I think real historical Communist regimes really were against the working class owning a car and a house — BenMcLean

I'm not going to defend the brutality of the USSR or China. But it is true that the Soviet regime did improve the lot of working people in the Soviet Union. However, the good has to be weighed against the bad aspects of Soviet / Stalinist rule, the gulags, purges, etc. The benefits that accrued to the higher tiers of soviet rule were nothing like the lavish rewards showered on the top tiers of American rule.

That's not just American society: that's every society. That's the Golden Rule: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules." — BenMcLean

Generally, yes; but the concentration of wealth in the USA has few parallels elsewhere, especially in other democratic industrialized countries.

I'm not at all confident in utopian schemes which make grand claims that we can somehow get away from this near universal reality of human life. I would instead be inclined to look at policy to align incentives so that the reward of wealth stays linked to socially constructive and morally positive — BenMcLean

Sure. I don't know how old you are, but I found utopia schemes a lot more attractive when I was a young man. That's sort of the way of the world. Fizzy utopian cocktails are a drink of youth.

Buckley's fusionism explicitly embraced and promoted the Civil Rights movement not only by voting for the Civil Rights act in the 1960s but also by making Dr. Martin Luther King's philosophy in "Letter from Birmingham Jail" theirs -- permanently — BenMcLean

As has been pointed out, Buckley himself was not exactly an enthusiastic supporter of the Civil Rights movement when it counted. According to Wiki:

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Buckley opposed federal civil rights legislation and expressed support for continued racial segregation in the South. In Freedom Is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Workplace, author Nancy MacLean states that National Review made James J. Kilpatrick—a prominent supporter of segregation in the South—"its voice on the civil rights movement and the Constitution, as Buckley and Kilpatrick united North and South in a shared vision for the nation that included upholding white supremacy".[118] In the August 24, 1957, issue of National Review, Buckley's editorial "Why the South Must Prevail" spoke out explicitly in favor of temporary segregation in the South until "long term equality could be achieved". Buckley opined that temporary segregation in the South was necessary at the time because the black population lacked the education, economic, and cultural development to make racial equality possible.[119][120][121] Buckley claimed that the white South had "the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races".

Buckley said white Southerners were "entitled" to disenfranchise black voters "because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."[125] Buckley characterized blacks as distinctly ignorant: "The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could."[125] Two weeks after that editorial was published, another prominent conservative writer, L. Brent Bozell Jr. (Buckley's brother-in-law), wrote in the National Review: "This magazine has expressed views on the racial question that I consider dead wrong, and capable of doing great hurt to the promotion of conservative causes. There is a law involved, and a Constitution, and the editorial gives White Southerners leave to violate them both in order to keep the Negro politically impotent.

This meant that the "far Right" radicals of various stripes too far outside America's Overton Window had to go. No more John Birch Society, no more Ayn Rand and most crucially, no more white nationalism — BenMcLean

Buckley rejected Rand’s insistence on absolute rationalism and her rejection of tradition and religion as arbiters of morality. Rand, in turn, thought Buckley’s reliance on faith and hierarchy undermined human reason and freedom. While I am no fan of Randianism, I think she has a point here.

I hope Trump will do some good things and I hope we can survive the bad things he does and I don't see him as either the savior of America or as the absolute devil that the American Left always says every Republican President always is and always has for my entire life and probably always will. He's no angel, but there's also no sense in crying wolf about him. Trump is, for the most part, a pretty normal politician — BenMcLean

Many of the most direct and scathing attacks on Trump I have read have come from old line National Review conservatives like David Brooks, Peter Wehner, David Frum, George Will, William Kristol, Charles Krauhammer, Michael Gerson, Ross Douthat , and many others. These conservatives were the first to raise the alarm that Trump is ANYTHING but a normal politician, and that his playbook is explicitly autocratic and a direct threat to the survival of American democracy.

As an old-fashioned socialist, it's clear to me that "the left" lost its way when it turned from class (working class, ruling class conflicts) and toward identity -- all the woke crap of gender, race, etc. I am also an old fashioned gay, the sexual liberation era immediately post Stonewall. "We" (whoever belongs in that collective noun) weren't interested in gay marriage and family and trans identity (etc). I'm still not (though at 80 years old, it's now kind of irrelevant). Whether one is gay, straight, some sort of transgender, male, female, and so on is only personally important. Economics trumps identity. — BC

That is exactly the situation on the American Left but unfortunately, I'm not able to tell them this as a friend and they absolutely aren't going to hear it coming from an enemy. But the reality is that left wing identitarian politics is exactly as toxic, corrosive and dangerous as white nationalism on the American Right ever was. Ditching that -- for both sides -- is going to be a precondition for ever reaching across the aisle for Americans to work together on anything ever again.

