Conservatives Disimulating from America

[_honorentheos]

An article from Reason.com that seemed like a topic posters on this board might find interesting:

https://reason.com/2019/07/26/new-natio ... n-problem/

The conclusion may as well be the subheading for the article.

That conservatives are preaching a full-scale abandonment of America's bedrock commitments to capitalism, democracy, religious pluralism, and individual liberty shows that even as they accuse immigrants of not assimilating in America, they themselves are dissimilating from America.

The vast majority of immigrants believe in America's fundamental promise. If conservatives don't, then they are the real problem. Immigrants may or may not be increasing littering in America, but conservatives are trashing it.

It may also get at why folks like subbie may not be up on their understanding of the term liberal western democracy given it may have fallen out of fashion among those on the political right.

At a recent gathering of conservative luminaries in Washington, D.C., even as the University of Pennsylvania's Amy Wax lamented the failure of non-Western immigrants who litter and talk too loudly to culturally assimilate into America, Yarom Hazony, an Israeli citizen and author of The Virtue of Nationalism, who is fast becoming the intellectual godfather of the neo-right, intoned that it was time for conservatives to "declare independence…from what they call classical liberalism." Given that Thomas Jefferson essentially relied on classical liberalism when he asserted in the Declaration of Independence that the government's job was to protect the God-given and inalienable rights of individuals but otherwise leave them alone to pursue their life, liberty, and happiness as they saw fit, Hazony's wording was explicitly calculated to invite conservatives to turn their back on America's founding. But did the audience break into chants of "send him back"? No. It applauded in approval.

[_honorentheos]

Here's a little bit more, including the article's official title in case it is of interest.

Economic Nationalism
Conservative Nationalists, Not Immigrants, Are Having Trouble Assimilating in America
Their orgy of statism is un-American.

~ by Shikha Dalmia

Restrictionist conservatives have long insisted that their problem with "mass immigration" from Mexico, Asia, and the Middle East isn't that their natives are racially different but that they're culturally different. They believe that Latinos come from statist polities and are therefore too susceptible to the lure of Big Government social programs and handouts, if not outright socialism. "Most of the millions of immigrants we have welcomed came from countries where the only government they knew was one that made all the decisions about economic and social policy," lamented the late conservative doyen, Phyllis Schlafly. "The current level of legal immigration to America adds thousands of people every day whose views and experiences are contrary to the conservative value of limited government." Meanwhile, conservatives warn that letting in too many Muslims will lead to blasphemy laws and fatwas dooming America's commitment to religious liberty and free speech.

Even someone like the National Review's Charles C. Cooke, a libertarian-minded British immigrant who is far from a reflexive restrictionist, finds such concerns sufficiently compelling that he thinks it is entirely appropriate for the U.S. citizenship test to ask new entrants to attest that they are not communists or subversives and would respect religious liberty, even though, arguably, such inquiries about personal beliefs violate the spirit—if not the letter—of the U.S. Constitution.

Given how zealously the American right has guarded America's core freedoms from foreigners, it is beyond ironic that it elected a president who tramples on them on a daily basis.

While conservatives have been worrying about importing socialism from abroad, Trump is foisting on the country what Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, a conservative hero (until now), considered its equally dangerous collectivist twin, economic nationalism.

Under the guise of America First, Trump has basically given up on the free market. He has dedicated his administration to concocting manifestly bogus national security rationales to slap tariffs on America's trade partners that don't agree to his terms for doing business. And then he has tried to placate American farmers and industries hurt by retaliatory tariffs with billions of dollars in countervailing handouts. He has tried to order companies such as General Motors to desist from shuttering unprofitable plants to keep his jobs numbers up. And in an even bigger affront to free market capitalism, Trump has tried to strong-arm companies such as FoxConn to set up shop where his base resides. In short, Trump is going beyond crony capitalism to command capitalism.

