Listening the Bulwark’s “Next Level” Podcast (sub needed) from yesterday, and the hosts repeated a meme/talking-point that really grates on me.
It’s this idea that Republicans are supposedly “choosing their party over the country”, as exemplified by the National Review this week saying things like “Trump is bad for conservatism” — conveniently, of course, ignoring that their first and foremost concern should be whether he’s bad for America.
Look, I get where this is coming from. It’s an obvious conclusion to draw.
But my own experience of growing up as a conservative just doesn’t jibe with it. If anything, the reality is actually worse! The National Review don’t see themselves as choosing party over country. No, conservatives have convinced themselves over many long decades that conservatism is the only ideology that can responsibly govern the country.
And it’s not just that they hazily think all other ideologies would be acceptable but give subpar results relative to some idealized conservative-governed universe. After all, that’s basically what most of those ideologies think about everyone else, right? In the same way that all religions basically think all other religions are misguided to some degree.
No, the National Review believes that any other ideology, especially those on the left, would be catastrophically bad for America. This is why they see democratically sharing power as impossible, why they’ve consistently failed to defend democracy in America from Trump (or anyone else, for that matter). They simply can’t bring themselves to trust anyone else with the exercise of power.
This is a fundamentally arrogant position. It’s just not compatible with democracy. And while it’s not inherent to conservatism itself, it’s undeniably been a major thread in the American strain of conservatism since long before even William F. Buckley. It’s what drives the movement’s insatiable lust for power, while simultaneously dooming it to never achieve its stated goals.
And ultimately, I think it’s what will doom the movement to keep imploding in on itself, because as we’ve seen with Trump, if you’ll do anything for power, then eventually a strongman will come along and force you to trade your soul for it.
That’s why I say it’s worse. It’s not just that they “choose party over country”. It’s that they believe they are the only party for the country.
You both have made the point a couple of times but it bear repeating. The “party over country” choice is a false choice for some conservatives. Their belief in the rightness of their party makes it impossible for choosing country to not also choose party. That’s why a variety of scare tactics and boogeymen have been republican stock and trade for decades. Whether it be racism, homophobia, transphobia or bigotry against immigrants, there’s always an “other” for them to scare their voters with. These people are not what they see as American, therefore it is right to push them to the margins. Only the GOP will protect for country from these influences. While the majority of us may see hatred and unAmerican behavior, this is precisely what many on the far right believe. They then believe that they have chosen both party and country while we on the left are blindly following our party and damaging the country.
I wish that the party over country attack was a valid one against the right, because it really shows where a politicians priorities are. Easier said than done to throw shame at a politician.
I think we voters want our politicians to do things for altruistic reasons, only having the best interests of the people in mind, but in reality we often would prefer the other side to lose than for everyone to win.
Agreed. The whole Jeffersonian mythos of the citizen-legislator was always a myth, and does real harm to people's expectations of politicians. I think we'd be a lot healthier as a society if we expected politicians to act like politicians, instead of expecting them to be these selfless paragons of abstract civic virtue that can't ever live up to the reality that *politicians have to make decisions that are guaranteed to piss SOMEONE off*.
From the bits and pieces I have read, I wonder how long some of those who call themselves Conservatives have been seeking to replace the democratic Republic with their version of a Republic. It appears to be generations. Would it be ridiculous to say that it has been going on since the beginning of the U.S.?
Perhaps the real question is "Are they actually Conservatives?" Maybe, that is just convenient camouflage to hide what they really want and what they are working toward.
If you don't have the subscription, the short version is just that it's probably some combination of the big 3 theories: (1) "it was all a lie" (IE your "camouflage" suspicion), (2) "history is contingent", IE maybe some different decisions at various key turning points might have led to a different outcome, and (3) "the cargo cult", IE conservatism was a narrative mirage that right-wing elites comforted themselves with at night, but really there's just a vast and ever-evolving right wing movement that used "conservatism" as a shibboleth because Goldwater and Reagan made it fashionable. And now that Trump's made it fashionable to be fasc-ish, conservatism is just the obsolete golden cow that's been replaced with a newer one.
I agree with most of that analysis. It's some combination of yes/and, not an exclusive either/or proposition here.
The longer answer is... I think you can trace this back to the Whigs. Which, TBH, involves some self-indictment as an avowed Northerner who finds much to admire in their Hamiltonian- and Lincolnian-era philosophies.
The long answer goes like this: per my own personal favorite historical analysis of the current incarnation of the GOP (https://qr.ae/pGaGjT), the Whigs are the core of a group of ideological elites who currently call themselves "conservatives" - think The Bulwark and National Review. As a relatively unpopular political minority, they've gone through a long line of coalition partners: radical nationalists (Federalist Party), radical nativists (Know-Nothings), radical abolitionists (Republicans); and as the GOP after the postbellum consolidation of the 2-party system, they continued to partner with the Mountain West, flirted with progressivism, and then finally partnered with the Dixiecrats in the Southern Strategy.
