My pretty progressive former residency instructor messaged me a few years ago to ask me to explain QAnon. He assumed that my conservative views put me squarely in step with Q. I answered that I knew vaguely what it was, but really had no idea of anything else. In point of fact, I consider myself a pretty moderate conservative, and more so with every passing year as I try to see the world through the lens of orthodox Christian faith rather than politics.
I read and enjoy your columns pretty regularly. I was a long-time member of a democratic emergency physician group, with perhaps 200 physicians. The interesting thing about our group is that whenever a decision was made by the group, someone on the losing side would claim that it wasn't "democratic." So when I hear Democrats claiming that Republicans represent a threat to "democracy," I think I know where they're coming from. It means that, for the moment, the Democrats are not getting their way.
I’m a boomer, born right in the middle of that generation. I’m also a native Midwesterner growing up near Chicago and now living in Kansas City. So yes my worldview is different than those in, say, San Francisco or NYC,
Like my parents, I’m a lifelong Republican BUT — I find myself increasingly out of place in today’s GOP. I have never liked Trump, even from his pre-political days (nor did I ever watch one episode of The Apprentice since reality TV is not my thing). I have never thought of Trump as a classic conservative either.
But the MAGA crowd in my party think I’m a “RINO.” I support Ukraine so I now am a “neocon warmonger.” My views are Reaganite so I’m a “zombie Republican.” In fact I often feel akin to Reagan’s famous comment: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
It’s my opinion that the GOP has been taken over by populists who don’t hold a true conservative ideology. But the MAGAs know that they’ve been screwed by elites in the federal government, they don’t like the leftward lurch of the social order, and they believe that Trump can fix All The Things.
The heartening aspect for me is that many of my friends feel the same way. So there’s that.
Great column. The one missing piece is the damage that Democrats HAVE done to democratic norms and institutions — usually in the name of “saving democracy.” Free speech is the center of the bomb crater, but in every sphere — Supreme Court “reform,” repealing the filibuster, abolishing the Electoral College, undermining public order and safety, weaponizing the law for political gains — Democrats are battering down the institutions that we all rely upon to keep the US functioning and balanced. Their slogan could be, “We had to destroy democratic government to save it.”
An excellent post, making what I think is an important point, namely that supposedly highly educated leftists usually have only a cartoonish impression of what their political opponents actually believe. All they ever hear are cliches about the imaginary evils of free markets and limited government, which are, contrary to all reason, linked to Donald Trump who is an advocate of neither. Will this elicit any intelligent replies from the left?
Good point, RJ. I was just thinking about whether I was being hypocritical in what I posted, but remembered the South Park quote and my brother’s all-encompassing variant.
I am certain I will never vote for a single Democratic senator who took part in the despicable Kavanaugh confirmation process.
For an explanation of Harris's despicable conduct in Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, consult "Justice on Trial" by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino. "The next attempt to paint Kavanaugh as a perjurer was a baffling line of questioning by Sen. Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor who was preparing to run for President...It didn't matter that her questions would have been unacceptable and unethical in a courtroom." Kavanaugh anticipated and neutralized Harris's attempted perjury trap.
I thought the book was excellent, John. Not to mention infuriating. Harris showed herself to be what I believe she is - an empty pantsuit. That said, I’ve known since 2019 that the Democrat Cabal would do whatever they could to get her in power. I hate that I am correct.
Molly Hemingway’s newer book, RIGGED, is also excellent and should be studied carefully by Republican strategists, although I’m certain the Democrat Cabal has adapted and refined its tactics.
Excellent article, sir. I browse a few "conservative" publications and I would agree that nobody knows what the word means.
As far as democracy, I'd say that the most consistent position is that we are NOT a democracy, and neither the founders nor conservatives want us to be one. People in Wyoming and for that matter, Northern California, deserve to participate in decisions too.
We are a representative or perhaps an indirect democracy, I’d say. The progressive project is to make us a direct democracy, through Constitutional or extra-constitutional means. It is direct democracy that the Founders sought to avoid, but on a kind of sliding scale where, at the Rockwellian root - the local community - direct democracy was foundational. (Within, of course, the time’s understanding of who was entitled to vote.)
