The Right as Formulated the Past 40 Years Deserved to Lose

 

The conservative project of the past 40 years is clearly an abysmal failure. The right has failed to conserve anything. Even the definitions of male and female got changed. The right could not even keep that. Something so fundamental and obvious as women are the ones who give birth is something the right has failed utterly at maintaining. This is a loss that is so staggering and complete that we can only blame ourselves.

First, we have to define “right.” I mean, what does being on the right mean? That is something no one can figure out, really. The right sits around and talks about minarchy, anarchy, objectivism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, “I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal,” “I’m fiscally liberal but socially conservative,” constitutionalist, originalist, paleocon, neocon, Austrian school, Chicago school, Jeffersonian, Madisonian, Hamiltonian, Berkian, and on and on and on. For complaining that the left marinates in a lot of BS theory, the right sure marinates in it itself.

The difference is there is little disagreement on the left about where it wants to go and what its vision looks like. It disagrees on tactics. The right disagrees on fundamentals. I think the reason for this is because on the right, there is no coherent unified vision. In fact, there is no vision. Where is the right taking us? “Free markets” is about all we hear. It is the solution to all problems. The market shall fix all. Competition makes everything better. The government makes everything worse. Furthermore, the left actually delivers on its theories, while the right stays in theory mode forever. The right actually never reduces government. The right is against using the government to advance on any issue. So no issue gets advanced. The left is all for using the government for everything. It wins. Game. Set. Match. This has been the paradigm for 40 years.

Look at what the left did to the police. The left has hated the police pretty openly for a very long time. As soon as the left saw an opening to hurt a group it considers to be anti-left, it defunded it in the billions of dollars in cities all over the country. The left has successfully cut more government than the small-government right has ever cut. The pressure to this very day on the cops is that they are afraid to be in any kind of altercation with a constituency of the left that could even be taken the wrong way or seen as abusive. Cops have been neutered. The crime rates go up and up and up. The left put them on notice. Cops coast to coast do not want to be the next one made an example of.

Compare this to when the IRS got outed for abusing tea party voters. What happened? Did the right cut its funding? Did the right call the entire organization corrupt and force it into fear of even looking like it is abusing its constituents? The right kept on funding it. The people responsible got away with no punishment. The same is true of the FBI and Department of Justice. The small-government right never even defunds institutions that have totally failed. We have declined in educational achievement in this country since the establishment of the Department of Education. Its budgets are bigger than ever and have grown under Republican Congresses and presidents. The right endlessly complains about government regulation and red tape and never cuts a penny out of the National Labor Relations Board, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and the list goes on.

The right has been funding and expanding our abusers for decades. The left cuts its enemies at the knees. The left tells U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that there will be no cooperation with it in California. The left frees illegals out of prison to protect them. The small-government right increases the budgets of the Department of Energy so the next Democrat president can order it to forbid all energy exploration and exploitation and push the Green New Deal. We have a movement and a party that never fought to protect its constituents from government excess even as it said for decades that the government was the problem. The truth about the right is it is far more corrupt and full of crap than the left. The left lies and engages in corruption to advance its goals and serve its progressive base. The right lies and engages in corruption to stab its base in the back and deliver on none of its core principles.

Then these people get mad at you that you went and found an outsider like Trump to represent you. How dare you! You need to take failure and betrayal endlessly. Go read some more biographies on Lincoln as we mention Reagan’s name 40 billion more times to placate you. As we fund your enemies with your tax dollars and enable your abuse, we will tell you platitudes about family values and local government.

