One of the worst aspects of conservative “activism” is (a) the dominance of beltway pundits and their utter disconnect from the “tea party” crowd, and in particular the beltway’s contempt for the latter’s untutored and more tribal and culture-focused conservatism and (b) the right’s divisions and internal enmity, which prevents practical coalition building against a common enemy: liberalism, its welfare state, and its numerous toxic cultural organs.
Conservatism is a simple and widely held view, which need not be philosophical, strictly speaking. It takes nothing more than a recognition that life used to be more orderly and civilized, where such awareness comes from living memory and things easily discovered in books and conversation, coupled with contempt and hostility to those who seek more, similar changes.
Our forbears who opposed Soviet Communism had a similar problem, which is at once encouraging and sobering, when we take account of the longevity of the Soviet regime. Consider this passage from the Age of Delirium, which chronicled the later years of the Soviet Union:
[T]here was moral political unity in the Soviet Union but not behind Marxism-Leninism. The unity existed behind the desire to live according to an idea and to force all others to do likewise. It was the drive towards unanimity that explained some of the negative characteristics of the dissident milieu, which was permeated with rumor-mongering and intrigues and divided by intolerance and sectarianism. . . .
The ideological atmosphere of Soviet society was reflected in relations between people who concerned themselves in any way with politics. Among such people–and this category included the majority of the unofficial intelligentsia–friendship almost always had connotations of comradeship and its demands for uncritical idealization. The intensity fo these friendships was evident among dissents who formed an extended family on political grounds, virtually living at each other’s houses, exhibiting photographs of each other, and interesting themselves deeply in each other’s personal affairs. It went without saying that this type of friendship became insupportable if there was the slightest change in the political outlook of the parties. Under those circumstances, a disagreement between friends was understood as a betrayal, and the closest friendship could turn into the most unforgiving enmity, with people suddenly waking up to and expatiating at length about the repulsive and despicable personality traits they had overlooked for years when the object of such an attacks was a close and valued friend.
What can we learn from this? First, we should not indulge in foolish and petty infighting, particularly with those such as libertarians who have no constituency, natural or otherwise. Yes, we should disassociate from those who would raise a false flag, such as neoconservatives, who have to some extent undermined real conservatism from within and diverted it to unnatural ends like endless Mideast Wars or conflict with Russia or open borders. But we should spend more of our time and energy where the utterly disreputable politics of the far left is ascendent and also unpopular, such as immigration and health care.
Let’s learn from the relative success of our ideological adversaries at home. How did they proceed? Most notably, the Left advanced for many years on many fronts, slowly chipping away at the status quo with the lever of common American principles, such as equality and due process. But they always have upped the ante upon success. Consider the dramatic change in sexual mores and the rules regarding the same. First, they argued for a constitutional right for birth control for the married. Then the unmarried. Then abortion. And now we are seriously debating gay “marriage.” This is a slow motion cultural revolution.
Under the successful leftist campaign, the newspapers, media, universities, political fundraising, and public schools all have been put to work to discredit our past, expose (and distort) its alleged flaws, replace our former authorities, destroy our economic independence, take away our guns, distract us with sensation and materialism and a lack of tribal unity, and generally move step by step towards their goals. (By contrast, the right has won back the right to bear arms through a similar strategy in reverse, focusing activism and money state-by-state.)
In other words, the left’s biggest triumphs have not been through symbolic violence by extremists far in front of the cultural mainstream–like the work of the Wobblies or Haymarket Square bombers–but rather the drumbeat of Gloria Steinem, Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Keynesian economics, the haggiography of MLK, and the leaderless ideology of diversity and multiculturalism. And the culmination: a culture defined by the values of Hollywood, the crony capitalism of Wall Street, and the Manchurian presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
Something like this in reverse is the answer, and, like the Left’s successes, will depend on some luck, circumstances, public relations and intellectual efforts nationally, and a certain degree of organizing locally. The stated goals of the left must be exposed, as must their bad faith. While there are many obstacles, there is much to work with for conservatives seeking national renewal, not least the dissatisfaction with Obama’s fiscal profligacy, his (and the neoconservatives’) open borders extremism, the Democrats’ excessive concern for America’s black minority, their contempt for our economic independence and historical freedoms, their lack of patriotism and their lack of hatred for our enemies, their hostility to Christians and rural Americans, their dominance by unrepresentative and hostile minority factions, and much else. In other words, we need to hack away at the Left on those fronts where there is a majority, or at least strong plurality of support, rather than indulging in silly fantasies of revolutionary violence, the creation of a new pagan or quasi-scientific right wing that is anti-Christian (i.e., against 80% of the country), or the Rockefeller Republican strategy of compromise with our enemies, who will only respond by asking for more next time around.