In Constitutional terms, I’d say it started with the national tax imposed by the 16th amendment. I don’t agree that the 17th amendment, albeit enacted under the umbrella of progressivism, involved direct democracy, except perhaps indirectly in the sense of being an expansion of the franchise.
I returned to grad school in my early 40s, in a dept of Political Science in the late 80s. Even then I soon found (in a relatively mixed ideology group) that if I did not clearly identify as a liberal Democrat I was immediately presumed to be a conservative, and a Republican. Especially given my small town, farming background.
That persisted throughout a nearly 35 year career in Academia. It only got 'worse' as time went on.
The political philosphy profs I had were three. One was an Iowa farm boy, last GA of Leo Strauss and a professed "Straussian conservative." Another was a small-L libertarian. The final one was a mldly left-of-center Jewish veteran of WWII.
The first described me as "a heavily armed and incredibly dangerous Amishman." The second said I was a "radical free-thinker." The third called me "That nut who disagrees with everything."
Blind men and an elephant. ;-) I actually got along well with all of them, but Like Robert's friend, they had no really good understanding of my thought, nor any good pigeon-hole to put me in.
I find that conservatives are more willing to accept me as "not us" but also as something other than a liberal, Lefty, or Democrat. Democrats pretty uniformly claim I'm a "Far Right Republican."
My students were always totally stunned, but tended to regard me as a conservative, regardless of the situation. In class I typically called myself something like "philosophically anarchist, practically a libertarian with a healthy respect for the values of some traditions, and a willingness to argue any side of any political belief." That usually stunned them.
In my houng adult years I was pretty much a Jeffersonian liberal.
A great source of pride is a Professor of the Year award I received in 2007. (http://www.robertgraboyes.com/Index_files/Pointer%20Award.pdf) Part of their description of me was "At no time did we know his opinion on any issue he posted for discussion; no matter how we
addressed the problem, he challenged our position. He is the Dean of Unanticipated Consequences. The highest honor was to debate him to a draw, and you knew that had occurred when he posted simply, 'good point.'"
Bob, of course you meet (and exceed) one definition (current everywhere, to some degree, and to what degree we shall know early in November) of “staunch conservative.” Viz.:
You have (at least) strong and persistent (hence “staunch”) doubts (opposition is still worse) about at least one element of the far-left world-view and program.
Their polite word for that, used to your face, is “conservative.” Behind your back they say “right-wing” or worse.
The fact that this definition of “conservative” is etymologically unmoored does not appear to bother them.
They (won’t but) could point out in response that we call them “liberal” or “progressive” even though liberty and progress are what they most vigorously oppose.
Yes - seditious to say it - but Trump is basically running a mid-90's democratic platform these days. Basically underscores how unchecked the pull of the "progressive" activists have been within the Democratic Party. Surprised the DNC has avoided an obvious schism so far this week.
I will also say that "conservative" taken literally is hardly a negative unless you loathe this country. The implication is that there is something of value worth conserving as the social tides wash in and out each day - I agree with this. Notions of equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, assembly, expression, capitalism, etc. - the basic elements of the Declaration of Independence + Bill of Rights. It is telling (in my view) that there are some "progressives" whose stated views align with the demonization of all that America stands for - thus the echoes of communism/marxism that pop up. Somehow they seem incapable of stating the social Utopia that they would move to or model America upon - there are too many Hamas flags and Stalin skirts out there to ignore this cohort. There seems to be a misunderstanding which I would frame as "the utility of ideals". Some think that because America hasn't perfectly executed on its ideals, that it's a complete failure and needs to be deconstructed in favor of some vague gesturing toward "equity" and "inclusion" without bounds. However, the nation that states its ideals and works towards them openly is in a much better position than nations governed by unstable cabals of disingenuous actors.
A great read and insightful as always. As you so wonderfully describe, it’s complicated. I’m old enough, as I’m sure many others are, to prefer to be thought of as a conservative in the Reagan Era, and a conservative in the Trump era, and as such I think I’ve held most of the Reagan era positions you list and continue to do so in the current era as well. We are always faced with the dilemma of choosing from the available candidates who best meets or take on many different principles — there is never a perfect fit. So I as a conservative largely shaped during the Reagan era, end up supporting Trump as the best available choice- not because I completely agree with the positions you ascribe to a Trump conservative, but he is closer to the mark than Biden or Harris. The whole ‘danger to democracy’ thing is the current cry to the emotions of the voters on both sides and it is useful for that. I would also plead disagreement with some of the Trump positions in your list, but that’s a different discussion.
