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
Did we ever?
It’s super easy to act like one big happy family when you get your way, but the true test is when you are not getting your way.
NT has had full run of the party since HW with complete and unquestioning Evangelical support. But the moment evangelicals assert their position, because neoconnery wasn’t working for them after 20 years, they bolted.
So who, exactly, wasn’t willing to play with their team? The people who gave the other part full control for 20 years and supported every offering? Or the ones who bolted as soon as they didn’t get their way?
Also, are we talking about politics or philosophy/culture? Politics is the place for a big tent. A philosophical or cultural movement not as much. I can make common cause with libertarians, but I think they are wrong about fundamental things. If I’m interested in advancing the intellectual/cultural movement of conservatism then letting barbarians – even allied barbarians – into the gate will not advance my cause. We should have an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out.
That’s not to say that we should attack those not already in the fold. No, we should persuade as many as we can and in turn be open to persuasion, but we have a right to exist too without making room for and accommodating other movements which are counterproductive.
I’m missing something in this conversation and I very much want to. Worried about social conservatives aligning with who?
And do you mean them not taking our support for granted?
After spending time on her twitter it doesn’t seem she plans to retire soon. She passionately stands for pornography as a morale good, a Christian calling even. She seems bent on alienating those with traditional values by saying things like “Low T white nationalists religious zealots.” It’s not that she just wants to be accepted, she wants to become the gatekeeper of the movement herself.
What do you think?
Run for the hills!!! Maybe she should get to know the other people in the movement that already exists before trying to force us into her cookie cutter.
Ditto on all counts.
Who bolted though? I think the SoCons have been bolting since McCain blamed Palin for his dismal performance, and given how the GOP treats them as if they own the SoCon vote (“Who else are you going to vote for? Democrats!”) I’m not surprised. This is why the GOP still can’t understand how SoCons went to Trump — perhaps reluctantly in 2016, but enthusiastically in 2020.
Thank you for the recommendation. I will consider that differentiation moving forward.
You are also not the first to raise concern on the “enemy of my enemy” notion. I was referencing the emerging alliance of seemingly strange bedfellows popping up–i.e. conservatives and radical feminists in the gender debate. I do agree that caution is important. Perhaps “friends close and enemies closer” even.
That’s what I mean. They do. They have done since Reagan.
I understand this sentiment, but Brandi encourages pornography as a morale good. The younger generations (especially men) are being eaten alive by it. There was a popular campaign called “Porn Kills Love” because the pornography industry has caused a rift in real life relations between men and women. This disrupts the family as well, which is a cornerstone of the conservative movement.
Yeah, I think it’s possible we’re conflating the two in this discussion.
I agree with you as far as winning elections (which is highly important) But what I am interested in is casting a vision of the conservative movement beyond the ballot box.
I love that John Adams quote!
For me, I don’t think we should celebrate porn.
Then again, I heard lots of conservatives go on and on about Game of Thrones.
A good friend of mine in the communication world says, “Sure facts don’t care about your feelings but feelings also don’t care about your facts.”
I do think we may benefit from metaphorically dying on more hills. It will give more consistency to what we do. We actually stand for what we say we believe.
Thank you! I am happy to be here.
I think we can win elections that way. People root for the David who stands his ground for what is right.
It’s a huge issue. I know of young faithful Catholic women who meet young faithful Catholic men at daily Mass and find out in short order (looking at their social media profiles and then talking to them directly) that they’re addicted to porn.
I believe it was JPII who said, “abortion is the human rights issue of our time.” It’s still at the top, imo (we can’t keep killing people to solve our problems and expect to have a civilized society), but porn addiction has rapidly, with technology, ascended to the #2 spot. My brother living and working near the Amish says he even sees Amish children gathered around watching porn on their phones (yes, they have phones).
And like marijuana, it’s a vice that has gotten more potent and much more toxic in recent years. This isn’t like having to go down to the 7-11 and ask for the Playboy behind the counter while showing your ID. This is carried around in your pocket and “movies” are available wherever there’s internet access. People are being exploited, including children, and sometimes even murdered. It’s a grave evil for which I have zero libertarian sympathies. A scourge upon humanity.
I do think “compassionate” as a description of conservative will be very important for messaging to political “middle.” As you said, the movement is already compassionate–but to connect those two words together is still brilliant for reaching new people!
It would be a moving forum, no doubt.
I think that is how most people view conservatism–which may account for it’s unpopularity.
Not going to be easy influencing the culture from this metaphorical deathbed.EDIT: Sorry, I misread the context completely. And instead I will say “YES!” It’s time to claim more hills. (Because I don’t actually believe those hills will be our metaphorical graves.)
Disagree. “Compassionate” conservatism accepts the premise that regular conservatism is uncompassionate. It’s bad messaging, like telling vaccinated people to wear masks while simultaneously trying to convince more people to be vaccinated.
Anytime a modifier is added it weakens the subject: “social justice” is really socialism injustice. There’s justice (giving people what they’re due (according to natural rights)) and then there everything else. Others could probably come up with more examples.
I’m not certain it is. The question should be asked, compassionate to WHO?
Political and national leaders being “compassionate” to illegal immigrants is not compassionate to their constituents.
I would rather ditch the word. It is far to loaded against the actual people voting and does more to scratch a virtuous itch in those it would attract.
Did evangelicals abandon McCain? There were issues, but I thought they were still trying to be supportive.
NT jumped ship when Trump was nominated.
I am all over the place in this thread, and no longer sure who I’m agreeing with. : D
I think that was the start of an awakening among evangelicals that the GOP talks like they’re fighting for us, but they never really do anything. They just want the votes and the donor cash. They considered us a captured demographic. And I think they were (and still are) horrified that we threw in with Donald Trump. The anti-Trump evangelicals (like David French to name one notorious example, but there are many more) instantly began their attempts to shame evangelicals for how they voted. “You’re destroying your Christian witness by supporting President Trump!” They never understood why we voted for him and never really wanted to understand. All they wanted to do was shame us back onto the GOPe plantation.