Horseshoe theory is real.

Buckley himself was not exactly an enthusiastic supporter of the Civil Rights movement when it counted. — Joshs

When did it count? Did it count in the early 1960s or over the long term course of the next half century. You're still playing "gotcha" by trying to dig up old quotes in order to character-assassinate Buckley and not trying to gain an understanding of the historical reality of the Republican party, what they really believe and why these people believe the things they do. That's the point I'm trying to make, not to run historical revisionist apologia for the personal character of William F. Buckley.

Maybe I expressed the conservative movement's embracing of liberalism on race in a way that was a little revisionist about the early 60s, but what I'm trying to articulate is the actual content of the ideology that formed a core tenet of the movement by the time they really got into power: that all men are created equal. I may need to revise how I discuss this, but I'm not imagining the fact of this as a core tenet.

Buckley rejected Rand’s insistence on absolute rationalism and her rejection of tradition and religion as arbiters of morality. — Joshs

I think Buckley rejected Rand's atheism -- which is not synonymous with rationality and rejecting it is not an anti-reason project -- and Rand's moral framework of altruism being evil, largely following Whittaker Chambers on this.

Many of the most direct and scathing attacks on Trump I have read have come from old line National Review conservatives like David Brooks, Peter Wehner, David Frum, George Will, William Kristol, Charles Krauhammer, Michael Gerson, Ross Douthat , and many others. These conservatives were the first to raise the alarm that Trump is ANYTHING but a normal politician, and that his playbook is explicitly autocratic and a direct threat to the survival of American democracy — Joshs

National Review had changed a lot by then, no longer being the central vangard of the broad movement that it once was, no longer representing the cross section of different factions it once did. But even still, the real cause of these people's alarm isn't that Trump really is so extreme (that's ridiculously overblown) but that the massive success of Trump does stand as a public indictment of the older ideology of National Review (and what remnants of it are still represented by its current editors) as dying, on a civilizational level. Doctrinaire retrenchment of Buckley fusionism is not going to save the American Right. In my opinion, only a new construction can -- and it's going to have to be a lot more flexible.

I guess the big elephant in the room I haven't talked about is immigration -- but the reality is that immigration is not officially a partisan issue. Officially, Kamala Harris argued not that American immigration law is inherently racist and evil, but that American immigration law is just fine and that the Biden administration was doing a great job of enforcing it. Look it up: that was her stance.

As such, if I was to do apologetics for the Trump administration's immigration enforcement, it would seem like I am arguing with a strawman, because Democrat politicians have not been willing to explicitly embrace the open borders rhetoric of their base. The press will do it, but never the politicians.

Trump's actions on immigration are just a more consistent enforcement of existing laws that both parties voted for and neither party was willing to repeal and that's all.

Some of the rhetoric and new policy direction has been trying to reform the system in order to make enforcement practical, because we can't spend months arguing in court to deport every individual when it took only minutes for them to enter. The policy will need to adjust for the reality that the overall migratory flow direction needs to be outwards, not inwards, at least until we've got things settled. But none of it has been all that radical: it is all based on existing American law with longstanding bipartisan support.

This isn't just a right wing action and it's ridiculous to smear Trump as extreme for doing the exact same stuff as Obama and Biden, just more consistently.

You can have a welfare state xor you can have open borders, but you can't have both.

One area where I see the American Left as correct is that Trump really did lose the 2020 election and his continued insistence that he really won it is blatant reality denial -- always a serious problem. On the other hand, I'm not really prepared to take this critique seriously when it is coming from people who are themselves so deep into reality denial that they cannot answer basic questions of trivially observable mundane everyday reality like what a woman is.

. But even still, the real cause of these people's alarm isn't that Trump really is so extreme (that's ridiculously overblown) but that the massive success of Trump does stand as a public indictment of the older ideology of National Review (and what remnants of it are still represented by its current editors) as dying, on a civilizational level — BenMcLean

I have no problem in accepting that a broad swath of the American public always harbored autocratic instincts, but that until the past 50 years this segment was hidden within a mixed electorate characterizing both parties. As intellectual republicans of the George Will-David Brooks mold left their party, and that broad traditionalist swath inclined toward autocracy left the Democratic party, it exposed a long-hidden truth, not just in the U.S. but in Europe and elsewhere around the world. Traditionalists gravitate to leaders like Orban, Putin, Erdogan and Trump, and when they all concentrate within one party, their numbers allow them to dominate at the national level. That’s not an indictment of anything, it just says that your way of life was never as popular as you thought it was and now that the electorate has split along geographic lines coalition may no longer be possible.

