government on the left. An advocate of less government is not necessarily an advocate of anarchy but is calling for a move toward 0% government on the right.
    Confirmation of this hypothesis can be found in two articles by Murray Rothbard. (and many others that preceded and followed him) In The Transformation of the American Right First published in Continuum, in summer 1964, pp. 220–231. Murray Rothbard correctly observed,
    The modern American Right began, in the 1930s and 1940s, as a reaction against the New Deal and the Roosevelt Revolution, and specifically as an opposition to the critical increase of statism and state intervention…

    According to Dr. Rothbard, the left/right political spectrum measures the increases in governmental power, especially the power to intervene into the daily lives of individuals and businesses.
    A reinforcement of this concept is found in “Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal” published in 1969, Rothbard further observed: “…we adopted the standard view, let me repeat that “…we adopted the standard view, of the political spectrum: “left,” meant socialism, or total power of the state; the further ‘right’ one went the less government one favored. Hence, we called ourselves “extreme rightists.”
    Additional confirmation is found farther along in that same article where Rothbard said, “Originally, our historical heroes were such men as [Thomas] Jefferson, [Thomas] Paine, [John] Cobden and [Richard] Bright and [Herbert] Spencer. As our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker.”
    In other words, as they became “purer” and more “consistent” in their Libertarian thinking, their heroes were chosen from men that were closer to anarchy and 0% government on the right end of the Political Spectrum, that Dr. Rothbard called the STANDARD VIEW. And yes, gentle reader, the “extreme rightist” Murray Rothbard authored the first Political Platform for the Libertarian Party. That should make those who say that Communism is authoritarianism of the left and Fascism is authoritarianism of the right squirm in their seats a bit.

    So Stephie Conservative and right are not synonyms.

  38. “It has done this by allowing a globalized economy to emerge and U.S. manufacturing supremacy to be lost; by not “securing our borders” or ensuring that immigrants are sufficiently assimilated into the culture”

    And this is how we know that Conservatives are racist.

    38+ years of trickle-down/supply-side Satanomics, aka Conmanitalism, that the current Conservative base of old “Southern Democrats” started voting for once the Civil Rights Act passed giving African Americans access to the same government subsided that created the White middle class, is responsible for the genocide of the middle class and shared prosperity, not “Those People.”

  39. […] in Washington last week to propound an ominous ideology: “national conservatism.” As Reason reported, the conferees want to ditch the old conservative aversion to having the government micromanage the […]

  40. […] in Washington last week to propound an ominous ideology: “national conservatism.” As Reason reported, the conferees want to ditch the old conservative aversion to having the government micromanage the […]

  41. […] in Washington last week to propound an ominous ideology: “national conservatism.” As Reason reported, the conferees want to ditch the old conservative aversion to having the government micromanage the […]

  42. […] “The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty,” by Stephanie Slade […]

  43. […] “The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty,” by Stephanie Slade […]

  44. […] “The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty,” by Stephanie Slade […]

  45. […] “The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty,” by Stephanie Slade […]

  46. […] “The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty,” by Stephanie Slade […]

  47. […] ideas that came out of the conference include: support for a restrictionist immigration policy focused on […]

  48. […] « culturelle » et « démographique  » pour les États-Unis, certains membres éminents de la nouvelle droite nationaliste prétendent qu’un accroissement de l’immigration touchera durement les travailleurs […]

  49. […] and she produced a fresh round of outrage earlier this month when she spoke at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, […]

  50. […] and she produced a fresh round of outrage earlier this month when she spoke at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, […]

  51. […] seems clear: it is time for conservatives to overcome their skepticism of the state and, in the words of attendee J.D. Vance, “actually be willing to use politics and political power to […]

  52. […] and she produced a fresh round of outrage earlier this month when she spoke at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.