And if that isn’t the worst of it, the free-market gibberish turned out to be just that. We handed our manufacturing base and ability to innovate in that sector over to China. Imagine handing over any sector of this economy to an enemy. Imagine if we stopped growing food and said we will let some enemy nation like Putin’s Russia grow all our food. We won’t innovate in that sector anymore. Now there aren’t many jobs in the agricultural sector anymore since we handed production over to Russia. The Russians grow it cheaper. They control a gigantic percentage of our food supply, and it is great all of this opportunity no longer exists in agriculture and control of our food supply lines left our shores because the invisible hand! This insanity was told to working-class men and women who were suffering. To people whose towns were sent into mini depressions over this offshoring. And they were further told oh yeah! Go learn to code. That’s the future anyway. There is no more to do when it comes to industrial manufacturing and engineering. Those disciplines have totally been mastered. There is no more innovation to be had. China should have those capabilities and not us. Free markets. So go! Move your family of four to California where your values are hated, and there is human feces every 12 steps on the sidewalk. And oh yeah! A shack costs $1.5 million, and your standard of living will totally go down, but Adam Smith! You know? So learn to code. See you and your kids in San Francisco at the gay parade! Conservativism!

No wonder these people did not vote for us. No wonder why this isn’t a sell to many working-class people. And when someone a little different came along and these working-class people got behind him, they got nothing but contempt from the intellectual right who wrought all this. The intellectual right was enjoying sitting on its fat butts when it wasn’t on the Washington cocktail circuit promoting its 12 billionth book about leadership and courage, principles and valor, Thatcher and Reagan, Churchill and Reagan, Reagan and Reagan.

I am a new member here, and I am of a new right. Hopefully, a right that can actually call itself conservative with a straight face. A right that will actually conserve something. And I believe that the founding fathers did not establish this government to be poor at doing things. They did not establish it to be a problem. They were wary of government, but they founded it to secure the blessings of liberty. They founded it to promote the general welfare of the people. They founded it to establish justice. They founded it to ensure domestic tranquility. They founded it to make our union more perfect. That does not sound like government being a problem. The government does none of these things today. And a right that will use the government forcefully and righteously to make this a reality and protect our traditions, culture, and institutions is the future. A right with a vision of where it wants to take the country and that establishes real, lasting rejuvenation to the American way and also, dare I say, produces real progress, unlike the left. The right that said the government is the problem and markets are the total answer has failed. Time for a new formula. We need one fast.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 147 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    GlenEisenhardt: Look at what the left did to the police. The left has hated the police pretty openly for a very long time. As soon as the left saw an opening to hurt a group they consider to be anti-left they defunded them in the billions of dollars in cities all over the country. The left has successfully cut more government than the small government right has ever cut. The pressure to this very day on the cops is that they are afraid to be in any kind of altercation with a constituency of the left that could even be taken the wrong way or seen as abusive. Cops have been neutered. The crime rates go up and up and up. The left put them on notice. Cops coast to coast do not want to be the next one made an example of. 

    The left may have – at least briefly, since they seem to be walking it back now – “defunded” the police, but that doesn’t really mean “cutting spending” or “reducing government.”  They spend as much, or more, on other things instead.  And they regulate as much, or more, in other areas instead.

    • #1
  2. GlenEisenhardt Coolidge
    GlenEisenhardt
    @GlenEisenhardt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    GlenEisenhardt: Look at what the left did to the police. The left has hated the police pretty openly for a very long time. As soon as the left saw an opening to hurt a group they consider to be anti-left they defunded them in the billions of dollars in cities all over the country. The left has successfully cut more government than the small government right has ever cut. The pressure to this very day on the cops is that they are afraid to be in any kind of altercation with a constituency of the left that could even be taken the wrong way or seen as abusive. Cops have been neutered. The crime rates go up and up and up. The left put them on notice. Cops coast to coast do not want to be the next one made an example of.

    The left may have – at least briefly, since they seem to be walking it back now – “defunded” the police, but that doesn’t really mean “cutting spending” or “reducing government.” They spend as much, or more, on other things instead. And they regulate as much, or more, in other areas instead.

    The point is they cut and neutered a sector of the government they do not like. Is the FBI as afraid of messing with Republican voters as cops are afraid of messing with any minority the left deems as protected? Not even close. The DoJ announced it would chill your speech at your school board meetings. It will investigate you if you dare get a little out of line at any of these school board hearings. The cops don’t dare police as hard as they used to. They are terrified. They’ll police you no problem. They won’t police leftist protected categories. The left totally got their goals into force. The right wants to see the AG they voted for to abuse you and will give him a stern talking to. Then the FBI will investigate you for going to your school board meetings.