It is becoming less and less likely that some political middle ground can be reconstructed any time soon, because the left has been moving farther and farther away from the traditionalists, which is why the latter fled liberal parties. Just as important, the two factions have segregated themselves geographically. If you live in a large city, it is likely your view of the world socially, scientifically, politically and ethically is so far removed from that of a rural resident that for all intents and purposes you live in a different country from them. Is Trump extreme? No more than MAGA. Is MAGA extreme? Yes, of course they are. They are extremely far removed from any political, ethical, social or scientific values that I and the majority of those
living alongside me in my urban community relate to and thrive within. I am not judging their values and positions as right or wrong in a moral sense. I am simply saying that when implemented by a community as a whole they are incompatible with the kind of life I need to live. Under such circumstances, the best strategy for a federalist country like the U.S. is separation and soft secession.

I am not worried that the Right is at risk of imploding.
On the contrary, it is quite possible that the MAGA numbers will increase over the next decade as more socially conservative minorities flee the democratic party. It’s only your vision of the right which has imploded because you are outnumbered. This may go on for a long time, and that isn’t a tolerable scenario for urbanites since it means their needs will go unrepresented. It will require aggressive , creative thinking about how to re-align the relationship between municipalities, states and the national government in the direction of forming local and state alliances and coalitions which fill in for what will be lacking from the national level.

I guess the big elephant in the room I haven't talked about is immigration — BenMcLean

I have a non-socialist, non-leftist, non-progressive view: Sovereign states are obligated to control their borders. First, for the protection and security of its citizens, second, for the protection and security of its neighbors (also sovereign states). Uncontrolled immigration allows individuals from other countries to make policy on the hoof. A handful of unauthorized immigrants might have a negligible effect on society; 14,000,000 unauthorized immigrants is another matter altogether, having large consequences for citizens and governments at all levels.

Can they be removed? They can, of course. It's possible. The question is whether the citizens have the stomach for the kind of enforcement that would be required to expel large numbers of unauthorized immigrants from the country. I have no enthusiasm for mass roundups. So far, many Americans have found roundups, detention centers, and expulsions quite unappetizing when they shift from the abstract to the concrete. Then there are the militant pro-immigration groups who agitate against ICE enforcement. Besides that, ICE is hardly a sympathy-generating organization.

Besides removal, there is the matter of the economy. Immigrants become an important part of local and national economies--not altogether positive. A large number of unauthorized immigrant-workers willing to work at substantially lower wages than America citizens, undermines wages. It depends on whose ox is getting gored. Companies employing cheap labor don't complain.

On a global level, millions of people are already on the move, from areas of less opportunity and less favorable conditions to places where they can hope for better--like it or not. Managing global population movement is something that no government has tackled, other than to maintain tight borders.

I have no problem in accepting that a broad swath of the American public always harbored autocratic instincts, but that until the past 50 years this segment was hidden within a mixed electorate characterizing both parties. — Joshs

When FDR massively expanded the powers of the executive branch and when Obama said, "I have a pen and a phone" you clapped like a circus seal and never gave the implications of that expansion a second thought. This is just pure partisanship, not rooted in a genuine suspicion of executive power. The same thing is good when your guys do it but bad when the other guys do it.

On the other hand, you do have a legitimate insight that there seem to be "two Americas" -- and the division is not just about means nor even about ends, but is increasingly about epistemology. We don't even have shared facts anymore.

They are extremely far removed from any political, ethical, social or scientific values that I and the majority of those living alongside me in my urban community relate to and thrive within. — Joshs

Oh please. Science is downstream from money which is downstream from values. You get whatever science you fund. If the Nazis fund science, you get Nazi science. If the Communists fund science, you get Communist science. If the Capitalists fund science, you get Capitalist science. There are no such things as "scientific values" produced independently of the real deciders of the kinds of questions scientists will be given the funds to research. Scientists are trained monkeys in lab coats with delusions of grandeur, not leaders.