That all said, arguing with crazies or getting caught up in distractions like the cult of Charles Johnson (the erstwhile militant neocon at LGF) or crackpots on the neo-nazi movement is a big waste of time. Let’s instead speak to normal people on those areas where we agree and cooperate today, even if we must part ways and have smaller, more manageable disagreements about finer points of policy and strategy, tomorrow.
Subscribe To This Feed
First, I feel compelled to voice my disagreement with your opposition to gay marriage. Why should I, as a gay man, not be afforded the benefits of this institution if I had a partner with whom I was raising children?
But that’s somewhat tangential. I think the leftist dominance of our culture is so extensive that the long term viability of a conservative movement as defined today (as opposed to one where the meaning of conservative is constantly redefined to suit the context of a leftward-drifting mainstream) depends on the ability of conservatives to insulate their children from the indoctrination to which they would be exposed via television and film and through the public schools. Adolescents especially rely on signals from their peers when forming their worldviews, and public education pretty much snuffs out conservativism in the minds of all but the most stubborn young. (I think the homeschooling movement is a first step toward such insulation, though it’s certainly an imperfect an Ill-organized one.). In short, I think conservatives need to set up their own self-sustaining counterculture from which they can engage the majority culture on their own terms.
I shouldn’t have to recap the well known conservative arguments about gay marriage. In short, change is bad, homosexuality is self-destructive and society-destructive and should not be encouraged, and society should not promote alternative families as they’re bad for kids. Gay marriage is part of the broader leftist assault on traditional sexual morality, which assault is designed to make us less self-respecting, fecund, and able to resist the leftist assault on the rest of our culture.
As for subcultures and little plattoons and pursoseful withdrawal, that is a defensible proposal and I wrote something about that possibility (an dothers at takimag.com).
Homosexuality is self destructive and society destructive how, exactly? Perhaps the reason people keep asking conservatives to explain their opposition to homosexuality is that they simply don’t see the causal connection. Seriously, how does me going on a date with a man destroy myself and society? I’ve been in the closet, which is where conservatives want me to be, and i can tell u from experience nothing is more self-destructive than that.,.
Just search my blog; there are many extended discussions of this subject. but, long story short, if you don’t channel people towards lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage and have a strong pressure to do the same, it becomes less common (as it has), people don’t reproduce, men don’t care for kids, the quest for titilation leads to greater and greater perversions, and eventually we all burn out. Happened to Rome and ishappening to us.
This is not my number one issue, though, I find divorce more destructive than societal normalization or compassion to homosexuals, but I think the entire sexual revolution is interconnected.
I’ll search yr blog when I’m using something more conducive to a search than am iPhone.
I suppose I don’t see the sexual revolution and the normalization of homosexuality as inextricably intertwined by virtue of their natures, though historically the first certainly gave rise to the latter.
I agree that society should channel heterosexuality into a monogamous marriage. But do you really want society pressuring gay people into straight marriages? What if your daughter married a closeted gay man, and went through the devastation of learning she was basically just a cover?
Surely you don’t believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice…?
To be honest, I worry at times that gay marriage will just trivialize marriage even further in the eyes of the majority – I.e. That marriage will just become another lifestyle choice, and not the norm. Actually, I think we may well be there already, despite a lack if gay marriage. Still, I’d like to see society normalize homosexuality while preserving marriage as an ideal for straight people. I don’t consider these mutually exclusive goals, though I suspect you might.