    • #2
  3. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    GlenEisenhardt: I am a new member here and I am of a new right.

    Welcome, and thank you for joining us.

    • #3
  4. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    I like your energy, but how ya gonna do that?

    • #4
  5. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    GlenEisenhardt: The right disagrees on fundamentals. I think the reason for this is because on the right there is no coherent unified vision. In fact there is no vision. Where is the right taking us? Free markets is about all we hear. It is the solution to all problems. The market shall fix all. Competition makes everything better. The government makes everything worse.

    So if the Right isn’t all about the free market, take you where it may, what is it about?

    • #5
  6. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Good post! Welcome, Glen.

    • #6
  7. Lawst N. Thawt Coolidge
    Lawst N. Thawt
    @LawstNThawt

    Welcome to the conversation.

    I hadn’t planned on getting online this morning, but your post made me think thoughts to share, which is not so much what as it is why. 

    The Right, by definition, doesn’t plan to do much at the federal level, except dismantling what the Left has done in the last X or XX years.  It’s harder for the Right to dismantle things because the Right’s constituents include the people on the Left, whereas the Left has no constituents.

     

     

    • #7
  8. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Welcome!

    (I’ll have what he’s having)

    • #8
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Yes. Yes. Yes.

     

    • #9
  10. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Welcome!

    There is a lot to like here, especially criticisms of Republicans who do not prosecute or even defund bad actors within the state.

    But there is also some naïveté.  Government is inherently left-wing. And Establishment Republicans have LONG believed that government just needs the Right People in charge, and it will be OK. That is partly how we are in the pickle we are in now. So your conclusion, that you want a government that does what Republicans want it to do… is doomed. 

    Trump WAS in charge. The Deep State subverted, undermined, and ignored him. 

    • #10
  11. Lawst N. Thawt Coolidge
    Lawst N. Thawt
    @LawstNThawt

    BDB (View Comment):

    Welcome!

    (I’ll have what he’s having)

    It’s good stuff unless you’re referring elsewhere which I can’t vouch for. 

    • #11
  12. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    iWe (View Comment):

    Welcome!

    There is a lot to like here, especially criticisms of Republicans who do not prosecute or even defund bad actors within the state.

    But there is also some naïveté. Government is inherently left-wing. And Establishment Republicans have LONG believed that government just needs the Right People in charge, and it will be OK. That is partly how we are in the pickle we are in now. So your conclusion, that you want a government that does what Republicans want it to do… is doomed.

    Trump WAS in charge. The Deep State subverted, undermined, and ignored him.

    Trump made the mistake of not putting his own people in place.  Part of this was because he didn’t have any people to put in place, so what he got was  a set or Republican retreads mostly.  These folks by and large were not loyal to him and so had little or no problem circumventing him.  I honestly don’t know if that is for the best or not.  I have go on record here as being a Trump supporter; however, I supported his policies more than his style and I am unsure what part of his policies occurred because of him and what part may have occurred in spite of him.   

    This is a problem with pulling in an outsider.   One reason to pull in a politician like a governor or a senator is that they will have a list of people to put into positions that they have relationships with.  This can lead to more conservative policies over time.  Regan mostly did this and setup at least a minimal amount of inertia in the right direction at least enough of it to accomplish his principle objective.  Trump may be in a position to do this if he is reelected.  I honestly don’t know,  Trump was pretty hit or miss on his appointments even late in his term.  

    • #12
  13. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    @gleneisenhardt

    Welcome.  Their is a quote that Dan Bongino has that is useful here, “Most Republicans are actually Democrats but no Democrats are actually Republicans.”  this is often paired with another quote of his,  “Republicans are not the answer to your problems.  Democrats are the cause of your problems.”   I often find both of this quotes helpful reminders of the state of things.   