When FDR massively expanded the powers of the executive branch and when Obama said, "I have a pen and a phone" you clapped like a circus seal and never gave the implications of that expansion a second thought. This is just pure partisanship, not rooted in a genuine suspicion of executive power. The same thing is good when your guys do it but bad when the other guys do it. — BenMcLean

I gave you a chance to get beyond the ‘you guys vs us guys’ rhetoric when I gave you a long list of the kind of people you said in your OP that you endorsed as thoughtful role models of Buckley-National Review political thought. I explained that none of them had any problem making a distinction between executive overreach and straight-out autocracy. They all placed Trump in the latter category. Most of the figures on that list have explicitly singled Trump out as exceptional among U.S. presidents in the degree, explicitness, and persistence of his autocratic instincts, not merely as “another flawed president” or an intensification of familiar abuses of power. What distinguishes their criticism is precisely that they do not treat Trump as continuous with Nixon, Bush, Obama, or even earlier illiberal moments in American history, but as representing a qualitative break in norms.

For writers like George Will, David Frum, Peter Wehner, Michael Gerson, Jonah Goldberg, William Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer, the claim is not simply that Trump governed aggressively or expansively, but that he rejected the legitimacy of constitutional restraint itself. They repeatedly emphasize features they regard as unprecedented in the modern presidency: the open denial of electoral legitimacy, the personalization of state institutions, the systematic attack on independent courts and the press as enemies of the people, the use of office for personal loyalty rather than institutional fidelity, and the willingness to praise or emulate foreign strongmen as political models. Will, in particular, has framed Trump as the first president to govern as though the Constitution were an inconvenience rather than a binding structure.

So you and I belong to two different communities. I side with that thoughtful community of National Review pundits in their assessment of Trump. You side with the community which dismisses these views as ridiculous and overblown. I suspect you and I have different criteria for what constitutes autocracy, which is why on such an issue having a deep impact on the quality of our lives we should separate and focus on building up our respective communities in the direction we need it to go. I want to hang out with the people on that list , even though they are to the right of me politically. You go hang out with whoever considers them ridiculous.

I am just hoping that the new American Right after Trump can be one which still promotes liberty and justice for all -- and to do that, it's going to need a new political theory, beyond Trump's populism. — BenMcLean

The American right should understand that Trump is the real RINO and his populism is extremely toxic and destructive for the right. It just leans on the worst aspects of what the right has been about.

I think first it should be noted the fears that are typical for present day populism: take the replacement theory, for example: that the evil elites want to replace ordinary people. MAGA people don't dare to say the racist fears out loud behind these ideas, but they can project these fears to Europe and declare that in Europe European civilization faces civilizational erasure. But the real fear is that white Americans won't be a majority in the US anymore. In a truly multicultural country like the US with it's painful history starting with slavery, it would be too much to say this out loud such racist lies. But when referring to Europe, it works fine.

This racism is something that is truly ugly and something that the right has to fight against. These are the worst kind of "radicals" on the right, if in the left the worst are the "Shining Path maoists" or people like Pol Pot who want really radical change by killing many, many people. You should never confuse those lunatics with your average social democrat. But also one should notice the difference with the traditional right and the Trumpists.

I gave you a chance to get beyond the ‘you guys vs us guys’ rhetoric when I gave you a long list of the kind of people you said in your OP that you endorsed as thoughtful role models of Buckley-National Review political thought. I explained that none of them had any problem making a distinction between executive overreach and straight-out autocracy. They all placed Trump in the latter category. Most of the figures on that list have explicitly singled Trump out as exceptional among U.S. presidents in the degree, explicitness, and persistence of his autocratic instincts, not merely as “another flawed president” or an intensification of familiar abuses of power. — Joshs

What they're really doing, in my view, is kind of despicable, because National Review today would rather flat out side with the rabid lunacy of the woke Left than work with a flawed but politically viable Right-leaning leadership. I don't see today's National Review as genuinely constructing anything new: all they ever do is criticize and their criticism is empty.

Trump is not a "threat to democracy" unless the term "democracy" means "permanent, one-party rule by the Democrats." There's going to be an election in 2028. There's going to be a peaceful transfer of power, no matter who wins. Things are going to be normal.

