I wouldn't know. The view you describe doesn't sound very conservative to me. Some sort of hyper-paleoconservatism, as far as I can tell. I mean, Burke supported the American Revolution, and he's usually labeled the godfather of conservatism, paleo and otherwise, at least in the Anglosphere. That's clearly not a "conservative" position to take, as per the definition you have given.

represent the new intellectual movement of right-wing philosophy? — Maw

No, it's always existed, it's just gotten more publicity and the illusion of power with Trump. The fact that the alt-right has glombed onto Trump is ironic to me, given that Trump is an unprincipled New York liberal, so I don't quite understand it. I suppose the fashionable answer is that the alt-right appreciates his positions with respect to immigration, foreign policy, and law and order, but Trump's views on these issues aren't any different from the positions of both parties just a few years ago, so it's really just a personality cult it seems to me. I suppose Trump also appears as one of Moldbug's corporate executives in his technocratic utopia.

No, it's always existed, it's just gotten more publicity and the illusion of power with Trump — Thorongil

Right, so is this newfound publicity shaping it to be more of a mainstream movement rather than a mere underground coterie that it once was? And I would argue that, given Trump's election (or at minimum, his nomination as the Republican candidate) certainly does not operate on the level of illusory power.

He wouldn't have been elected were it not for the portion of blacks, latinos, and white women who voted for him. They watched David Duke endorse him and voted for him anyway. They weren't taking the threat of an alt-right rise very seriously. I don't think the past year has persuaded them to become neo-Nazis. Do you?

I don't think the past year has persuaded them to become neo-Nazis. Do you? — frank

No, but I'm not sure how that relates to anything I previously said.

In order for the alt-right to become more mainstream, somebody has to convert. Who would that be?

But American "conservatives" have a long track record now of actively dismantling depression era regulations, lowering taxes in the name of economic intervention; in short, being something other than conservative or rightist. It was done in the name of capitalist principles. So what's the name for that? — frank

Good. We need a longer-term view.

The US built some of the European style social programs like Social Security to reduce economic hardship among the elderly or Unemployment Insurance directed at on-going unemployment. Local level welfare programs were expanded. Other programs addressed the immediate problems of the Great Depression, like the Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Federal Housing Administration, and various other programs. Aid For Dependent Children (AFDC)--the "Welfare as we know it" dismantled under Clinton's administration followed. Thirty years later, Medicare and Medicaid programs were introduced.

There was strong opposition to the expansion of activist-government programs in and since the 1930s. There were other developments such as the expansion of unionism during the 1930s-1950s that was resisted by business interests. There are currently efforts to reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of public-employment unions, the strongest section of a much-weakened labor movement.

Whether we call the various forces involved left wing, progressive, liberal, Democratic, reactionary, conservative, right wing, or Republican or something else isn't the point. The point is that the roll of the central government in ameliorating suffering affecting individuals and families has been contested for 80+ years. The resistance has been framed in various ways -- individual responsibility for one's well being, state's prerogatives vs. federal mandates, business vs. unions, public spending vs. (Other issues have been contested too, longer, but that's another thread.)

The current political situation though muddled and muddy--perhaps more than usual--has continuity with the past. The current shape of the Republican Party also has a history. The 1964 candidacy of Barry Goldwater from Arizona vs. the more moderate Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller from New York marked the beginning of a major shift for the Republican Party which gradually became more conservative, or reactionary. The Republicans and Democrats changed places in the south. That change was really quite significant. It led to a redistribution of political influence and power.

Agree? Disagree?

Most likely (young) white males.

Millenials? I think they're more likely to drift left than right.

Yes, and? It doesn't at all conflict with what I said.

Whether we call the various forces involved left wing, progressive, liberal, Democratic, reactionary, conservative, right wing, or Republican or something else isn't the point. The point is that the roll of the central government in ameliorating suffering affecting individuals and families has been contested for 80+ years. — Bitter Crank

Both sides of the aisle agree that the government has a responsibility to intervene. It's just a matter of degree. Is that how you see it?

Today's economic conservative would have been a liberal in the past. Today's rightist would have been yesterday's leftist?

Then I misunderstood you. Sorry.

Both sides of the aisle agree that the government has a responsibility to intervene. It's just a matter of degree. Is that how you see it? — frank

Yes, but the difference in degree is significant.

Today's economic conservative would have been a liberal in the past. Today's rightist would have been yesterday's leftist? — frank

No. There have been political shifts rightward, but the Democrats (liberals) who passed Social Security in the 1930s are not todays conservatives.

No. There have been political shifts rightward, but the Democrats (liberals) who passed Social Security in the 1930s are not todays conservatives. — Bitter Crank

But today's conservatives support Social Security, don't they?

Opposition to Social Security now comes in the form of privatization. "Let's get rid of the Social Security Trust Fund and invest that money in the stock market where it will get better returns." What privatization accomplishes is a windfall for Wall Street. Here is a comparison of the future of Social Security -- public vs. private:

From Wikipedia

Privatization would mean that retirees would bear personal risk that the value of social security would fall (perhaps sharply) when they needed it, given the vagaries of the stock market. Capturing social security in the stock market is just more of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper classes -- business as usual

It is true that fewer working contributors are supporting more elderly beneficiaries. That relationship isn't sustainable. There are, of course, non-privatizing solutions.

so is this newfound publicity shaping it to be more of a mainstream movement rather than a mere underground coterie that it once was? — Maw

No.

And I would argue that, given Trump's election (or at minimum, his nomination as the Republican candidate) certainly does not operate on the level of illusory power. — Maw

I'm saying Trump has power, not the alt-right. The latter has more publicity, that's all.