     

    • #13
  14. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    GlenEisenhardt: The right disagrees on fundamentals. I think the reason for this is because on the right there is no coherent unified vision. In fact there is no vision. Where is the right taking us? Free markets is about all we hear. It is the solution to all problems. The market shall fix all. Competition makes everything better. The government makes everything worse.

    So if the Right isn’t all about the free market, take you where it may, what is it about?

    Anyone on the right claiming to be free market and also pushing vaccine mandates (or defending them) is lying.

    • #14
  15. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    I like the energy.

    GlenEisenhardt: The right has been funding and expanding our abusers for decades. The left cuts their enemies at the knees. The left tells ICE that there will be no cooperation with them in California. The left frees illegals out of prison to protect them. The small government right increases the budgets of The Department of Energy so the next Democrat President can order them to forbid all energy exploration and exploitation and push the Green New Deal. We have a movement and a party that never fought to protect their constituents from government excess even as they said for decades that the government was the problem.

    Fair call. One thing the right can learn from the Trump interregnum is that everyone in the Federal Government despises the conservative base, from the wackiest diversity hire to the straightest-laced of buzz-cut G-men. I really think it’s got to the point that the Federal Government as it is currently constituted just can’t be used to achieve conservative ends.

    GlenEisenhardt: The difference is there is little disagreement on the left about where they want to go and what their vision looks like. They disagree on tactics.

    This I’m not so sure about. It seems to me that there is no commonality in the visions for the world of AOC, President Potato, Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. They all agree that they should have power and their enemies shouldn’t – so they do agree on tactics.

    GlenEisenhardt: a right that will use the government forcefully and righteously to make this a reality and protect our traditions, culture, and institutions is the future.

    And this is where the arguments between the various flavours of conservatism start, especially when you talk of “real progress” and destinations.

    Surely what we need is a coalition that believes that wherever we finally want the Republic to end up – whether AnCap or Virtuecon or National Greatness – the journey begins by crushing our enemies. Which, I’m afraid, includes the current government apparatus.

    • #15
  16. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    Rants are nice, but how do we get folks to give up the faith that government can make things right?  It is so easy to abrogate your individual autonomy to the elites and powerful who claim that they can and should be placed in charge and that they can bring “justice, equity and affirmative rights.”  We have to remind people that an election is not an IQ test, or a measure of integrity.  They need to treasure their liberty enough that they don’t give it up.  The Left in America , as it is and has been everywhere, is a collection of grifters, idiots, egotists and false prophets who seek aggrandization and wealth.  They are exactly what they accuse Conservatives of being.  We can’t out-govern them.  Government is not a resource allocation problem or a managerial problem.  Reagan and Trump both knew that the federal government was no longer a trim garden, but a field of noxious weeds spreading from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  It needs to be pulled up root and branch and set to fire.  Those sewing its seeds need to be exposed as the ignorant, egotistical false prophets that they actually are.   We are Americans, the can do people, who put a man on the moon, bankrupted the Soviet Union, ended the cold war,  beat the Nazis and the Japanese totalitarian racists.  We can do anything.  But before we can do anything, we have to secure our own individual rights at home.  They include the right to speak, the right to a secure homeland with borders, the right to own and carry arms, the right to life, the right to vote in secure, accountable elections, the right to debate freely and peaceably protest, among others.  

    • #16
  17. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    I’ll second a comment above: I appreciate the energy. And there are several specifics with which I might agree. And I’m certainly not above penning a rant from time to time (and more often lately, it seems). But I was wary with the first couple of sentences:

    GlenEisenhardt: The right has failed to conserve anything.

    How do you know?

    I am free to move anywhere in the country, to say anything I want, to engage in any work I choose, to practice any faith I like, to have as many or as few children as I wish, to own guns and drive a gas guzzling behemoth and peaceably assemble and express my grievances.

    There’s a lot wrong, I’ll grant you that. And we have a class of conservative elites who are too often effete and feckless poseurs (cough Kristol cough). But we’re still, I believe, a nation of center-right people largely disengaged from the political process; I think the overreach of the left is changing that.