They repeatedly emphasize features they regard as unprecedented in the modern presidency: the open denial of electoral legitimacy, — Joshs

That's only because it's usually the losers who waste oxygen on complaining about the legitimacy of past elections they lost. But complain they do, as the Democrats in fact did in 2000 and again in 2016 when "Russian bots" and Cambridge Analytica were the reason for Trump's victory, not Americans dissatisfaction with the status quo.

the personalization of state institutions, — Joshs

Trump is a real narcissist, naming things after himself instead of after past historical figures, which is in real bad taste but not deeply significant long term.

the systematic attack on independent courts and the press as enemies of the people, — Joshs

About the courts: You attack the courts whenever Trump appointees didn't rule your way, most notably in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That's normal whenever the ruling doesn't go the speaker's way and not significant.

As for the press, Trump is absolutely right about the press and you're even willing to accept that as being right when the same words, with nouns swapped out, come from leftists regarding FOX News, politicall talk radio and anywhere else that isn't perfectly aligned with your politics.

I've seen firsthand the kind of lies the Leftist press constantly do, where a gathering of thousands versus a tiny contingent of 16 was selectively photographed and narratively framed to make the sides look evenly matched. They are the enemies of the people, they chose to become the enemies of the people and it was past time someone said it.

There's no such thing as a political independent, let alone a politiclly independent journalist.

the use of office for personal loyalty rather than institutional fidelity, — Joshs

This is something Democrats have always done and which Republicans, if they ever want to do more than setting speed limits on Democrat policies, cannot avoid doing. Frankly, Trump can't do this fast enough as far as I'm concerned -- not based so much on personal loyalty to Mr. Trump, but making appointments based on ideological alignment with the larger project of the American Right is something that strategically cannot be avoided for them if they like still existing culturally in the long term -- and it's something Democrat administrations have never shied away from doing.

Will, in particular, has framed Trump as the first president to govern as though the Constitution were an inconvenience rather than a binding structure. — Joshs

Actually, I would identify that as not being the most recent Republican President, but instead as having been the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.

And I actually like Lincoln. I think naive Constitutionalism is one of the false premises that has to be let go of on the American Right. The Constitution was made to serve the people, and not the other way around.

I think first it should be noted the fears that are typical for present day populism: take the replacement theory, for example: that the evil elites want to replace ordinary people. — ssu

The Great Replacement exists in a quantum state.
If you say that the Great Replacement is real, but is a good thing, then this is an argument that is allowed to be taken seriously and given real credence.
But if you say that the Great Replacement is real, but is a bad thing, then that is dismissed as a racist conspriacy theory which is beneath rational discussion.
The exisence of the phenomenon as a statistical fact is subject to epistemic uncertainty a lot like Shrodinger's Cat until the moral evaluation is brought forward to frame it, thus collapsing the waveform. Only once the speaker's morality is observed do their statistical facts become distinguishable as reality or conspiracy theory.
In this way, the fact of the existence of the Great Replacement is determined, not by statistics, but by moral evaluation and rhetorical framing.

That aspect of the Left's argument on this is utter bullshit. Settle whether it's happening or not first, which should be strictly based on the data, before we go evaluating it as good or bad or neutral.

Here's the thing on the demographic shift: I am perfectly happy to replace certain categories of whites whom I don't like with browns. If the browns coming in are family oriented Catholics while the whites getting replaced are wokist vegans with alternative sexuality from San Francisco, then I say hell yeah, let's have more browns. What I really don't want is criminal or slave class browns coming in to replace blue collar working class whites, in a way that I think of as more about class than race. I'm OK with bringing in non-whites as long as they are the kind of non-whites who are going to help build a civilization and not the kind who are going to tear one down.

But fundamentally, completely apart from any ideology which says there's anything particularly special or superior about whites, absolutely nobody should be expected to just accept a system which is deliberately, maliciously stomping on their people's faces, no matter what color they are, no matter what period of history it is and no matter whether academic elites say they get to count as "historically marginalized" or not.

What they're really doing, in my view, is kind of despicable, because National Review today would rather flat out side with the rabid lunacy of the woke Left than work with a flawed but politically viable Right-leaning leadership. — BenMcLean

They’re despicable to you not because they aren’t taking an honest, principled stance but because they aren’t as conservative as you are. It shows how fringe Trump is that even you don’t like him.

They’re despicable to you not because they aren’t taking an honest, principled stance but because they aren’t as conservative as you are. It shows how fringe Trump is that even you don’t like him. — Joshs

No, it's because their criticism isn't constructive. They're bitter about their ideas not being in vogue -- specifically because their libertarianism on economics, which you also oppose, has manifestly failed in practice and they still haven't accepted the reality of that failure. The rest of it is all camoflage IMV

(later edit: OK, maybe not every one of their critiques is non-constructive, because heaven knows it's easy to point out real flaws in any administration, but this is definitely the overarching impression I get of the current National Review types)

The Left finds them useful now not just because they hate Trump but because the Left has internalized the same libertarianism on economics, so long as they agree with the sexuality and color of the people on the executive board of the corrupt megacorporation and the DEI quotas are met.

