Between Kirk and the Cult: Intellectual Conservatism's Decline in the Age of Populism

Rational Purview ^ | Apr 23, 2025 | Croaky Caiman

[TBP]

How do I begin to cover today’s latest development: President Trump, having imposed steep tariffs on Chinese goods—tariffs that reached a staggering 145%—is now signaling a substantial reduction. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has acknowledged these tariffs are "unsustainable," hinting at a likely de-escalation in the trade war with China.

Yet, in a twist of political theater, this retreat is being celebrated by supporters as a strategic masterstroke. The same voices that once championed the tariffs as a bold stand against China now laud their rollback as a savvy move, all without a hint of irony.​

I say this a lot, so you’re probably used to it but: This isn't conservatism; it's a parody of it. A movement that once valued consistency and intellectual rigor now revels in contradictions, mistaking them for cleverness.

They told us we were winning. The rallies were full, the influencers were loud, and the memes were ubiquitous.

But while the Right was busy building an identity out of merch drops and YouTube tantrums, something precious was quietly bleeding out—our ideas.

This was never supposed to be the story of conservatism: a movement once defined by statesmen and scholars, now reduced to a cosplay convention where quoting Burke gets you called a traitor and calling for restraint gets you booed off the stage by men in tactical shorts.

We used to respect things. Now we perform rage. We used to debate ideas. Now we chant slogans. We used to believe in virtue. Now we fundraise off vice.

What we’re watching is an exorcism in reverse—where instead of casting out demons, we invited them in, gave them a podcast, and made them keynote speakers.

But the reckoning is coming. And when it hits, it won’t just destroy the grift—it’ll stain the name of conservatism itself unless someone is left to salvage the truth.

[x]

The connection between intellectual or literary or cultural conservatism and real-world politics has always been distant and weak. Even conservative “movement” politics had trouble actually achieving things in politics and governance. It was natural that eventually discontented people would turn towards more practical, hands-on politics.

[TBP]

So we should just follow whatever the “populist” leaedrs want at any given time?

[x]

We should try to fix the most pressing problems. Movement conservatism doesn’t have a great record of solving problems. It ended the Cold War (and went on to support some disastrous wars). That problem was scratched off the list. It gave us tax cuts. Not great for the deficit and a distraction from dealing with serious structural problems.

It talked a lot about deep cuts in government spending, but it didn’t deliver. Rather than ideologically motivated talk about getting back to some earlier state of things, we need to be more selective about weeding out programs that don’t work or are corrupted and promote division and economic stagnation.

You could see intellectual conservatism resulting more or less in George Will, the idea being that one should have stately decorum and noble traditions flowing from generation to generation. That doesn’t describe anything like today’s America and doesn’t do anything to get us out of the pit we’re in. It discourages, rather than encourages, constructive action.

[TBP]

Incorrect. Conservatism is what solves the problem.