Since Barak Obama won the presidential election of 2008 (or perhaps since Reagan), US conservatives have been becoming progressively more openly right-wing. I continue to wonder if there really is such a thing as “conservatives” or whether a conservative is just a fascist who is less strident. Democrats certainly believe that conservatives exist and continue to market their candidates toward conservatives — with little to no luck. Instead, it looks like almost all conservatives might be embarrassed about people like Donald Trump, but will continue to vote for such people saying that they “have no choice”; i.e., the Democrat is somehow just not conservative enough for them. Joe Biden, they say, is a communist (it’s silly every time they say it, but they keep doing it).
So, first off, if you have 9 people sitting at a table with a Nazi, you’ve got 10 Nazis at that table. Once a person sides with fascism, they are a fascist and the idea that they “had no choice” is absurd. Per Wilhoit’s law, “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.” Conservatives want their culture to be the dominant culture, and they want their people to be the dominant people; they are not interested in any kind of diversity and they see the law as something that should force rebellious individuals to conform to the conservative worldview. The only freedoms they are interested in is the freedom to comply with conservative culture and freedom for conservatives to dominate non-conservatives. The difference between a “conservative” and a “fascist” is really just an issue of how far they are willing to go to accomplish their goals at this moment.
I’ve seen people online note that the form of conservative hatreds is generally dictated by a relatively small group of far-right elites whose primary goal is to sow division. That’s absolutely true. The problem, though, is that the conservative goal of complete cultural dominance doesn’t go away just because powerful individuals are not steering it toward an enemy. Rather, in the absence of active leadership, conservatives come up with their owns ideas that are frankly just not that much different from what right-wing elites have been promoting.
I think what confuses people is that every once in a while, you will see a conservative saying something that really seems leftist, such as:
Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
That was Tucker Carlson sounding like he’s ready to launch capitalism right into the sun. He said that a while ago, but very recently I saw Charlie Kirk agreeing with Russell Brand when he said,
…an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war…you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis
Charlie Kirk said that Brand, “Absolutely nailed it.”
Again, sounds like he’s ready to dump capitalism for good.
The thing, though, is liberal conservatives (i.e., Democrats) and traditionalist conservatives (i.e., Republicans) are not trying to conserve the same hierarchies, and Republicans only ever liked capitalism because they believed it was working to support the hierarchies they care about. When it isn’t supporting their beloved hierarchies, they are suddenly ready it to send it to the guillotine. Moreover, when they see it isn’t supporting their beloved hierarchies, they attribute its motivations to those of their traditional enemies — Jews, people of color, non-Christians, uppity women, etc.
On the other hand, liberal conservatives (Democrats) love capitalism and see the hierarchy of capital as the only valid hierarchy. They see any other hierarchy (e.g., those based on sex, gender, color, religion) as being illegitimate and they will try to eradicate it. For example, one test of whether a person is a traditional conservative or a liberal conservative is whether they believe that Black people have less money (on average) because of a systemic flaw in capitalism that can be eradicated (liberal) or because something is wrong with Black people (traditional). In contrast, a leftist would note that capitalism intends to create inequities (it’s a feature not a bug) and that traditional hierarchies often choose who ends up bearing the weight of those inequities; i.e., while personal actions do have an effect on personal outcomes, the overall trend is caused by the combination of liberal and traditional cultural and legal systems.
To get back to the main question, can traditional conservatives — the ones who have gone full fascist — be brought back into the fold of liberalism? Or — better yet — can we present an argument to a fascist that will make them see the light and become leftists?
At first glance, the answer is yes. Fascism tends to use leftist arguments against the status quo (which is usually liberalism because liberalism has an inherent tendency to spawn fascism), but then take a hard right when it comes to solutions and instead of blaming capitalism, it blames traditional enemies instead. Would it be so hard to just get the fascist or conservative to objectively look at the problem and see that it comes from those in society who have the most power (the wealthy) and can only be solved by democratizing power?
Certainly, there are individuals who that might work on, and for that reason, I think it is commendable to try.
However, for the vast majority of people who are willing to slide from conservativism into fascism (e.g., everyone who voted for Trump), redemption is not possible because they have — at the core of their personality — a need to dominate other people. They find solidarity — which is the most essential component of leftism — to be submissive and weak, and therefore, detestable. They believe in a world of alphas, betas and omegas — and are constantly terrified that their place in the hierarchy might be slipping. Their most basic problem with leftism is that it is kind. Yes, they frequently call it “stupid” but they believe it is stupid primarily because it is kind.
American fascists have been vocal for quite some time about their goal of forcefully imposing their take on the Christian religion on their fellow citizens, and then the world. To my point, this version of Christianity does not include kindness:
“Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching—’turn the other cheek’—[and] to have someone come up after to say, ‘Where did you get those liberal talking points?'” Moore said. “When the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ’ … The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,” he added. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
Russell Moore, former top official for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), quoted in Evangelicals Are Now Rejecting ‘Liberal’ Teachings of Jesus
By Aila Slisco On 8/9/23 at 7:17 PM EDT
In fact, their rationale for hating each of their traditional enemies comes down to dominance and cruelty, and their belief that they, as the masters of dominance and cruelty, are the only group deserving of power, and that only a nation based on dominance and cruelty can thrive. When one of their hated groups attains even a modicum of power, it enrages fascists, and their most basic rationale for why such people are illegitimate rulers is because they are submissive, weak — and kind.
This position is not redeemable. The only way a fascist is going to become a truly better person is by hitting rock-bottom and rebuilding their personality from the ground up. While this is possible, it will only happen once in a blue moon.
In the meantime, I’ve been reading a lot of what communists post online to try to understand their perspective. While I don’t have a position on what strategies are valid or moral in the struggle to achieve a more democratic society, I do now have a better understanding of the communist perspective — that the rot of fascism must be forcefully excised from society if humanity is to ever achieve anything better. And no, I’m not promoting that perspective, nor suggesting any kind of details about how that should happen — I’m merely saying, “I see their point.”
What is clear is that Americans can’t keep allowing fascists to chisel away at democracy. What we are doing right now is akin to allowing a safe cracker to continue to try different combinations on a safe while we stand a good distance away telling them that they’re naughty. Prosecuting some of them is nice, but it isn’t the programmatic negation of fascist power that is required. Historically, liberalism has been unable to provide the correct amount of resistance to fascism because it explicitly favors fascism over any flavor of leftism, and actively uses fascism to create a false political center around itself and draw people away from the left because leftism would spell the end to liberal, neo-liberal, and globalist power (these are different aspects of a single political movement).
At this point, you’ve probably heard of Project 2025, the “conservative” plan to forcefully impose an authoritarian government based on Christian dominionism (which is ironically anti-Jesus) on the American public by capturing the presidency (via a severely bent but not broken electoral system), ignoring the other two branches of federal government (unless, of course, they cooperate), and then ending US democracy. To be clear, the USA would still have a democracy, but only fascists would be classified as citizens; other people would not be allowed to vote. This isn’t the first time they’ve had this plan; it’s just the most coherent expression of the plan so far. America needs a counter-plan, but may not be able to come up with it since liberals are unwilling to embrace the left (and, in essence, true democracy).