If I thought these people were ever going to be able to truly revitalize the Buckley fusionist coalition and it could work and they had a viable strategy to reign in Big Tech and if all it cost was contracting a case of TDS then that would be great news for me! It'd be a very high reward, low risk proposition. The trouble is that I know they can't do that -- libertarianism CANNOT meaningfully coherently explain what's wrong with Big Tech. Nothing they can propose which fits within their ideological framework can address the problem.

Now I don't think Trump necessarily solves this problem either. But Trump functions to widen the Overton window, which is desperately needed if anyone's ever going to emerge with a plan that actually can solve this. These old guys are trying to narrow the Overton window, which is precisely the opposite of what's needed right now to face the real problems of the current generation.

The Left finds them useful now not just because they hate Trump but because the Left has internalized the same libertarianism on economics — BenMcLean

Who is a good exemplar of non-libertarianism on the right? Do Trump’s tariffs count?

Who is a good exemplar of non-libertarianism on the right? Do Trump’s tariffs count? — Joshs

Nobody's real consistent on this and I see this as a newly emerging political category. It's not strictly identified with Trump but there are a few things Trump has done that push this way which I see as positive -- but also mixed in with other negative stuff from Trump which pushes the other way too sometimes.

One thing I see as positive is Trump's proposal from just this week that big institutional investors buying up single family homes should be regulated. That is NOT OK with the Buckley types! That is NOT "free market" at all! But it seems like it could be the right direction, depending of course on how it's implemented becuase we haven't found out a lot of details yet.

On the tariffs, I'm not sure. Tariffs definitely aren't libertarian, because tariffs are taxes and libertairans are for cutting taxes. So raising tariffs is definitely a non-libertarian move -- I'm just not sure it's the right one because Trump's version may be going too far on it and may not be adequately judging which imports to levy the tariffs on strategically enough. On top of this, Trump kept going back and forth on his public plans for tariffs, probably as a negotiating tactic when dealing with foreign leaders, but this did cause a lot of short term economic damage, possibly more than was necessary. So while I'm not opposed to tariffs as one tool of government in principle, I'm not sure Trump is going about this the best way he potentially could and remain reserved about it because it could backfire. I don't know. Tariffs as a policy are inherently a long term play with known short term costs.

I do think some kind of digital bill of rights for Americans which outlines what we do get to be able to do with technology would be something we need for the future. It should involve loosening up IP law (which libertarian philosophy says we should do but the libertarians themselves will almost never talk about) and placing mandates on technology companies which guarantee user rights for repair, customization, backups, tinkering, etc. Something that aligns incentives to structurally protect free political speech online and to foster innovation by preventing technological enclosure. That's really important for me personally -- and that's really really not "free market" compatible.

I was fond of Bill Buckley for the most part, but it's clear that he was rather a latecomer when it came to the Civil Rights movement and opposed desegregation and equal rights for black people well into the 1960s. I don't know how many people are aware his debate with James Baldwin at Cambridge University in 1965, but if you listen to it or see it Buckley comes across as a kind of modern day John Calhoun. He didn't defend slavery, of course, but seemed to think blacks just weren't ready to have the same rights as whites yet. It's not easy for someone who respected him to listen to. I'm sure it's available on the Web somewhere.

Still, he did mellow over the years. And he had our Dear Leader pegged as a narcissist years ago. Compared to the freak show administration now in charge of our Great Quasi-Republic and those posing as conservatives in these sad times, he was a titan.

Trump's actions on immigration are just a more consistent enforcement of existing laws that both parties voted for and neither party was willing to repeal and that's all. — BenMcLean

There's more to it than that. Sending immigrants to CECOT was never policy before Trump. The Trump Administration behaved in despicable fashion with Abrego Garcia, violating a court order by sending him to CECOT, than dragging their feet on bringing him back, then throwing bullshit criminal charges at him, and then having him go free when they couldn't produce a proper deportation order. And I don't remember previous administrations sending out masked ICE agents. Joe Rogan, who supported Trump in 2024, said the ICE raids are insane, and the country as a whole has given Trump bad marks on immigration (separate from how they view border security). And since we're talking about National Review:

"My guess is that at some point in your life, you’ve been falsely accused of something, and you didn’t like it one bit. Now imagine how it feels to be a Latino U.S. citizen and worrying that someone might accuse you of being an illegal immigrant, or you might be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and some ICE agent thinks he should slap handcuffs on you.