Now, to be fair to the Whigs, the Southern elites have pretty much always hated American democracy, except for those times when they've seen democracy's _forms_ as a viable vehicle for subverting democracy's _aims_. But the whole reason we're talking about all this is because the Whigs have always felt like no one else was competent enough to run the country. It's their #1 fear! It's why they rigged the Senate with the Mountain West states to keep Democrats from winning - Northeastern financial elites were terrified that a rural-friendly monetary policy would undermine their vast fortunes.
It's why the same group of politicians could pivot from the failure of their alliance with the hypernativist Know-Nothings, to an alliance with the radical left abolitionists. They don't care about their partners' ideology, they just care about how well they can be controlled.
It's not a conspiracy. It's not that they're trying to "replace" anything - most of the time, they like the Constitutional order perfectly fine, because it's been instrumental in protecting their interests over the centuries. They just don't trust democracy to give them the results they want, and they're willing to *bend* it to legitimize whatever gives them those results. Sometimes, that has meant good things -- like renegotiating the Constitution's failure to ban slavery! The Reconstruction Amendments were passed at the barrel of a gun, after all. But outside of the one or two times they've done something nice, the Whigs have been perfectly happy to undermine the system JUUUST short of breaking it.
And that tendency is the thing I'm trying to call out here. Because we're already seeing just how much they're willing to break, and how close we are to the brink right now. And until the system is reformed to keep Whigs' worst tendencies in check -- as well as those of any other dangerous faction(!) -- we're going to stay at risk of having more metacrises like the current one we're in.
I was thinking about it some more. What I wrote originally sounded like a conspiracy theory, but what I think happens is more an inherited and/or learned frame of mind. There are always people who think they are the smartest ones in the room and so therefore everyone else should do as they wish. That thinking can be passed down in families and even businesses. Then they congregate. Then they collectively become Dr. Frankenstein and now we have Marjorie Taylor Greene, et al.
I see your points. There are groups within the Republican/Conservatives. The nuts are now swinging for the fences and have too much power within the party. They need a smart manager and some good base coaches but don't have them.
Addendum: And the reason why it bugs me is because if it were just as simple as "party over country", then you could hammer them with it for a few election cycles and banish them from power forever. Lefties get excited for that prospect... because it's easy! It's less work for us; it gives us a clear moral high ground, an easy victory to look forward to.
But just because it's easy and promises us all our dreams, doesn't make it *true*.
The "we're the only competent ones to run the country" thing has a much broader mass appeal. It's really difficult for normies of ANY stripe to see any difference between THAT and plain old rooting for their own side. And that means the "party over country" attack falls flat with them - it's just regular old partisan mudslinging, not a valid attack.
So, on one side, you have a bunch of lefties (and Bulwarkers) who think that they've got a magic wand they can wave to make the hated fasc-ish threat disappear. And on the other, you have a bunch of normies who don't really see "keep avowed socialists out of power" as much of a betrayal of the American ideal, even if they might admire a socialist policy or two, so it's not convincing when the socialists who'd otherwise stand to benefit, act like it's disqualifying.
It's just annoying and tiresome to see all this ignorance and hate flying around as the country falls apart around us because of it.
You both have made the point a couple of times but it bear repeating. The “party over country” choice is a false choice for some conservatives. Their belief in the rightness of their party makes it impossible for choosing country to not also choose party. That’s why a variety of scare tactics and boogeymen have been republican stock and trade for decades. Whether it be racism, homophobia, transphobia or bigotry against immigrants, there’s always an “other” for them to scare their voters with. These people are not what they see as American, therefore it is right to push them to the margins. Only the GOP will protect for country from these influences. While the majority of us may see hatred and unAmerican behavior, this is precisely what many on the far right believe. They then believe that they have chosen both party and country while we on the left are blindly following our party and damaging the country.
I wish that the party over country attack was a valid one against the right, because it really shows where a politicians priorities are. Easier said than done to throw shame at a politician.
Yep. It’s the same reason why I hate when people say politicians do things for “political reasons”. Like, they’re politicians. That’s their job!
I think we voters want our politicians to do things for altruistic reasons, only having the best interests of the people in mind, but in reality we often would prefer the other side to lose than for everyone to win.
Agreed. The whole Jeffersonian mythos of the citizen-legislator was always a myth, and does real harm to people's expectations of politicians. I think we'd be a lot healthier as a society if we expected politicians to act like politicians, instead of expecting them to be these selfless paragons of abstract civic virtue that can't ever live up to the reality that *politicians have to make decisions that are guaranteed to piss SOMEONE off*.
From the bits and pieces I have read, I wonder how long some of those who call themselves Conservatives have been seeking to replace the democratic Republic with their version of a Republic. It appears to be generations. Would it be ridiculous to say that it has been going on since the beginning of the U.S.?
