Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Freedom Is a Tricky Thing
“The Republican Party is broken,” writes Brandi Love, a self-identified “Conservative PornStar who writes for the Federalist,” according to her Twitter bio. Brandi was an attendee of Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit. A conservative gathering for the young, hip, and constitutionally-minded designed to galvanize future conservative leaders. The summit features many of the stars of the conservative movement from the Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles to Dr. Ben Carson.
According to the TPUSA website:
Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit is an invite-only event primarily intended for students between the ages of 15 and 26. If you are an adult wishing to attend, we have a limited number of adult tickets available.
Brandi Love was the holder of one of those limited adult tickets.
She publicized that she would be going live from her hotel at the conference on her website onlybrandi.com. She added she would be doing so, “behind the paywall of my OnlyFans (So we don’t offend the low T white nationalist religious zealots.)”
She later had her invitation revoked, and the chasm between what Brandi defines as “conservatives” and “social conservatives” was revealed.
She accused Twitter commenters who disagreed with her of “once again mixing Social Conservatism and Conservatism.”
The question arises, is there a viable conservative movement that precludes social conservatism?
You can spot a TPUSA student from a mile away in their “Big Gov Sucks” masks and hip t-shirts with slogans like “save the bees and the republic.” Self-described, TPUSA is the “community organizers of the right.” The end goal, according to their mission, is the promotion of freedom.
Freedom is a tricky thing. It is seen as both a means and an end. Freedom is a prerequisite for a moral society, and simultaneously it is impossible to maintain freedom without a moral populace.
The question to wrestle with is why be free? If freedom itself is the aim, then it feels disingenuous to exclude Brandi Love from the TPUSA event. In the most basic meaning of the word, shouldn’t she be free to attend? This is the hypocrisy Brandi has taken to Twitter to point out.
Perhaps, we as conservatives have made a mistake in our messaging– inviting more into the fold and expanding the conservative base at the risk of losing the soul of what we set out to do.
What did we set out to do?
Win elections? By all means, bring in as many people as possible. It’s a numbers game and we need them all.
Beat the Democrats? Again, a numbers game. Bring them all on.
Restore human decency, order, and alignment with creation? We have slipped off track.
Freedom itself is not an end; it’s a doorway. There are many things I do not want the freedom to do:
The freedom to take a life.
The freedom to abuse a child.
The freedom to buy and sell my sexuality and the sexuality of others.
As our founders knew, to pursue the highest life, we needed freedom. But what good is freedom if it is used to justify baseness?
The natural end of the libertarian leanings of the conservative movement is virtueless anarchy–a world where we not only allow, but accommodate and support that which we know to be destructive.
There is a balance to strike between supporting the freedom of others, while not allowing what they do with their freedom to define the entire movement. There is the possibility for nuance. That is, as long as we are honest about our aims.
I aim for a high-minded society (that is, a society working to create heaven on earth) full of healthy people working in conjunction with creation and the creator. Freedom is a wonderful vehicle for that aim.
The totalitarian Soviet Union denied their citizens freedom which prevented them from achieving a higher ideal. In that case, freedom was still a doorway, and once it shut, the people were hard-pressed to rise above depravity.
But freedom is a doorway, nonetheless, on the way to something bigger than even freedom itself. There lies the rallying call of the conservative movement. It is a call to restore order–a call to connect to higher ideals.
Perhaps the message isn’t simply “come as you are,” but rather, “come as you are and then get better.” We can ask each other to enter the doorway of freedom and then keep walking. In that way, the movement is not a fold that holds as many sheep as possible, but rather a launching pad to a more meaningful life.
The religious world is also stuck in the doorway, grappling with the same problem as the conservative movement. The youth in the faith have had enough of “coffee house Christianity” and the like. They see through the baseless and easygoing self-help teachings and are begging to move past the elementary — to be pushed, to expand their knowledge, and to aim higher.
The modern church thought it would bring in more people if the church more resembled everywhere else. In doing so, they have destroyed the sanctity of the Holy Spaces and reduced the pursuit of faith to Chicken Soup for the Soul. (A book I loved as a young girl, by the way, but no substitute for in-depth spiritual studies.)
The conservative movement, like the church, has attempted to behave like the audience they want to reach in an effort to grow the base. In doing so, the members they recruit are denied any opportunities for growth, challenge, and pursuit of higher ideals.
Comfort and weak-minded inclusion of all ideas is the best friend who justifies your drinking problem. She expresses friendship but ensures you never overcome your addiction.
This is, of course, a more ideological than political discussion. Many conservatives embrace the big tent philosophy to win elections. But the conservative movement does not end (or even begin) at the ballot box.