Yes, U.S. permanent residents age 18 or older are required to always have a valid green card in their possession. But if you’re a U.S. citizen, you’re not required by law to carry anything. And remember, a driver’s license is not necessarily proof of citizenship, because 19 states and the District of Columbia allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Are Latino U.S. citizens supposed to carry around their passports at all times? Wear your best suit everywhere you go, and think you look too well-dressed to be an illegal immigrant?

For some Latino American citizens, this is not a hypothetical concern:

At least 35 events celebrating Hispanic heritage across 21 states have been canceled or postponed, with most organizers citing concerns relating to the political climate and possible interactions with ICE, according to a Washington Post analysis. One example: Organizers said they couldn’t risk going forward with the Salvadoreñisimo Festival — usually held in Maryland’s Montgomery County — out of fear that the event would lead to detentions.

Abel Nuñez, executive director of the Central American Resource Center in D.C., said there has been a “dampening of all activities that put people in danger.” . . .

As Trump’s “Operation Midway Blitz” took off in Chicago in early September, residents of the heavily Mexican neighborhoods of Pilsen and La Villita noted how quiet and still their streets had become.

Maritza Lara, a vendor selling fruit out of a cart in Pilsen, estimated her sales had dropped about 50 percent from the day neighborhood WhatsApp and Signal groups started reporting ICE vehicles in the area.

“It’s pretty serious. There’s no people around,” she said. “Nobody knows how it works anymore. Even if you have papers, even if you have everything, they’re still stopping people.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/gee-how-did-latino-americans-become-so-alienated-from-the-gop/

One area where I see the American Left as correct is that Trump really did lose the 2020 election and his continued insistence that he really won it is blatant reality denial -- always a serious problem. — BenMcLean

Did you vote for Trump in 2024?

What I would like to happen is for the new American Right to:
1. Reject anti-white policies & rhetoric, but on the grounds of a moderate liberal civic nationalism, not white nationalism.
2. Stop seeing "socialism" as the boogeyman and instead work to get responsible people appointed and responsible policies made for real governance, not just opposition.
3. Actually get control of Big Tech, reigning it in so that tech works for the benefit of people and not the other way around.
4. Pursue pro-natalist, pro-family, pro-home-ownership policies across the board. See if we can make friends with labor.
5. Stay home from foreign wars. — BenMcLean

You didn't mention the conspiracy theory lunacy that has taken over much of the Right. Don't you think that's a big problem?

The Great Replacement exists in a quantum state.
If you say that the Great Replacement is real, but is a good thing, then this is an argument that is allowed to be taken seriously and given real credence.
But if you say that the Great Replacement is real, but is a bad thing, then that is dismissed as a racist conspriacy theory which is beneath rational discussion.
The exisence of the phenomenon as a statistical fact is subject to epistemic uncertainty a lot like Shrodinger's Cat until the moral evaluation is brought forward to frame it, thus collapsing the waveform. Only once the speaker's morality is observed do their statistical facts become distinguishable as reality or conspiracy theory.
In this way, the fact of the existence of the Great Replacement is determined, not by statistics, but by moral evaluation and rhetorical framing.

That aspect of the Left's argument on this is utter bullshit. Settle whether it's happening or not first, which should be strictly based on the data, before we go evaluating it as good or bad or neutral.

Here's the thing on the demographic shift: I am perfectly happy to replace certain categories of whites whom I don't like with browns. — BenMcLean

First of all, nobody's replacing anybody.

The theory Renaud Camus is there with David Lanes "White Genocide" conspiracy theories. If you truly believe in those, I think you are on a wrong forum. See the site guidelines: "Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

What countries have done is to have immigration because a) they lack workforce and b) growing population bring economic growth while decreasing population hinders economic growth. That has been the basic reason, not an idea to change the population.

Population growth has nearly everywhere except in Sub-Saharan Africa gone negative as people have become more wealthy. That the fertility rate is falling and basically the fertility rate is below 2.0 has not happened because of some active policy from any administration (even the Chinese have gone back from their one-child policy), but many other reasons. There's an universal demographic transformation which hasn't been decided by elites. This transformation is not related to policies or agendas of any elites may have. Here lies the error which puts Camus etc. into conspiracy theories: that this has been some great plan pushed by certain groups.