Wonderfully thoughtful read sir! Sadly, I can confirm the Google search "phenomenon* regarding any writings, reporting or opinion, that are other than shallow. Definitely glad to have followed this link to your thoughts!!
Great article. Love your list contrasting Reagan-era conservatives with Trump-era conservatives; to my eye it seems an accurate summary.
One item I would add to the Trump-era conservative listing is the tendency to argue that the World, the U.S. or the opposing party is heavily influenced by an unseen cabal. I don't remember this view being prominent in the Republican party some years ago.
Great analysis: the state of affairs in a nutshell. When the Dems say, as Leon Panetta did last night, that Trump is a threat to “our democracy” (someone ought to register that as a trademarked phrase), what I hear is that they believe he is a threat to the Democratic party’s legislative agenda. But, by and large, on the issues that matter most, he isn’t even that. Trump is perfectly willing to be their accomplice in wrecking the free market economy and weakening the country’s influence and power in foreign affairs. That just leaves the red team to skirmish with the blue team in the (mostly trivial) culture wars.
I’ve believed for years that had the Democrats not, in 2016, let their tantrum rule their reason, they could have made a great deal of what they would regard as progress simply by making deals with Trump. Instead, they pushed him into the Republican orbit.
My pretty progressive former residency instructor messaged me a few years ago to ask me to explain QAnon. He assumed that my conservative views put me squarely in step with Q. I answered that I knew vaguely what it was, but really had no idea of anything else. In point of fact, I consider myself a pretty moderate conservative, and more so with every passing year as I try to see the world through the lens of orthodox Christian faith rather than politics.
I read and enjoy your columns pretty regularly. I was a long-time member of a democratic emergency physician group, with perhaps 200 physicians. The interesting thing about our group is that whenever a decision was made by the group, someone on the losing side would claim that it wasn't "democratic." So when I hear Democrats claiming that Republicans represent a threat to "democracy," I think I know where they're coming from. It means that, for the moment, the Democrats are not getting their way.
Oh gee, where do I start?
I’m a boomer, born right in the middle of that generation. I’m also a native Midwesterner growing up near Chicago and now living in Kansas City. So yes my worldview is different than those in, say, San Francisco or NYC,
Like my parents, I’m a lifelong Republican BUT — I find myself increasingly out of place in today’s GOP. I have never liked Trump, even from his pre-political days (nor did I ever watch one episode of The Apprentice since reality TV is not my thing). I have never thought of Trump as a classic conservative either.
But the MAGA crowd in my party think I’m a “RINO.” I support Ukraine so I now am a “neocon warmonger.” My views are Reaganite so I’m a “zombie Republican.” In fact I often feel akin to Reagan’s famous comment: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
It’s my opinion that the GOP has been taken over by populists who don’t hold a true conservative ideology. But the MAGAs know that they’ve been screwed by elites in the federal government, they don’t like the leftward lurch of the social order, and they believe that Trump can fix All The Things.
The heartening aspect for me is that many of my friends feel the same way. So there’s that.
Great column. The one missing piece is the damage that Democrats HAVE done to democratic norms and institutions — usually in the name of “saving democracy.” Free speech is the center of the bomb crater, but in every sphere — Supreme Court “reform,” repealing the filibuster, abolishing the Electoral College, undermining public order and safety, weaponizing the law for political gains — Democrats are battering down the institutions that we all rely upon to keep the US functioning and balanced. Their slogan could be, “We had to destroy democratic government to save it.”
Different column for different day. :)
Remember, “our democracy“ means “their democracy.” Not America’s democracy.
An excellent post, making what I think is an important point, namely that supposedly highly educated leftists usually have only a cartoonish impression of what their political opponents actually believe. All they ever hear are cliches about the imaginary evils of free markets and limited government, which are, contrary to all reason, linked to Donald Trump who is an advocate of neither. Will this elicit any intelligent replies from the left?
“Contrary to all reason” seems to be the essence of TDS.
Good post, Professor. It amazes me that any thinking adult would let their ideas and beliefs be defined by a political party.