In short, the article points out that the levers Trump pulls to manipulate people's fears and stoke racial animus among his base are just that, political manipulation. No Trump supporter can argue with a straight face that Democrats are pushing to open borders and flood the nation with immigrants from Central America who would be dependent on the government to get by and therefore support big government projects typically associated with the liberal and progressive wings of the Democrat party. The fact is, through Trump they are supporting big government, the elimination of civil freedoms generally recognized as being under threat when one speaks disdainfully of socialism, and authoritarian rule. They don't even need to be the primary beneficiaries of this sweeping aside of what defined us as a nation. They just need the crumbs of lip-service respect, told they are the real patriots and that Jesus loves them, and to see the Blue Angels fly over once in a while as the Trump economy leads to displacement of good jobs with sub-par jobs and crushing debt.

[_MeDotOrg]

Imagine the number of books that will be written about the Trump candidacy and Presidency. Our President will be the primary subject of far more books that he had read in his lifetime.

I understand a lot of the levers that Trump is pulling, but what I cannot foresee is how the reins of power will be passed to the next Republicans.

Scenario one: Trump wins in 2020. By 2022, he will be a 76 year-old lame duck. My guess is that he will still have pending litigation against him after he leaves office. He will be a lot more difficult to celebrate as the Grand Old Man of the Grand Old Party than say, Ronald Reagan.

Scenario two: Trump is defeated in 2020. Presumably William Bar will not be staying on as Attorney General. A lot of the dealings of the Trump administration will come under scrutiny. Trump is no longer protected from prosecution, and prosecute him they will. A pardon will not keep him out of jail in the State of New York.

I just don't see a path where Trump leaves office with a relatively untarnished legacy. And what is Trumpism beyond Trump? I am still hopeful for a struggle for the soul of the Republican Party. The Republicans will have to revisit the issue raised after the 2014 defeat: outreach to minority communities.

If Trump is defeated in 2020, by 2024 U.S. demographics will be creeping away from the Republicans. I really don't see how economic nationalism with a healthy racist component can be a long-term vision for growth in the Republican Party.

[_moksha]

What scares me is that Conservative subtext about sweeping away good old America and replacing it with a 1000 Year Trumpocracy which will rekindle the Fatherland.

[_honorentheos]

What if Trump isn't a cause but a symptom? A fever not the virus itself?

[_Gunnar]

Honor, you have consistently presented a compelling case for the idea that Trump may be more of a symptom than a cause of what ails America. That agrees much of what else I have seen and read. Still, though getting rid of Trump may not be sufficient to put us on a better path, we can hope it would be a good start. Thanks for your contributions to the discussion!

[_Maksutov]

What if Trump isn't a cause but a symptom? A fever not the virus itself?

I believe this. Trump is surfing a wave he didn't create.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think there's any doubt that Trump didn't make the American right wing a bunch of racists/assholes. All he did is coalesce that demographic around some mindless slogans.

Trumpism will exist after the douche bag is gone. The question is whether or not there is someone who can effectively take up the reigns of racist idiot leadership in his place and keep the movement stoked. Is there anyone else who can strike the correct idiot tone with such bluster?

I have a feeling that once Trump dies, so does the current racists' spotlight, and they will retreat (become less vocal and bold) as they did before. That's the extent of my optimism on the matter, anyway.

[_EAllusion]

I just don't see a path where Trump leaves office with a relatively untarnished legacy. And what is Trumpism beyond Trump? I am still hopeful for a struggle for the soul of the Republican Party. The Republicans will have to revisit the issue raised after the 2014 defeat: outreach to minority communities.

Scenario 3: Republicans use short term election wins to make it more difficult for opposition to vote or have their votes translate into representation. They provide easy opportunities for foreign actors to interfere and even tamper with elections on their behalf. They further use those victories to stack courts and maintain control of legislative process to immunize them from legal consequences for this behavior.

With a lock on the government they amplify right wing propaganda sources in media, education, and official governments sources. Slowly, but surely, undesirable sources of information are subject to censorship through weaponizing the bureaucracy against them with a dash of chilling effect from permitted vigilantism. The result is the public is primarily exposed to revisionist narratives that shape popular opinion.

[_EAllusion]

What if Trump isn't a cause but a symptom? A fever not the virus itself?

I think Trump is both a symptom and an accelerant.