Yet when you add up the two, having immigration while also then lower fertility rates, some argue illogically that this is an active policy truly "to replace" the existing population.

I'm OK with bringing in non-whites as long as they are the kind of non-whites who are going to help build a civilization and not the kind who are going to tear one down.

But fundamentally, completely apart from any ideology which says there's anything particularly special or superior about whites, absolutely nobody should be expected to just accept a system which is deliberately, maliciously stomping on their people's faces, no matter what color they are, no matter what period of history it is and no matter whether academic elites say they get to count as "historically marginalized" or not. — BenMcLean

It's not about helping "to build a civilization", it's about helping your society, your civilization.

The real question is how an society, any society, responds to an influx of foreigners. The basic answer here is that IF the foreigners bring wealth to the society, then the foreigners are accepted. Yet if this is questionable or it seems to be questionable if the foreigners do add any wealth to the society, then anti-immigration views, prejudices and also racist thoughts emerge about discussing the foreigners. And if the foreigners are indeed in the country to pillage the wealth of the society without any attempt to contribute to the society, we have a common term for them: the are then the enemy, an invading force. And the usually every society is up in arms to fight and kill the foreigners.

And that's basically it.

You can see the above three foreigner types in everyday discourse. Everybody is happy with tourists that come with their money to spend it in one's own local economy. If you start complaining that there are too many foreign tourist in your city, you'll likely be approached by some telling that he or she feeds his or her family thanks to tourists, so why don't you just mind your own business.

If the inflow of foreigners has a questionable effect on the economy, then you basically have an "immigration-debate" like in Europe. But similar would happen anywhere.

And if the foreigners are there to steel your wealth and subjugate you, you fight back like the Ukrainians are doing now against the Russians.

(This is btw something that the Trump administration should take into account when "running Venezuela".)

If the inflow of foreigners has a questionable effect on the economy, then you basically have an "immigration-debate" like in Europe. — ssu

It's not just a questionable effect on the economy. The British grooming scandal wasn't economical. There are real concerns with male immigrants from countries with institutionalized misogyny.

And that's basically it. — ssu

What of immigrant groups that claim to possess absolute truth and consider it their prerogative to spread or impose it on the native population?

It seems to me that what is most critical in the culture wars is what the role of equal rights under law amounts to in application. That is often conflated with other initiatives but persists as the greatest obstacle to proportional representation in the U.S.

The American Right is currently at a significant crossroads and I am speaking about it here not as a critic but as a lifelong insider. But even for an outsider, it should be valuable to understand why things are the way they are, why the Right currently has an ideological crisis and what this means for the future. — BenMcLean

You should know that from the outside BOTH parties in the US are very much Right Wing. You have had no Left Wing in my lifetime. I would say that over the last few decades there has been some Leftist posturing but that is all it is, 'posturing'.

Bernie is the only true voice of the Left I have seen in the US and I imagine the Democrats would have pummelled Trump if he was leading the line. Sadly, the US is so opposed to anything that leans towards socialism that they cannot handle holding a Leftist line.

I think the overall global picture is simply due to the death throws of nationhood. The experiment of Nation is coming to an end and this is simply an attempt to cling onto what is already pretty much over--it just hasn't been fully realised by everyone yet.

But when you talk about socialism, do you mean government ownership of the means of production? Or is it more bread and circuses you're referring to?

An example of a country where a significant chunk of industry is actually nationalized is Russia.

I mean th US has fear of ANY socialist scheme. Healthcare is an obvious one.

I mean th US has fear of ANY socialist scheme. Healthcare is an obvious one. — I like sushi

Strictly speaking, that's bread and circuses, not socialism, but it's not true. Medicare is essential to the financial stability of every hospital in America. If Medicare withdraws support from a hospital (for instance, due to fraud or poor quality care), that hospital goes under. Medicaid pays for a wide range of health costs, and Social Security pays out for disability. My uncle had Downs and all his bills were paid for by his father's social security, so that was decades of care.

Obamacare is also alive and well, contrary to what you may hear.

Sadly, the US is so opposed to anything that leans towards socialism that they cannot handle holding a Leftist line. — I like sushi

You pay for healthcare. If you think that many European countries are more right leaning than the US over the past half-century I woudl have to say 'not true'. You can disagree if you want to.