...or by opposition to one, which I suppose is just the flip side of the coin.
Good point, RJ. I was just thinking about whether I was being hypocritical in what I posted, but remembered the South Park quote and my brother’s all-encompassing variant.
I am certain I will never vote for a single Democratic senator who took part in the despicable Kavanaugh confirmation process.
The ringleader of the Kavanaugh debacle is seeking higher office.
Yep. Trump could eat the last slice of my pizza and drink my last root beer and I still wouldn’t consider voting for Harris.
:)
For an explanation of Harris's despicable conduct in Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, consult "Justice on Trial" by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino. "The next attempt to paint Kavanaugh as a perjurer was a baffling line of questioning by Sen. Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor who was preparing to run for President...It didn't matter that her questions would have been unacceptable and unethical in a courtroom." Kavanaugh anticipated and neutralized Harris's attempted perjury trap.
I thought the book was excellent, John. Not to mention infuriating. Harris showed herself to be what I believe she is - an empty pantsuit. That said, I’ve known since 2019 that the Democrat Cabal would do whatever they could to get her in power. I hate that I am correct.
Molly Hemingway’s newer book, RIGGED, is also excellent and should be studied carefully by Republican strategists, although I’m certain the Democrat Cabal has adapted and refined its tactics.
Excellent article, sir. I browse a few "conservative" publications and I would agree that nobody knows what the word means.
As far as democracy, I'd say that the most consistent position is that we are NOT a democracy, and neither the founders nor conservatives want us to be one. People in Wyoming and for that matter, Northern California, deserve to participate in decisions too.
We are a representative or perhaps an indirect democracy, I’d say. The progressive project is to make us a direct democracy, through Constitutional or extra-constitutional means. It is direct democracy that the Founders sought to avoid, but on a kind of sliding scale where, at the Rockwellian root - the local community - direct democracy was foundational. (Within, of course, the time’s understanding of who was entitled to vote.)
"The progressive project is to make us a direct democracy..."
Yup. Starting with the 17th amendment.
In Constitutional terms, I’d say it started with the national tax imposed by the 16th amendment. I don’t agree that the 17th amendment, albeit enacted under the umbrella of progressivism, involved direct democracy, except perhaps indirectly in the sense of being an expansion of the franchise.
I returned to grad school in my early 40s, in a dept of Political Science in the late 80s. Even then I soon found (in a relatively mixed ideology group) that if I did not clearly identify as a liberal Democrat I was immediately presumed to be a conservative, and a Republican. Especially given my small town, farming background.
That persisted throughout a nearly 35 year career in Academia. It only got 'worse' as time went on.
The political philosphy profs I had were three. One was an Iowa farm boy, last GA of Leo Strauss and a professed "Straussian conservative." Another was a small-L libertarian. The final one was a mldly left-of-center Jewish veteran of WWII.
The first described me as "a heavily armed and incredibly dangerous Amishman." The second said I was a "radical free-thinker." The third called me "That nut who disagrees with everything."
Blind men and an elephant. ;-) I actually got along well with all of them, but Like Robert's friend, they had no really good understanding of my thought, nor any good pigeon-hole to put me in.
I find that conservatives are more willing to accept me as "not us" but also as something other than a liberal, Lefty, or Democrat. Democrats pretty uniformly claim I'm a "Far Right Republican."
My students were always totally stunned, but tended to regard me as a conservative, regardless of the situation. In class I typically called myself something like "philosophically anarchist, practically a libertarian with a healthy respect for the values of some traditions, and a willingness to argue any side of any political belief." That usually stunned them.
In my houng adult years I was pretty much a Jeffersonian liberal.
A great source of pride is a Professor of the Year award I received in 2007. (http://www.robertgraboyes.com/Index_files/Pointer%20Award.pdf) Part of their description of me was "At no time did we know his opinion on any issue he posted for discussion; no matter how we
addressed the problem, he challenged our position. He is the Dean of Unanticipated Consequences. The highest honor was to debate him to a draw, and you knew that had occurred when he posted simply, 'good point.'"
Bob, of course you meet (and exceed) one definition (current everywhere, to some degree, and to what degree we shall know early in November) of “staunch conservative.” Viz.:
You have (at least) strong and persistent (hence “staunch”) doubts (opposition is still worse) about at least one element of the far-left world-view and program.