    If one uses a military analogy, conservatives are in a defensive position. Defenders typically enjoy a tactical advantage, in that they’re entrenched, fortified, prepared, whereas their attackers have to be mobile and comparatively exposed. Given that, we’d expect conservatism to do better, and for the left to make fewer inroads.

    But that’s not the right analogy to use when speaking of conservatism. Conservatism is more like preventing the decay of a grand edifice. It’s a constant battle against sometimes subtle forces, against rot and corrosion and invisible roots that creep into the basement; against vermin that sneak under the eaves and gnaw at the wires; against falling limbs and catastrophic fires. It’s a constant battle that has to go on while all the normal business of life continues.

    It isn’t going to be perfect. The Founders understood that, understood how precarious freedom is, and how many aspects of human nature are corrosive to the foundation of liberty they handed us.


    I am a man of the right. You are a man of the “new right.”

    GlenEisenhardt: The right that said the government is the problem and markets are the total answer has failed.

    I know no one on the right who has said that “markets are the total answer.” But I do believe that too much government is the largest part of the problem.

    Something about your post leaves me uncomfortable. Perhaps it’s just that I don’t understand what you mean by “the new right.” Can you give some specific examples of what you’d do differently?

    • #17
  18. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Glen, welcome to Ricochet and thanks for the post.

    Like Hank, I don’t think that it’s quite as bad as you suggest, but I do agree that the trajectory has been negative, and not just for the past 40 years.  Probably the past 100 or so, though there have been ebbs and flows.

    As a few examples of success: There was a roll-back of regulation under Reagan.  There was some tax relief.  There was welfare reform after the 1994 election, though this was largely gutted by Obama, I think.

    Overall, though, it does feel as if we’ve been fighting a losing fight.  Part of the problem, I think, is that there is quite a bit of disagreement on the right.  Another part of the problem, I think, is that conservatives tend to be temperamentally opposed to radical change, as opposed to gradual change.

    Like Hank, I’d like to hear more specifics about your conception of the “new right.”  I found President Trump persuasive on several issues, and gradually changed my views over the past five years or so on issues like free trade and foreign policy.  I was already on the anti-immigration side.  Are these issues that you have in mind?  Where does social conservatism fit into your views, if at all?

     

    • #18
  19. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    GlenEisenhardt: Berkian

    Should this be Burkean? They are a bunch of berks, though.

    And I’d push the clock back to Nixon’s decoupling of the dollar from gold, so 50 years. Unless you don’t think Nixon was actually a conservative (there might be something to that asssertion) except to the extent he was an anticommunist. Back then there actually were liberal anticommunists.

    • #19
  20. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    kedavis (View Comment):

    GlenEisenhardt: Look at what the left did to the police. The left has hated the police pretty openly for a very long time. As soon as the left saw an opening to hurt a group they consider to be anti-left they defunded them in the billions of dollars in cities all over the country. The left has successfully cut more government than the small government right has ever cut. The pressure to this very day on the cops is that they are afraid to be in any kind of altercation with a constituency of the left that could even be taken the wrong way or seen as abusive. Cops have been neutered. The crime rates go up and up and up. The left put them on notice. Cops coast to coast do not want to be the next one made an example of.

    The left may have – at least briefly, since they seem to be walking it back now – “defunded” the police, but that doesn’t really mean “cutting spending” or “reducing government.” They spend as much, or more, on other things instead. And they regulate as much, or more, in other areas instead.

    Exactly!  How much you wanna bet the money used to “rehire police” goes to hiring social workers instead?  I shudder to think what’s gonna happen to policing with social workers riding shotgun . . .

    • #20
  21. Kephalithos Member
    Kephalithos
    @Kephalithos

    GlenEisenhardt: I am a new member here, and I am of a new right. Hopefully, a right that can actually call itself conservative with a straight face. A right that will actually conserve something.

    I’ve been meaning to write something about this, but you’ve preempted me!

    I’d say that the right is increasingly becoming post-conservative. The question is not, “What should we conserve?” but rather, “What should we build?” Except building things is much harder than conserving things, and ideological programs focused on building tend to turn utopian and destructive. The right has its work cut out.

