National Conservatism

National conservatism.org ^ | N/A | National conservatism

[nathanbedford]

I read in the blurb:

Our aim is to solidify and energize national conservatives, offering them a much-needed institutional base, substantial ideas in the areas of public policy, political theory, and economics, and an extensive support network across the country.

That tells me these guys are setting out to redefine conservatism. If they are my kinda conservatives, they will have as first principle the Constitution of the United States. They don't bother to say that, why not?

I have already agreed that you need a nation state for our brand of conservatism, our Constitution anticipates these guys by a couple of hundred years and makes and defines how that nationstate is to be identified and governed. I do not understand where these guys are going or why and why are they are trying to get there without the Constitution.

It seems to me that is the first principle, not some identification with a political conception which found expression in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Some application of nationalism have gone very far wrong. Our nation is based on at least two founding documents wherein the nationstate is clearly defined and our rights vis-à-vis that nationstate are defined and written down. Who are these guys to rewrite them? If they are not intending to rewrite them, why don't they just say so?

[Pelham]

I’m not sure what your point is. Edmund Burke of course is featured in Kirk’s The Conservative Mind. I don’t recall Kirk writing about Seldon and Fortescue although he may well have.

My point is that I can’t think of anything that Kirk wrote that would be construed as anything other than nationalist. I’ve read a lot of Kirk and don’t remember him writing anything that would bring aid and comfort to various non-nationalist groups inhabiting the GOP. Neoconservatives, libertarians, or the unhindered global business wing.

[central_va]

The Constitution has failed in my opinion. It has not prevented socialism and has allowed congress to abdicate huge swaths of self rule. For example congress abdicated almost all of our trade policy to the WTO?!!! NGOs such as the WTO do not have the best interest of the American citizenry. The opposite is true.

[Pelham]

“I see no reference in this initial release to constitutional conservatism.”...”But when I read about national conservatism I have no idea what that means except, my country right or wrong?”

The United States had a government for a decade before there was a Constitution.

[nathanbedford]

The Constitution has failed in my opinion.

A lot of people in central Virginia, including my ancestors, felt that way in 1861.

Yet here we are.

[Pelham]

The Koch brothers are libertarians. An ideological sect that Russell Kirk had no use for.

Someone has Kirk’s essay on libertarians posted online:

http://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/202/Libertarians.htm

I keep in the mind the adage that you can accuse libertarians of patriotism, but they will never be found guilty.

[Sheapdog]

1. America last. 2. Unlimited government 3. Special rights for all except conservative white heterosexual Christians

Contemporary Democrat platform and many Republicans surreptitiously if not openly by track record.

Bring on CWII

[Pelham]

The United States governed themselves under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 until 1789. Previous to that the Continental Congress governed on an ad hoc basis as it fought the War of Independence.

The Articles had a relatively weak national gov’t with no easy way to settle disputes between the States. The process that led to replacing the Articles with the Constitution came about because George Washington and some other Virginia investors wanted to build a canal along the Potomac. Probably a lot less of a glorious origin than what most would imagine.

[Pelham]

The Bricker Amendment was proposed back in 1953 to address that same issue.

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

[Boogieman]

“I suggest a full embrace of nationalism, and the MAGA movement in it’s place.”

There’s all kinds of nationalism. National socialism, for example, is a kind of nationalism. So yeah, I would rather support something based on principles I agree with than some ethereal, ill-defined “nationalism” that can be cover for all sorts of things.

[Fiji Hill]

They ain’t makin’ conservatives like Buckley anymore. Sherry, harpsichord music, tweed suits and fake English accents are out. MAGA hats, guerrilla theater and in-your-face confrontations are in. This is the age of high-tech de-platforming, weaponized government agencies, and Antifa violence, and conservatism is changing with the times.

[Boogieman]

“The Constitution has failed in my opinion. It has not prevented socialism and has allowed congress to abdicate huge swaths of self rule.”

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It can’t prevent or allow anything on its own. WE THE PEOPLE have failed to ensure that our government adheres to the Constitution.

[TBP]

Russell Kirk would love that.

[TBP]

True — though I think Dr. Kirk would make a distinction between nationalism and national sovereignty.

[ImpBill]

"WE THE PEOPLE have failed to ensure that our government adheres to the Constitution."

In a nut shell, you are most certainly correct.

[JonPreston]

So yeah, I would rather support something based on principles

I have no idea what you support and the same goes with a room full of conservatives. They'd be split six ways from Sunday over foreign policy, economics and critical social issues. Half the room would welcome insane additional wars while eschewing tariffs. A healthy mix would be ambivalent on abortion. When conservatives can reach a consensus on these matters maybe they can then drill them into a political platform and offer it to the voting public.

[Boogieman]

Yes, and it’s been that way for forty years at least. Remember the “Reagan coalition”? The “three-legged stool”?

We win when we focus on the important issues that have broad enough appeal to get the sane remnant of Americans on board with us. That doesn’t mean we necessarily have to give up on our principles, but it does mean we can’t afford to have some strict purity standard that 70% of the country has no interest in.

[JonPreston]

Again, and not intending to argue, but I have no idea what conservative principles are regarding economics, war and major social issues. I contend any conservative gathering would elicit a split house if these issues were put to a vote. That isn’t a movement, it’s a splintering.

[Boogieman]

“That isn’t a movement, it’s a splintering.”

The “conservative movement” can be defined but alone it garners perhaps twice as many votes as the libertarians or populists. That’s why we have a “conservative coalition” instead, because otherwise the platform is not viable on a national level, or even at the state level in most of the country.

If you think the “MAGA movement” isn’t really the “MAGA coalition” as well operating on basically the same premise, then I’d say you are mistaken. All those blue state democrats who switched over to vote for Trump probably still hold quite a few liberal ideas (just hop on over to r/the Donald on reddit and see how they feel about gay marriage, for example), and the differences among the various conservatives who voted for Trump still exist as well.

[cowboyusa]

It looks like it is inevitable.