Their polite word for that, used to your face, is “conservative.” Behind your back they say “right-wing” or worse.
The fact that this definition of “conservative” is etymologically unmoored does not appear to bother them.
They (won’t but) could point out in response that we call them “liberal” or “progressive” even though liberty and progress are what they most vigorously oppose.
Of course. Hence, my comment that a staunch conservative is anyone who doesn't live in a place that requires Snapcrap. :)
Great article.
I especially liked the reference to Emperor Norton, an inspiration (in terms of literary purposes, not political) to Mark Twain, among others.
Norton inspired quite a few literary characters!
Yes - seditious to say it - but Trump is basically running a mid-90's democratic platform these days. Basically underscores how unchecked the pull of the "progressive" activists have been within the Democratic Party. Surprised the DNC has avoided an obvious schism so far this week.
I will also say that "conservative" taken literally is hardly a negative unless you loathe this country. The implication is that there is something of value worth conserving as the social tides wash in and out each day - I agree with this. Notions of equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, assembly, expression, capitalism, etc. - the basic elements of the Declaration of Independence + Bill of Rights. It is telling (in my view) that there are some "progressives" whose stated views align with the demonization of all that America stands for - thus the echoes of communism/marxism that pop up. Somehow they seem incapable of stating the social Utopia that they would move to or model America upon - there are too many Hamas flags and Stalin skirts out there to ignore this cohort. There seems to be a misunderstanding which I would frame as "the utility of ideals". Some think that because America hasn't perfectly executed on its ideals, that it's a complete failure and needs to be deconstructed in favor of some vague gesturing toward "equity" and "inclusion" without bounds. However, the nation that states its ideals and works towards them openly is in a much better position than nations governed by unstable cabals of disingenuous actors.
A great read and insightful as always. As you so wonderfully describe, it’s complicated. I’m old enough, as I’m sure many others are, to prefer to be thought of as a conservative in the Reagan Era, and a conservative in the Trump era, and as such I think I’ve held most of the Reagan era positions you list and continue to do so in the current era as well. We are always faced with the dilemma of choosing from the available candidates who best meets or take on many different principles — there is never a perfect fit. So I as a conservative largely shaped during the Reagan era, end up supporting Trump as the best available choice- not because I completely agree with the positions you ascribe to a Trump conservative, but he is closer to the mark than Biden or Harris. The whole ‘danger to democracy’ thing is the current cry to the emotions of the voters on both sides and it is useful for that. I would also plead disagreement with some of the Trump positions in your list, but that’s a different discussion.
I know many folks who fit your description.
“Cry to the emotions” - the Democrat campaign in a nutshelll.
Wonderfully thoughtful read sir! Sadly, I can confirm the Google search "phenomenon* regarding any writings, reporting or opinion, that are other than shallow. Definitely glad to have followed this link to your thoughts!!
Cheers!
Thanks for the kind words and the Google confirmation. Glad to have you here. Hope you'll subscribe and chime in regularly.
Great article. Love your list contrasting Reagan-era conservatives with Trump-era conservatives; to my eye it seems an accurate summary.
One item I would add to the Trump-era conservative listing is the tendency to argue that the World, the U.S. or the opposing party is heavily influenced by an unseen cabal. I don't remember this view being prominent in the Republican party some years ago.
Thanks, John. Great addition. I'd go farther ... the unseen cabals are perceived to be extant among Republicans as well as among Democrats.
Since the day Trump first descended the now-fabled escalator I have described him as a vulgar moderate.
Great analysis: the state of affairs in a nutshell. When the Dems say, as Leon Panetta did last night, that Trump is a threat to “our democracy” (someone ought to register that as a trademarked phrase), what I hear is that they believe he is a threat to the Democratic party’s legislative agenda. But, by and large, on the issues that matter most, he isn’t even that. Trump is perfectly willing to be their accomplice in wrecking the free market economy and weakening the country’s influence and power in foreign affairs. That just leaves the red team to skirmish with the blue team in the (mostly trivial) culture wars.
I’ve believed for years that had the Democrats not, in 2016, let their tantrum rule their reason, they could have made a great deal of what they would regard as progress simply by making deals with Trump. Instead, they pushed him into the Republican orbit.