    I think back to the political arguments happening when I gained political awareness for the first time — around 2008, when Barack Obama seized the Democratic nomination. Pundits and scholars on the right framed the central political dilemma as a clash between the state and everything else. They talked about welfare programs “crowding out” civil society and private charity. They talked about regulation’s propensity to kill off innovation and hobble businesses. They decried the metastasizing “nanny state” of Bloomberg’s New York.

    Looking back, they were right, but only half-right. Focused on the subject of business (and taxes and regulation and the like), they took for granted the existence of civil society and failed to recognize (1) the role that corporate centralization itself played in the erosion of civil society, and (2) the degree to which corporate interests and the interests of the much-feared welfare state aligned. What threatens civil society? Centralization in general, of which both big business and big government are examples.

    This reality is much clearer today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, now that corporate America has thrown its full weight behind the efforts of cultural revolutionaries and World Economic Forum “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy!”-style semi-socialism.

    • #21
  22. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    If one uses a military analogy, conservatives are in a defensive position. Defenders typically enjoy a tactical advantage, in that they’re entrenched, fortified, prepared, whereas their attackers have to be mobile and comparatively exposed. Given that, we’d expect conservatism to do better, and for the left to make fewer inroads.

    Normally I agree with you but here I think you may be wrong and have missed an important point in the OP.  We have staged so many retreats and defensive actions that we have ceded the defensible terrain to the left.  If we don’t start mounting a counter attack soon we are going to be in trouble.  Also the counter attack has to be cultural rather than political.  The cultural is where we have ceded the most ground some of that has to be won back or we are going to find ourselves too spent to mount a successful opposition to the left.

    But that’s not the right analogy to use when speaking of conservatism. Conservatism is more like preventing the decay of a grand edifice. It’s a constant battle against sometimes subtle forces, against rot and corrosion and invisible roots that creep into the basement; against vermin that sneak under the eaves and gnaw at the wires; against falling limbs and catastrophic fires. It’s a constant battle that has to go on while all the normal business of life continues.

    The problem is this interior of the building has been gutted by fire.  It has the outward form of the beautiful edifice it once was but on the inside it in not inhabitable anymore.  Conservation is no longer enough.  Renovation is needed.  

    But we’re still, I believe, a nation of center-right people largely disengaged from the political process; I think the overreach of the left is changing that.

    I actually think we are more of a center-left country now.  We have culturally moved more to the left and even the right is comfortable with the trappings of the wellfare state and would be unhappy with a large scale rollback.  We still in large part have a conservative belief in our own affairs perhaps; however, we lack the civilizational confidence to express it in a meaningful way.  To quote Charles Murray we no longer “Preach what we Practice”.  This is a fundamental part of the problem.

     

    • #22
  23. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I do think it is as bad as you say. The right does not win battles. 

    • #23
  24. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    GlenEisenhardt: I am a new member here, and I am of a new right. Hopefully, a right that can actually call itself conservative with a straight face.

    Welcome.  And fight on.  I am of the effete old right — work within the system and we’ll get ’em next time, and when we get more conservatives on the Supreme Court!…  Reagan was worthwhile.  Bush 41 was NWO.  Clinton was slick.  Bush 43 was mohammedan-normalizing and instead was “fighting the good fight” against an emotion — terror.  0bama was elected by naïve whites who just finally wanted the era of black grievance and residual race-consciousness to end.  And then we got an education by Trump and the intrenched powerful government intelligence and propaganda forces against him.  Everything that I suspected about the original 1940s deep state and what I feared was true about the uniparty was proven to be true.

    Now the airline pilots are willing to shut down the system to fight unreasonable government powers and I’m left wondering if this is what was intended by the mandates in the first place.  [Bur I don’t think so.]

    • #24
  25. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    The minarchist ret-con of the tea party was actively harmful to the right’s self-image.