This is not an argument to avoid allyship. As the common saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I believe that wholeheartedly. I love to see the unexpected alliances rising to defeat damaging Marxist ideas and their various manifestations. I pursue these allyships, as we all should. But if our movement is unable to be inclusive while simultaneously holding our standards, then what good do we offer the people we are including anyway?
What good is a conservative movement that doesn’t address the whole of a human being–political, spiritual, economic, relational?
If conservatism doesn’t stand for the American family–an institution proven over and over again to benefit us and our neighbors, then why have a movement?
If conservatism can’t stand for the sacredness of human sexuality, then why have a movement?
If the conservative movement is just about electing the right people, or worse, a cloaked and seductive march towards anarchy, then why have a movement?
As we become wrapped up in the game of growth, the game of numbers, we have to stay connected to why we do what we do–to what end?
I argue that freedom alone is not a satisfying end.
Of course, our founders took for granted that freedom would provide the platform for the more important work of maintaining a moral society deserving of that freedom in the first place. The opinions of the faith were so commonplace they were considered self-evident. In fact, the faith of early Americans is what made freedom self-evident.
But freedom is a tricky thing, and what we do with it matters.
Mikayla Goetz is a renegade actress turned conservative storyteller. Since receiving her B.F.A. in Theatre Arts from Coastal Carolina University, Mikayla has worked as a story developer, writer, and consultant with armed service members, veterans, and Jewish-Ukrainian refugees. She has led the development of plays, film work, community initiatives, and an audio series. Mikayla is the Host of the SomethingBurger Podcast and a regular voice on AM 950-Orlando.
Published in Culture
I don’t know if I would put order on such a high pedestal. Order as a standalone concept is as problematic as freedom as a standalone concept. (Now I hate myself for using the weasel word “problematic.” I’ll either have to get used to it or else think of a better word.)
And it’s not just that we need a balance between order and freedom. The concept of community needs to be part of it, too. As you point out, unfettered freedom can destroy families. It can also destroy non-familial communities. If one accepts freedom as a universal right, then one is setting oneself up for abolishing all local self-governments that may be deemed to infringe on the universal right of freedom, and that means destroying a lot of self-governing communities. And then there is nothing left to protect an individual or family from the totalitarian state.
When a Republican member of Congress refers to himself as a “fiscal conservative,” and repeats the term over and over in case he didn’t show enough disdain for social conservatives the first time he said it, you know you’ve got a Republican who needs to be primaried. You also know you’ve got a tax-and-spend Republican on your hands.
Doing my part.
Welcome to Ricochet, Mikayla!
Great first post. I especially liked this part:
You wrote these as two separate bullet points, but I suspect you know that they are inextricably linked.
I have long had libertarian sympathies, but I also understand that libertarian ideals were established from moral and ethical standards that came before them. Libertarian ideals cannot stand alone. Which is why I am a conservative. It is my belief that one cannot be conservative without social conservatism–anything less has no answer to the destruction of American society.
I believe it is also true that fiscal conservatism and free market conservatism are necessary for American society. Splitting conservatism into social, fiscal, and free market factions is a tool of the left aimed at weakening their opposition.
It may be that conservatism cannot win elections this way. If so, the cause is truly already lost.
Exactly. But when we abandon faith and family, bad things happen.Christianity endures because people learn this the head way, over and over. Too bad things must get bad before those on the unholy left look for the fix. They will, again.
The Bush II administration furthered the permission for this farce with their need to water down conservatism with their preferred adjective of “compassionate” in front of it.
The same Bush II admin thought the populace were too icky to associate too closely with. Guess what, spineless RINOs, Conservatism is compassionate even if you think it too icky by itself.
This is why I’m very neutral on zoning battles. The local population has a right to determine that and no one outside should be forcing them one way or another.
Part of the housing crisis is not limited to zoning laws. It’s also part of where businesses choose to build up. I guess having a high turn over rate means you will need to be in an area with similar industries, but I don’t see high turnover as a sign of a healthy business.
In a high tech world, there’s no reason for all industry to be located in a handful of ports. And spreading out a bit opens up opportunities for small service and retail employers, as well. Why isn’t affordable housing for employees a responsible consideration for businesses to determine where to set up shop?
Maybe they could have arranged that, if they’d known about her plans in advance.
Did I say they should be jettisoned? I did not.
Let’s go to the videotape for a replay, folks!
“A lot of would-be allies are reluctant to join up with the bluenose no-fun brigade, as they see it.”
The phrase “as they see it” was employed to indicate the left’s view, not mine.
