American conservativism has failed. That shouldn’t be a surprise since the failure of conservative politics is the motivation behind every openly fascist political movement. What is interesting, though, is that conservatives are beginning to acknowledge this failure and are struggling with how to separate themselves from the fascists that have taken over the Republican party and conservative discourse. It’s a struggle because it isn’t possible.
Let’s just review the only definition of “conservative” that has ever made any sense: Wilhoit’s Law, named for Frank Wilhoit, a composer who made a very popular comment to an online article once upon a time.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Related: The Pithiest Critique of Modern Conservatism Keeps Getting Credited to the Wrong Man
Of course, there is a difference between “conservative” and “fascist” it just isn’t what conservatives hope it might be. The difference is that conservatives merely value the proposition described by Wilhoit (and believe it is true), whereas fascists implement it. If conservativism hasn’t failed, then there is no need to implement it, only conserve it. Action is only required when something has gone wrong (from the conservative view).
The Federalist has published a piece where a guy says that conservatives need to call themselves something else because all that they stand for has been lost, and then he conveniently mentions a number of things that represent what this new thing would strive to implement. How does this match up with Wilhoit’s Law?
The author of the Federalist piece promotes marriage, except it is the conservative model of marriage wherein the man becomes the “head” of the woman; i.e., a world where men are protected and women are bound, where the conservative model for relationships is encouraged and enforced (protected), and all other models rejected (bound).
The author of the Federalist piece promotes freedom of religion, except he really only means a conservative form of Christianity; i.e., a world where conservative Christians are protected and those of all other religious or metaphysical positions are bound.
He promotes freedom of the individual, except for the case of anyone who in any way offends the traditional conceptions of how gender and sexuality should or should not be expressed; i.e., a world where straight cis people are protected and all others are bound.
In order to resurrect these things which he claims have died (they have not), the author is willing to end the entire idea of small government conservativism and use both the carrot and the stick of big government to force time to run backwards to 1950. To give you a couple of examples, he would give big checks to married people with children in the manner of a socialist, and also imprison anyone who allows a child to be exposed to non-conservative gender ideas — even the child’s own parents. Of course, he would also imprison (possibly execute) women who have an abortion at any point in a pregnancy regardless of why they had the abortion.
It may surprise some readers to find Davidson promoting opposition to “corporations empowered by unrestrained market forces” (i.e., capitalism), but I’ve been pointing out for a very long time that conservatives do not genuinely care about capitalism — they don’t even know what it is. They see capitalism as a shorthand way to talk about their own economic privilege, and are quite willing to dispose of it if they feel it threatens their way of life.
Overall, the author’s position is basically the same as Steve Bannon’s, which is to say that it is a kind of conservative Leninism, which is to say Leninist tactics with a conservative aim; in short, it is fascism. A quote from the article:
To those who worry that power corrupts, and that once the right seizes power it too will be corrupted, they certainly have a point. If conservatives manage to save the country and rebuild our institutions, will they ever relinquish power and go the way of Cincinnatus? It is a fair question, and we should attend to it with care after we have won the war.
American fascism has been constant in its character since before the United States of America even existed — an ultra-violent racism, wrapped in a convoluted version of Christianity that directly opposes the teachings of Jesus Christ and is willing to collude with the wealthy as long as there is benefit in doing so. What’s interesting is that there isn’t a similarly strong thread of leftism in America (despite a few outliers like John Brown); the opposition to American fascism is American capitalism, a qualitatively different conservative movement. Indeed, Wilhoit’s famous comment includes this:
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc. There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists
If there is a superficial appearance that “both sides” (Democrats and Republicans) are the same, it is because they are both conservatives — just conservatives of a different flavor that see each other as convenient adversaries. Certainly, one of these conservative groups (the Democrats) is better, but it is also certainly not good. While the Republicans are significantly more extreme, the essential difference between the two is in terms of who they see as the ingroups and outgroups. We can only hope that this collapse of conservativism will spread to both parties and that it can be replaced with something better — something that is anti-conservative. Per Wilhoit:
The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get: The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.