There is now the phrase “movement conservative.” When I first heard it, I thought it oxymoronic. Conservatism is establishment and tradition, not protest and reform. But “movement” suggests struggle against injustice, the overcoming of some oppression. So it is telling that many conservatives now think of themselves as part of a “movement” and refer to one another as “movement conservatives.” A great irony that slowly emerged out of the turmoil of the 1960s is that conservatism became the new counterculture — a movement that was subversive in relation to the established liberal cultural order. And, continuing this irony, liberalism became the natural home of timid conventionalists and careerists — people who find it hard to know themselves outside the orthodoxies of mainstream “correctness.” And what is political correctness if not an establishment orthodoxy?
What drives this conservative “movement”? Of course there are the classic motivations — a commitment to free-market capitalism, smaller government, higher educational standards, the reinforcement of family life, either the projection of strength abroad or, conversely, a kind of isolationism, and so on. But overriding all of this is a cultural motivation that might be called the “pinch of stigma.” The special energy of contemporary conservatism — what gives it the dynamism of a movement — comes from conservative outrage at being stigmatized in the culture as the politics in which all of America’s past evils now find a comfortable home.
This stigmatization is conservatism’s great liability in an American culture that gives dissociation preeminence, that makes it the arbiter of all other social values. Contemporary conservatism is, first of all, at war with this cultural stigmatization. Its ideas always swim upstream against the perception that they only echo the racist, sexist, and parochial America of old — as if conservatism were an ideology devoted to human regression. For conservatives, it is, in the end, a bewildering war against an undeserved bad reputation. And how do you fight a bad reputation that always precedes you? (read the whole thing)
Monday, March 2, 2015
Conservatism as Counterculture
Excerpt from the March 9, 2015, issue of National Review
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
To the extent that conservatism in America has become a movement, its form has been the Tea Party. The Tea Party has attempted to implement or more accurately reimplement conservatism by way of electoral victories, a lawful way of effecting change. This is important because conservatives, even under severe sustained assault, respect lawful boundaries.
It goes without saying that the Left, which is always a movement, does not return the favor.
Capitulating to the bigotry industry doesn't seem like a workable idea.
Conservatism is unlikely to become a movement because the term is a catch-all, really, for all that is not leftist.
In fact, conservatism mostly stands for being left alone.
The left have moved so far left that I think it's time for "conservatives" to call themselves "Classical Liberals".
The left are now progressives, and that is good.
Progress on the road to socialism.
Bernie Sanders is the only honest democrat. He's a socialist. the democrat party is dead - they are all socialists now.
They are the party of dictatorial socialism - let them own it.
It's long past time to take the left's insistence that we are evil for not adopting their dictator worship and their love of welfare and redistributed misery - and shove it back in their evil faces.
The damage is done and that's all that was needed. Conservatives and conservativism is essentially anti.
Wait, march 9th 2015?
I recommend Conservative Insurgency. It's cheering.
Just remember what the Lefties call mainstream now was counterculture 50 years ago.
And what Chip said.
Conservatives in America are unique in wanting to view themselves as rebels because America was founded as an act of rebellion.
The problem is that more than half the time they're not sure of what they're rebelling for, or what it is that their adversaries are supposedly against. It's rebellion as an ethos. All Americans share it, but only progressives can define goals for it. So there is an intractable and often unhealthy resentment against the left by American conservatives.
The guy on the cover of that book looks like he could have been invented by Colbert.
It's funny how fond American conservatives are of themes pertaining to possession and capture. Watch out, ISIS!
Schmendrik's goal is total control of all the benighted bitter clinger conservatives. He calls that compassion.
Whatever you say, dickpic.
You can control whatever you want of yourself, so leave your masochistic fantasies to yourself. But if you have a stupid policy you'd like to inflict on America at large, you'd better believe I'll expose it for the folly it is.
" But if you have a stupid policy you'd like to inflict on America at large, you'd better believe I'll expose it for the folly it is."
From one of the champions of most of the stupid policies we already have. We already have them. They are already stupid, and you fight changing them at all costs by voting for and defending those that make and perpetuate them. That's the whole point of this post.
Many of us want to change things. We want to abandon policies that cost ever and ever more and return less and less or even do great harm. we are resisted by those who are sure that whatever we want, it would be worse, whether it was ever tried before or even if history shows it was better. That is simply blind dogmatic stupidity which unfortunately is much of what is taught and even enforced with punishments in the modern university. We are teaching people to be stupid, and charging outrageously for it.
That was some massive rhetoric, and not a single fact, coming from Policy Critic in Chief Bag-O. Very compelling. Criticize policies by leaving the facts out of them. A great way to govern. The Republic has been saved - from facts.
How them anti-Executive branch lawsuits coming along, April?
I know enough about facts to see that Bag's 7:19 PM post didn't cite a single one related to policy.
If you can find it, let me know. You might want to let him know, also.
Careful, April. I'm seeing smoke rising from your overheated circuit board.
I think that 2nd sentence in your 7:37 post lacked a verb or two. Perhaps it was struggling to make its way through the vile, profanity-laced invective, and then got stuck. Much like the thought itself.
Summing up, I don't think that conservatism - to the extent that it means anything any longer in America - stands a chance unless it can come up with something thoughtful or constructive. People like to build things, but all the right wants to do nowadays, it seems, is destroy.
