Conservatism Has Conserved Nothing

Conservatism Has Conserved Nothing. By Patrick Casey.

The charge that conservatism has conserved nothing is so self-evident that it has become something of a cliché …

The history of conservatism is one of toothless opposition to whatever form of anti-civilizational insanity the left happens to be promoting at a particular point in time. Established figures on the right, be they politicians or pundits, are wont to publicly denounce the left, only to later capitulate to, or adopt outright, the other side’s positions.

Those on the right who refuse to capitulate are defamed, unpersoned, and blackballed by the combined forces of the establishment — “conservatives” included — thus further hampering the instances when conservatism truly does propose some opposition to the left. …

Gay marriage is now celebrated — what’s next?

Historical examples of the leftward shift in action abound. Few, however, are as illustrative of the extent to which conservatives have been willing to adopt positions they once opposed, such as gay marriage and so-called LGBT rights in general.

Opposition to gay marriage was, until very recently, a defining facet of American conservatism. In 2004, George W. Bush publicly supported an amendment that would limit marriage to people of the opposite sex. … “The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,” Bush said at the time.

Much has changed since then. Twenty-three percent of voters who identified as or leaned Republican supported gay marriage in 2001, according to Pew Research. By 2019 … that percentage had nearly doubled to 44 percent. …

In 2008, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama explicitly stated his aversion to the practice. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” Obama said in a November 2008 MTV interview. “I am not in favor of gay marriage.” … It would be unthinkable these days for a Democratic presidential candidate to voice such a conservative position on gay marriage …

While I’m far from supportive of gay marriage, I’m nonetheless sympathetic to arguments that the right has more pressing concerns: mass immigration, institutionalized antiwhite animus, and tech censorship, to name a few.

However, there’s a difference between carefully choosing your battles and adopting the positions of your political adversaries; conservatism, sadly, is guilty of the latter. …

Transgenderism is now next to godliness:

Transgenderism, too, is now gaining acceptance in the conservative movement. … conservatives are already rationalizing their eventual acceptance of transgender ideology and all of the legal implications thereof.

The transgender agenda isn’t merely about encouraging people to refer to transgender individuals by their preferred pronouns — it’s about ensuring that mentally ill men are allowed to use the same bathrooms and changing rooms as young girls. Such an outcome would be horrific and, if enacted through federal legislation, difficult to reverse. …

Embracing a transgender candidate is still fairly taboo on the right, but for how long? The slippery slope is real, and given the nature of the leftward shift, we can safely predict that whatever opposition to transgenderism currently exists on the right will wane over time unless something drastic changes.

Diversity, aka anti-white animus (“black lives matter” is virtuous, “white lives matter” is racist):

Another example of the leftward shift — one arguably more damning — is conservatism’s adoption of the left’s diversity agenda. In March of this year, the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), one of the largest Republican super PACs, published a document outlining its strategy for the 2022 midterm elections. Was that strategy to focus more on issues that matter to the base? Not quite. Instead, the CLF had a brilliant idea: promote more women and minorities! …

There’s a world of difference between endorsing the best candidate, regardless of race or gender, and emphasizing a candidate’s diversity status. The former is sensible, whereas the latter is evidence of the leftward shift in action.

It must be remembered that it was the left — not the right — that introduced a moral hierarchy in which white people occupy a lower standing than nonwhite people. Despite the obvious leftist origins of this antiwhite framework, many in the GOP appear to have adopted it. Amusingly, conservatives continue to decry the left’s emphasis on identity politics while shamelessly playing the same game. …

The left is now the party of bureaucracy, big government, and the rich and their professional enablers:

The culture overall is moving leftward. Virtually every powerful institution in America — academia, corporations, finance, the mainstream media, the judiciary, the administrative state, intelligence agencies, and more — supports this trajectory.

And although the exact source of the leftward shift is hard to pinpoint, to broadly ascribe it to our ruling class would be accurate. Simply put: leftism emanates from the halls of power because it benefits those in charge. And while politics is downstream from culture, it is also true that culture is downstream from power.

As to why conservatives cede ground to the left, the reasons vary. Cowardice is the most obvious. Up against an array of powerful, hostile institutions, conservatives often feel that holding the line on a particular cultural or political battle is futile. As a result, they tend to resort to ill-advised strategies. Easily the worst of these is the adoption of the other side’s moral framework, positions, and language in an attempt to beat the left at its own game. Conservatives fancy themselves mighty clever when they ape their adversaries, but the joke is ultimately on them.

There is a more insidious dynamic at play as well. Many conservative pundits and most GOP operatives serve the establishment, not the people, so their failure to hold the line isn’t a failure at all from their perspective — it’s the system working as intended. The establishment right in America is best understood as controlled opposition. The inner party (Democratic) openly drives the country further leftward, whereas the outer party (Republican) exists to provide false assurance to its constituents that it’s doing its best to conserve what’s left of historic America.

What little pushback the outer part offers, of course, is nothing more than political theater designed to coax justifiably outraged Americans into complacency. Barring a few exceptions, the Republican Party and establishment conservatism have no intention of reversing American decline, but rather serve the function of ensuring that no meaningful opposition to globalism can blossom on the right. Although the Trump phenomenon proved that this controlled opposition status quo can indeed be interrupted, whether this current wave of populism will succeed in the long run remains to be seen.

The leftward shift is indeed a real phenomenon — one responsible for unraveling the social technology that made America great in the first place — and conservatism has undeniably proven itself incapable of stemming the tide of leftism.

As such, one is forced to conclude that this process will continue for the foreseeable future.

Make no mistake: Until our institutions are reclaimed, we haven’t won.

Leftists are religiously ideological, so leftists only hire fellow leftists. Consequently, once an institution has gone left it will be forever left — it cannot be reformed. The only cure is to burn it down and start over. Yes, all those institutions, starting with state media.

hat-tip Stephen Neil