We have unintentionally groomed a movement with too little grounding in conservative principles, too little ability to address contemporary challenges with intellectual verve, and too little understanding about how to actually govern. . .
And of course we were susceptible to Trump’s substitution of chutzpah and chauvinism for conservatism. And of course the vacuum caused by the dearth of effective, authentic conservative policies was filled by proposals that stretch the definition of “American conservatism” to its limits and sometimes beyond.
Smarick longs for conservative icons who are intellectually deep, adaptable to new conditions, and experienced in real-world governance. He may be persuasive, but that is a bit of a tall order.
Yeah, well, I would not say the left-wing looks much better.
And perhaps reasonable nationalism has a role in the conservative movement. Is it wrong for the citizens of sovereign nation to desire a national capital represent citizen interests, as opposed to the interests of multinationals?
Is a foreign policy only about servility to globalists-multinationals, or occasionally standing up for real democracy?
I would prefer the US cozy up to Taiwan rather than Beijing.
Does a sovereign nation have an obligation to effectively assert rule of law in immigration matters? Why not?
He is worried that American right is not “creative” enough in inventing new excuses for expanding the scope of government, in lieu of “changed circumstances”, “new challenges” blah blah.
“Smarick longs for conservative icons who are intellectually deep, adaptable to new conditions, and experienced in real-world governance.”
This would be an extremely refreshing change to what we have currently. The Orange Man is a complete and total embarrassment. But, perhaps not less embarrassing than what the Democrats have to offer. Choose your poison.
Am I the only one longing for a George W Bush or a Barack Obama type figure to help us through the current situation. The net outcome probably wouldn’t change all that much, but at least we would have a fully mature adult representing us.
Nostalgia for Bushchimphitler? Gentlemen, straighten your bowties — we’re going in.
Longing? OMG, hindsight is not just 20-20; it’s done through rose colored glasses.
And you’re longing not for some different outcome but for somebody who looks “fully mature” because he “represents us”?
I realize I’m being over-emotional and unfair but that’s one of the stupidest, most stuck-up things I’ve ever read.
So who is Andy Smarick? Some sort of Ben Shapiro / Charlie Kirk character?
No, doubling down on failed ideologies is not going to help conservatives. Trump is best understood not as a conservative at all but as the best a lousy two-party winner take all system could offer a reform-seeking plurality of populists, democratic Independents, radical pragmatics, and unrepresented political minorities (hereinafter “The Reform Plurality”), who look not to elites in Washington DC for an answer but to themselves to build a better world through self-help.
The hate-based ideologies (progressivism, conservatism, libertarianism) are all rooted in fears. In 3L-speak: you are a victim of oppressors whom you must hate; you are a victim of barbarians whom you must hate; you are a victim of the democratic mob whom you must hate. The Reform Plurality does not fear anyone, rather, it offers a path forward through institutional reform that embraces democracy and tolerance. The system of government adopted by Switzerland is the embodiment of the The Reform Plurality dream. A parliamentary system based upon proportional representation in which people have a meaningful say in the governance of their local government, are represented in both the legislature as well as the executive branch in the form of a federal council of 7, not 1, giving voice to a much wider range of the population, and in a constitutional reform process that empowers the people to swiftly and relatively easily reform their foundational document and correct the errors of the judiciary.
The Reform Plurality’s deepest roots are found in the maxims of Lao-Tzu which might be briefly summarized as to survive, a government must meet the needs of its people. Governments such as that of the USA that exist primarily for the benefit of elite classes will not survive. Meeting the needs of the people implies three principles (taken from Catholic teaching but best understood in the light of the Protestant reformation: remission of sins at birth, subsidiarity, solidarity, self reliance, and the common good. These principles are best explicated in the works of Thomas B. Macaulay, James Wilson, Thomas Reid, Samuel Smiles, and Elinor Ostrom. And perhaps a little of the Law of Jante. In short, benefit yourself by benefitting others; no one owes you anything and you owe no one anything no matter what situation you are born but we may rise above this state of nature through voluntary action; no one is more entitled than anyone else; and, you owe no duty of loyalty to crap-weasels. The Reform Plurality will overcome the obstacles that block peace, prosperity, and personal autonomy by convening an Article V convention to adopt a modern system of government and pull the plug on crap-weaselry in the executive, legislature, judiciary, and the tax-funded education institutions.
Reform.
It is all we have left.