Bush II talked about "compassionate conservatism", but I'm not sure where that ended up.
Today's conservatives can try ratcheting up the rage, the hate, the contempt, the greed, the meanness, the need for destruction, and all the rest of it. But they'll have to account for the consequences of all that, too.
Observers say it's impossible to win in American politics without having the more positive agenda. I'm thankful that some of America's less thoughtful pundits seem stuck in a mode so negative, that it's almost certain their worse ideas will stay stuck on in the back-rooms and if they ever make it past the doors, dead on the chopping block.
It was an interesting ride. Positive conservatism, we never knew ye.
Greed? LOL.
Leftwing progressive neo- fascist socialists "democrats" OWN greed.
Hooray for greed.
"...I'll expose it for the folly it is."
Is free association folly?
Are property rights folly?
Without them there is, there can be, no liberty. Is liberty folly?
You and all leftists attack free association and private property rights as discriminatory, exclusionary, unfair, promoters of inequality and of course racisss. Which is to say that you, Schmendrik, and all leftists are engaged in a continual assault on liberty. Which must mean that you consider liberty, at the very least, to be a folly.
Is liberty folly, Schmendrik?
dickpic definitely has his straw men cut out for him. The more straw men, the better. He just constructed a whole slew of them, and then slew them all! He is truly the Samson of straw men.
Greed.
Jeb and Hillary are IN.
Elizabeth Warren is the voice of reason in this odd relationship?
Weird.
"That was some massive rhetoric, and not a single fact."
It was nothing but facts. Ritmo, you can't even say something as simple as "Nun uhh" without using a bunch of words to pretend you have an actual argument.
More rhetoric.
If there was a single policy-related fact in there, it shouldn't be difficult for you to identify it. But instead you decline, while doubling-down on the rhetoric.
If you went to school or read a book, you'd know the difference between "arguments", "facts", and the immense well of feelings you inflict on the comment board. But that would take all the fun out of it - for you . Much easier to rant and vent your feelings and rhetorical blather without actually citing anything verifiable.
Much easier.
Keeps you from thinking. And wedded to feeling.
We feel you, Bag. We feel you.
Conservatives in America are unique in wanting to view themselves as rebels because America was founded as an act of rebellion.
How and why did you pull this bit out of your butt, Ritmo?
It's meaningless twaddle, in addition to being a complete fabrication.
And, how are you doing?
People like to build things, but all the right wants to do nowadays, it seems, is destroy.
Ritmo, you're confusing clever rhetorical jabs that make you chuckle with facts.
You're entire involvement in this discussion is fact free.
If you went to school or read a book...
Classic idiocy from Ritmo.
So the American Revolution was an act of loyalty, then?
American conservatives are loyal to the Tory cause of not rebelling against George III?
You need to explain your own weird alternative if you're going to declare American history to be a fabrication.
I'm doing fine, BTW.
But I don't see why a pretty uncontroversial statement makes makes you react this way.
What then do American conservatives think about the radical American Revolution, according to you?
I know one thing, Gordon Wood's book on the subject was pretty good, and he agrees with me. And Newt Gingrich agrees with both of us. The guy loved it. Gave it glowing reviews on Amazon, even.
Liberals must be pretty shifty if they're now using Gingrich as a plant for their cause.
What in the hell are you trying to say, Ritmo? Have you been drinking?
Are you trying to say that for conservatives to be consistent they have to oppose the American Revolution?
That's pretty dingy.
As to your question, I don't represent anybody, including conservatives.
I'm find with the American Revolution. It's just about the only revolution that's worked out.
Conservatives in America are not trying to conserve:
The Monarchy,
The Landed Aristocracy,
The privileges of the official clergy,
Legal distinctions between race and class,
instead, they are trying to conserve what used to be called Liberal Democracy, on which this country was founded.
Progressives want to progress away from that.
Thank you to Ken for honestly grappling with the question.
It does pose a paradox - for conservatives to conserve liberal democracy, but one that Europeans are more used to. In fact, they are quite clear to call our own brand of steroid-driven capitalism "neoliberalism".
If we take liberal democracy to derive from Locke, one has to ask what someone in his time would have thought of industrialization - and the way that should have been allowed to impact or not impact the state and the people. Unfortunately, he did not live to see it enter its full swing, so one never knows.
Ritmo, why don't you actually read some contemporary conservative writers instead of just fabricating things?
If you've gone to school or ever read a book, you might understand this process.
Same old shit, huh, Ritmo?
You declared you're not interested in (and at times, can't understand) what Ken and I are talking about, Stephen. So why not have a nice day and leave it at that?
No one will think you're less of a man (or Dawg) by allowing others to have their conversations. You don't need to control discourse.
Summing up, I don't think that conservatism - to the extent that it means anything any longer in America - stands a chance unless it can come up with something thoughtful or constructive. People like to build things, but all the right wants to do nowadays, it seems, is destroy.
What a load of mash-up. WTF? Is the new Internet meme the dee-jaying of politicking via cliche-spinning? Dang, man, Ritmo: Are you the next renowned performance-art troll?
Because I'd like to get on the ground floor, for once in in my life. Sweet sheesh.
Lame, lame, lame.
Performance art's on Snapchat.
Post a Comment