Perhaps the real question is "Are they actually Conservatives?" Maybe, that is just convenient camouflage to hide what they really want and what they are working toward.
So, there's two answers here.
For one, the Bulwark has had some really good conversations in recent weeks about different "theories of the case" on what the origins of all this is: https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/the-three-histories-of-conservatism
If you don't have the subscription, the short version is just that it's probably some combination of the big 3 theories: (1) "it was all a lie" (IE your "camouflage" suspicion), (2) "history is contingent", IE maybe some different decisions at various key turning points might have led to a different outcome, and (3) "the cargo cult", IE conservatism was a narrative mirage that right-wing elites comforted themselves with at night, but really there's just a vast and ever-evolving right wing movement that used "conservatism" as a shibboleth because Goldwater and Reagan made it fashionable. And now that Trump's made it fashionable to be fasc-ish, conservatism is just the obsolete golden cow that's been replaced with a newer one.
I agree with most of that analysis. It's some combination of yes/and, not an exclusive either/or proposition here.
The longer answer is... I think you can trace this back to the Whigs. Which, TBH, involves some self-indictment as an avowed Northerner who finds much to admire in their Hamiltonian- and Lincolnian-era philosophies.
The long answer goes like this: per my own personal favorite historical analysis of the current incarnation of the GOP (https://qr.ae/pGaGjT), the Whigs are the core of a group of ideological elites who currently call themselves "conservatives" - think The Bulwark and National Review. As a relatively unpopular political minority, they've gone through a long line of coalition partners: radical nationalists (Federalist Party), radical nativists (Know-Nothings), radical abolitionists (Republicans); and as the GOP after the postbellum consolidation of the 2-party system, they continued to partner with the Mountain West, flirted with progressivism, and then finally partnered with the Dixiecrats in the Southern Strategy.
Now, to be fair to the Whigs, the Southern elites have pretty much always hated American democracy, except for those times when they've seen democracy's _forms_ as a viable vehicle for subverting democracy's _aims_. But the whole reason we're talking about all this is because the Whigs have always felt like no one else was competent enough to run the country. It's their #1 fear! It's why they rigged the Senate with the Mountain West states to keep Democrats from winning - Northeastern financial elites were terrified that a rural-friendly monetary policy would undermine their vast fortunes.
It's why the same group of politicians could pivot from the failure of their alliance with the hypernativist Know-Nothings, to an alliance with the radical left abolitionists. They don't care about their partners' ideology, they just care about how well they can be controlled.
It's not a conspiracy. It's not that they're trying to "replace" anything - most of the time, they like the Constitutional order perfectly fine, because it's been instrumental in protecting their interests over the centuries. They just don't trust democracy to give them the results they want, and they're willing to *bend* it to legitimize whatever gives them those results. Sometimes, that has meant good things -- like renegotiating the Constitution's failure to ban slavery! The Reconstruction Amendments were passed at the barrel of a gun, after all. But outside of the one or two times they've done something nice, the Whigs have been perfectly happy to undermine the system JUUUST short of breaking it.
And that tendency is the thing I'm trying to call out here. Because we're already seeing just how much they're willing to break, and how close we are to the brink right now. And until the system is reformed to keep Whigs' worst tendencies in check -- as well as those of any other dangerous faction(!) -- we're going to stay at risk of having more metacrises like the current one we're in.
I was thinking about it some more. What I wrote originally sounded like a conspiracy theory, but what I think happens is more an inherited and/or learned frame of mind. There are always people who think they are the smartest ones in the room and so therefore everyone else should do as they wish. That thinking can be passed down in families and even businesses. Then they congregate. Then they collectively become Dr. Frankenstein and now we have Marjorie Taylor Greene, et al.
I see your points. There are groups within the Republican/Conservatives. The nuts are now swinging for the fences and have too much power within the party. They need a smart manager and some good base coaches but don't have them.
Addendum: And the reason why it bugs me is because if it were just as simple as "party over country", then you could hammer them with it for a few election cycles and banish them from power forever. Lefties get excited for that prospect... because it's easy! It's less work for us; it gives us a clear moral high ground, an easy victory to look forward to.
But just because it's easy and promises us all our dreams, doesn't make it *true*.
The "we're the only competent ones to run the country" thing has a much broader mass appeal. It's really difficult for normies of ANY stripe to see any difference between THAT and plain old rooting for their own side. And that means the "party over country" attack falls flat with them - it's just regular old partisan mudslinging, not a valid attack.
So, on one side, you have a bunch of lefties (and Bulwarkers) who think that they've got a magic wand they can wave to make the hated fasc-ish threat disappear. And on the other, you have a bunch of normies who don't really see "keep avowed socialists out of power" as much of a betrayal of the American ideal, even if they might admire a socialist policy or two, so it's not convincing when the socialists who'd otherwise stand to benefit, act like it's disqualifying.
It's just annoying and tiresome to see all this ignorance and hate flying around as the country falls apart around us because of it.