I’m not a political consultant and I’m not advocating spitting on anyone. I’m advocating expanding the base by not making social issues the litmus test for joining a new conservative movement. A big tent means there’s going to be lots of people with whom you disagree, and while we’d all like the tent to be full of elephants, there’s going to be some clowns.
If I knew for certain that a presidential candidate would cut taxes, reduce regulation, pull out of the Paris Accords, scrap the Iranian deal, put the screws to China, oppose illegal immigration, and encourage energy production, I wouldn’t care if he’d been indifferent to religion his entire life and slept with a porn star. I wouldn’t admire him, but I’ll take the bigger wins.
Thanks Columbo
You make David French weep.
And, good going for it!
I don’t want to be pedantic but this is Ricochet, so this may be the source of the confusion.
Preclude literally means, “to prevent the existence of,” or “to exclude.” So the impression I got was something like exclude or prevent.
Welcome to Ricochet, @mikayla-goetz! Do come back to your post and engage some of the very interesting and thoughtful comments.
Hear, hear. 7 for 7 in your count. Also pissed in Putin’s bed (energy stuff and weapons to Ukraine) and got actual peace treaties signed in the Middle East. So 9 for 9 in my count. And Sleepy Joe will blow them all up on less than a year. Welcome back, Carter.
Hello!
Thank you. It is a very busy day today but I will back tomorrow making sure I give each awesome adequate thought before responding!
For the left, that’s a feature, not a bug.
Sure, because we need more tranny story hours. Let’s get ahead of the Left and normalize pedophilia too. Or
https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/19/the-conservative-case-for-hardcore-porn/
Just kidding!
Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.
— Michael Malice
You wrote preclude the presence of social conservatives which I took to mean exclude. I remember Rush Limbaugh talking about how a Chamber of Commerce R chap circa 1990 told Rush that he needed to reign in pro lifers. I realize the need to combinr with people who disagree with me on certain issues, but too often get the feeling that some of the R leadership think we’re icky, primitive chaps. Some of us know how to operate our GPS devices (that’s a joke people).
Moderator Note:
You are wrong that your comment belongs in this thread.[comment redacted]
…and an introduction to conspicuous (i.e.Main Feed) thread jacking for the newbie. How nice.
Although James didn’t use the “reply” function in his original comment, I think it’s time someone pointed out that the words:
come directly from the OP, and are not James’s own.
I took his response to the question posed in the OP to be a suggestion that he believes the conservative movement should not be shut off from those who aren’t social conservatives, that it should adopt a “big tent,” approach in inviting new members to participate; that bringing people into the fold who are drawn to conservative principles, but are not necessarily socially conservative themselves is not a bad thing in and of itself; that we always have the opportunity to educate; and that we could show ourselves to be far less despotic than the Left when it comes to ideological purity tests for admission to our movement. I think wringing much more of anything out of James’s comment requires strenuous overreading.
Fair point.
However, SoCons tend to be some of the most tolerant of all the political subgroups (recognizing that “we’re all sinners”) and have always made compromises in our alliances to try to incrementally work toward the greater good. Social “liberals” on the Right seem to adopt the Left’s stance that we’re judgmental and icky. Personally, I think porn is icky — and destructive to individuals and society.
For once, I’d like to see social liberals on the Right be worried about us aligning with them.
We didn’t win anything. We just slowed temporarily their march though the institutions.
I agree that what, on the battlefield, would pass for ‘friendly fire’ among factions on the Right is very damaging to the overall cause. (I’m human enough to enjoy some schadenfreude at the recent open and very public splits on the Left–who usually do a far better job of papering over their differences and sticking together than we do). Have we lost the ability to put the genie back in the bottle, or is the only option to spit into two (or more) separate entities?
Oh, so do I. But I’m with Lileks here:
And I’d reserve the right to say that his personal proclivities and lack of impulse control are concerning, without that necessarily consigning me to the flames of the irredeemable.
I don’t think this “Brandi Love” matter has much to do with my opinion of porn, though. I’m less impressed with her porn credentials (whatever they are) than I think she’s just a shameless media hound who decided (rightly) that she could gin up some exposure (LOL) for herself by poking social conservatives in the eye, dishonestly impugning those who disagree with her, luring the prurient and the gullible to her OnlyFans site to see her dish some sort of dirt, and making some money.
I think they’re very worried only that others might think that’s already the case, and that’s why they take such pains to draw the lines.
I think that’s part of the divide between the Establishment GOP and the Working Class GOP right there.
I agree with you! It has been easy to these social conventions for granted–until they have been challenged as of late.
It’s as if they’ve never met a real Christian. Maybe that’s partly our fault.