I was browsing information on that and came across this:

Hmm.

The positions have evolved quite recently in my mind, and they take four dimensions.

Right-wing politics involves tradition, market, nation, and normativism. Left involves innovation, society, globalization, and application. All four variables are given in extremes and can be plotted on a chart.

Personally, it seems like a no-brainer debate to me. Most people are not saving enough for retirement -- even a minimally financed retirement. Some people could, but are not; many people want to save for retirement but can not. Wages have not kept pace with inflation, and have actually decreased in constant dollars. People are living longer on average past 65 or 70 than they were in 1935.

And social security has never been, and won't be enough retirement income for most people IF they have no assets of their own. People living on the lower end of social security payments (like $700 a month) generally must live in public housing and must receive a food-security benefit. Medicare is obviously an essential piece.

It makes good economic sense (and good moral sense) to at least maintain the success of Social Security by widening the basis of contribution and assuring the stability of the system. It would also be eminently sensible for governments to assist people in saving and investing money throughout their lives so that they will have some additional income. It will require a share of the income from the richest 5% to accomplish this, and it is only fair that the richest should pay out more taxes.

See The Anti-Christian Alt-Right in the ecumenical religious studies journal, First Things. Insightful account into some of the intellectual sources of ‘alt-right’ `politics including Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola, Rene Guenon (whom I encountered when I studied comparative religion) and one Alain de Benoist, whom i have never read and probably won’t, going on what’s here.

Serious article, though.

I don’t see Trump as ‘right wing’, or any wing. Or maybe only one wing, therefore flapping around in circles. A lot of so-called ‘rightists’ have hitched their wagon to his peculiar star, without seeming to notice that he routinely trashes conservative positions and GOP policy. But the entire political spectrum is so complicated and so compromised, that it’s hard to identify anything consistent.

remember this one:



Strangely the Republicans now say nothing at all about much huger debt forecasts than were ever predicted under the previous administration. I guess that’s part of the policy of never disagreeing with Trump lest you be incinerated by tweet.

I thought the intention was to regard partisanship as biased.

You won't succeed in understanding the contemporary Right using the categorical schemes favored by Leftist theorists. The contemporary Right is definitely reactionary, but the reasons for this just cannot be understood in the terms in which Leftist theorists ordinarily think.

Listen, I'm going to give you a valuable tip: if you want to understand what the Right is doing, you won't get there by trying to fit them into the "villain" role in your political Manicheanism (e.g. Ciceronianus' post) and you won't get there by trying to sympathize with the plight of poor, rural white people. Neither of those will work.

Somebody posted a link to the article on First Things, and I think that's a good starting point.

We were asked:"What is contemporary Conservatism (now Right-Wing Politics)?." I responded to that question. No request was made to explain let alone understand it, you know.

Your response sucked. No offense.

In all seriousness: if you are convinced that the Right is a pod of unleashed hell-hounds, it would behoove you to understand them.

...a pod of unleashed hell-hounds — Pneumenon

I'd go more for "a murder of mad crows".

There are plenty of sensible folks on the right out there, but sensible doesn't sell. It's not sexy enough, so the zanier voices tend to get amplified and the more sensible muted. I mean who even knows who George Will is? And who needs him when you've got David Duke, Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson fighting for your attention. And with new media much more so than the past. Then old media needs to compete with new media and before you know it Milo Yabbadickulous is on CNN and Trump is President. So, politics in general is moving further and further away from a special space for (somewhat) reasoned debate into a free for all for emotional venting that the most thoughtless can and do plug into at will to get their jollies before switching over to the ball game or the latest episode of Game of Thrones. Cue increased polarization, increased conflict and a slow but steady inversion of the natural political bell curve.

You are a self-described constitutional Monarchist, you are not "slightly-left leaning". — Maw

What? That's absurd. In the UK, only a small minority within the left support anything other than the constitutional monarchy we have. Over here, whether or not you're a constitutional monarchist would be a very poor means of determining where you are on the political spectrum, at least when it comes to affirmative answers.

Even Johnny Rotten was a fan.

"God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves"

Brings tears to the eye...

:grin:

They aren't unleashed hell-hounds. They're mostly just deeply resentful, frightened people who don't want to deal with--or even encounter--people significantly different from themselves in certain respects (e.g. regarding religion or sex). Deal with them in any way, I mean. Particularly to deal with them here, in God's favorite country, where they don't belong.

This would be harmless enough if kept within reasonable bounds, and prejudice seems a fairly universal characteristic. But those calling themselves conservatives now are inclined to do what liberals have been accused of for some time, i.e. to impose their desires using government and the law, and through activism.

I've considered myself a political conservative for a long time, as I'm suspicious of the power of the central government and think that power should be limited. Conservatives have traditionally preferred government to be local, but no more. I've practiced municipal law for many years, and now see the authority of local government more and more restricted by legislation adopted by Republican legislatures. Current conservatives wish to use centralized government in pursuit of their agenda, and to the extent it may be used to do so want a stronger government.

I haven't been a social conservative, though, and think contemporary conservatives are primarily social conservatives. Social conservatives want to prohibit people from doing things they think improper, and I don't mean from committing crimes, I mean things that aren't right.. They're moralists, of a sort. They don't think people should be free to do what they want to do if that means doing certain things. Their urge to dictate conduct is contrary to political conservatism, as it serves as motivation for use of the power of government tor that purpose, to do things like restrict states from deciding whether marihuana should be legal, or prevent trans people from serving in the military.

Well, if that sucks as well, then suck it does, or will.