    • #25
  26. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    To the extent the right is “losing,” it is largely because our most influential institutions and media are overwhelmingly leftist.  The question then becomes what is the right not doing that brings about this result.  Are ideas really the problem?  This notion is undermined by the success of Republican governance at many of the state levels.  The main issue is that the right does not “live” politics as the left does and does not devote significant resources to changing institutions that influence the young.  We hear about Bezos, Gates, and Soros.  Where are their counterparts on the right?

    • #26
  27. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Stellar post! Welcome to Ricochet. You’re speaking my language!

    The problem is, just as soon as you advocate for a return to Judeo-Christian values and cultural confidence, you’re accused of wanting a theocracy (see Sohrab Ahmari). If you bring up Victor Orban in Hungary or the Polish government or even France’s Macron, it’s all, “right-wing fascist Islamophobe!!” And those are often from the people on “our side!”

    It’s been a while, but I’ve said before that unless we recover some sort of cultural homogeneity (this is what I mean by “Judeo-Christian values”), we can’t ever agree on the role of government. There’s simply no limiting principle for power allocated to the government by the Left. And the Right tries to “fight” it with its arms and legs lopped off.

    • #27
  28. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Zafar (View Comment):

    GlenEisenhardt: The right disagrees on fundamentals. I think the reason for this is because on the right there is no coherent unified vision. In fact there is no vision. Where is the right taking us? Free markets is about all we hear. It is the solution to all problems. The market shall fix all. Competition makes everything better. The government makes everything worse.

    So if the Right isn’t all about the free market, take you where it may, what is it about?

    Ben Shapiro makes an excellent point today (sorry if it’s behind a paywall):

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-if-polarization-isnt-the-big-problem

    The problem we have with factionalization today is due to our fundamental disagreement on human nature, and therefore the role of government. Gavin Newsom thinks it’s his job to tell Target stores how to organize their toy departments (“gender neutral aisles”). Trust me when I say, never the twain will Right and Left meet on stuff like this. And most on the Right have no clue how to fight it, because we don’t believe there are any “right” people to lead the charge. Donald Trump came closest because of his love of country and outsider status. And we saw how that worked out. The Left will never let that happen again.

    It’s just a damned lie that “diversity is our strength.” Diversity of the fundamental understanding of human nature and government is tearing us apart. 

    Short answer: the Right is about the sovereignty of the people (collectively, in opposition to their government; not necessarily individually); the rule of (just) law; consent of the governed (Obamacare didn’t clear 50% approval before the Democrats rammed it through); and ordered liberty (not license). For these reasons, the federal government must have divided powers which are in contention with each other. And the unelected bureaucracy has got to go! 

    So, you see why this is a losing battle. We’re at the end of our civilizational cycle. 

    • #28
  29. Kephalithos Member
    Kephalithos
    @Kephalithos

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment): The problem we have with factionalization today is due to our fundamental disagreement on human nature, and therefore the role of government. Gavin Newsom thinks it’s his job to tell Target stores how to organize their toy departments (“gender neutral aisles”). Trust me when I say, never the twain will Right and Left meet on stuff like this.

    There’s a Washington Post piece about this, and the most-upvoted comments are critical of the law. But they say things like, “Well, I’m all for the gender-neutral raising of children (I even bought dresses for my son!), but Newsome shouldn’t be telling stores how to arrange their toy aisles.” The opposition is to the illiberalism of the law, but not the substantive claims underlying it.

    • #29
  30. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Kephalithos (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment): The problem we have with factionalization today is due to our fundamental disagreement on human nature, and therefore the role of government. Gavin Newsom thinks it’s his job to tell Target stores how to organize their toy departments (“gender neutral aisles”). Trust me when I say, never the twain will Right and Left meet on stuff like this.

    There’s a Washington Post piece about this, and the most-upvoted comments are critical of the law. But they say things like, “Well, I’m all for the gender-neutral raising of children (I even bought dresses for my son!), but Newsome shouldn’t be telling stores how to arrange their toy aisles.” The opposition is to the illiberalism of the law, but not the substantive claims underlying it.

    So, there ya’ go. We don’t have anywhere near a consensus on what it means to be human (male and female He made them). 

    • #30