National Conservatism, Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I consider this a good read as it defines conservatism into three groups.  I also believe that these three groups comprise virtually all the posters in this website, and understanding the intimacies of each group explains why a lot of members here find difficulty in agreeing with each other.

Particularly it is pointed out the differences in the second group (Neocons which view a world order should influence conservatives) and the third group, those which oppose the second group(with Trump leading this charge for, as Victor Davis Hanson puts it, the Soul of America).

National Conservatism, Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism
John Fonte
Hudson Institute
June/July Issue Imprimis
 
 
The following is adapted from a talk delivered on April 18, 2024, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Bellevue, Washington.

In the past two years, two competing groups of conservatives—National Conservatives or NatCons and Freedom Conservatives or FreeCons—have issued competing manifestos. These manifestos reflect a divergent understanding of the progressive challenge to the American way of life.

This divergence can best be understood in the context of the history of modern American conservatism, which can be broken into three waves: the first wave, symbolized by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan, lasted from the mid-1950s to the end of the Cold War; the second wave, symbolized by Paul Ryan and the two Bush presidencies, ran from the 1990s to roughly the second decade of this century; and the third wave, symbolized by Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, is ongoing.

Modern American conservatism began with the circle around Buckley’s National Review magazine. Conservatism in this period united traditionalists, who were concerned above all with virtue, and classical liberals, who were concerned above all with liberty. National Review’s Frank Meyer famously developed a theory called fusionism, which argued that freedom was a prerequisite for a virtuous society. Fusionism, whatever its philosophical inconsistencies—and aided by the common and urgent cause of anti-communism—worked politically to hold differently-minded conservatives together, particularly during the Reagan administration.

Following the end of the Cold War, American conservatism entered a new phase, embracing globalization at home and abroad. Conservatives supported an integrated global economy, resulting in the North American Free Trade Agreement and China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization. President George H.W. Bush supported legislation that greatly increased immigration, and the State Department under James Baker abandoned traditional American opposition to dual citizenship. President George W. Bush promoted North American economic integration and declared in 2005 that it would henceforth be the goal of U.S. foreign policy “to seek and support the growth of [democracy] in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Paul Ryan exemplified this second wave of conservatism intellectually and politically by promoting free trade, entitlement reform, increased immigration, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Ryan told the Washington Examiner: “We need an immigration system that’s more wired to give our economy the labor it needs to grow faster.”

The third wave of conservatism can be characterized as a nationalist-populist revolt against the policies and attitudes of the second wave, particularly on issues of immigration, trade, sovereignty, and national identity. Originally leading the opposition was U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, who for years issued amendments, memos, and speeches, explicitly calling for a humble populism and “immigration moderation . . . so that wages can rise, welfare rolls can shrink, and the forces of assimilation can knit us all more closely together.”

Donald Trump, needless to say, turbo-charged the nationalist-populist revolt and remains the leading political figure of third-wave conservatism. But I note Sessions’ contribution to make the point that third-wave conservatism did not begin, nor will it end, with Trump.

To a large extent, the current divide between National Conservatives and Freedom Conservatives is a divide between third wavers (NatCons) and second wavers (FreeCons).
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/national-conservatism-freedom-conservatism-and-americanism/

[bigheadfred]

 

[roamer_1]

This is absurd. the Bushes and their cohort are not Conservative.
They do not portray a continuity from Goldwater/Reagan, but rather a complete divergence.
There is no Globalist faction in Conservatism.

And the same goes for Tumpy and his crew.
It is not Conservatism *at all*. It's Populist nonsense.
It holds no Conservative ideology.

No, I would point to Reagan. I would point to the '94 Congress. The TEA Party. And currently the Freedom Caucus, for all it's warts, and the red state governors spawned from the TEA Party.

No doubt DeSantis is a Conservative, by the numbers. But his bones are not made by the Disney kerfluffle - No doubt it helped - He's on the right side of the whole woke thing... But he is also noted for his fiscal theory wrt FL. I believe he is running a surplus. He also stood up against the colleges, and is noted for cutting regulation.


But I would deny the premise of the article. These are not an evolution of Conservatism - In fact, Conservatives have stood against them both.

[Bigun]

If I live until election day I WILL vote FOR Donald John Trump because:

He is the rightful president today and if he was in the WH we would be:

1. Completely energy independent and inflation would be very low.

2. We would have one less idiot sitting on SCOTUS who can't even define "Woman" even though she is one.

3. 13 great Americans would likely still be alive and the Taliban would not have $ Billions of our weapons and equipment.

4. Hunter Biden would likely be in prison and the Biden criminal enterprise would have long since been shut down.

5. Our military would still be the strongest in the world.

6. Venezuela might well be a free country again.

7. Russia would not have dared to invade anyone.

8. The Iranian Mullahs would be at heal. ...

Feel free to add to the list.

[GrouchoTex]

If I live until election day I WILL vote FOR Donald John Trump because:

He is the rightful president today and if he was in the WH we would be:

1. Completely energy independent and inflation would be very low.

2. We would have one less idiot sitting on SCOTUS who can't even define "Woman" even though she is one.

3. 13 great Americans would likely still be alive and the Taliban would not have $ Billions of our weapons and equipment.

4. Hunter Biden would likely be in prison and the Biden criminal enterprise would have long since been shut down.

5. Our military would still be the strongest in the world.

6. Venezuela might well be a free country again.

7. Russia would not have dared to invade anyone.

8. The Iranian Mullahs would be at heal. ...

Feel free to add to the list.

Do not forget the border.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If I live until election day I WILL vote FOR Donald John Trump because:

He is the rightful president today and if he was in the WH we would be:

1. Completely energy independent and inflation would be very low.

2. We would have one less idiot sitting on SCOTUS who can't even define "Woman" even though she is one.

3. 13 great Americans would likely still be alive and the Taliban would not have $ Billions of our weapons and equipment.

4. Hunter Biden would likely be in prison and the Biden criminal enterprise would have long since been shut down.

5. Our military would still be the strongest in the world.

6. Venezuela might well be a free country again.

7. Russia would not have dared to invade anyone.

8. The Iranian Mullahs would be at heal. ...

Feel free to add to the list.

Can I just add a picture of what we would not have?

[Bigun]

Do not forget the border.

  Thank you!

[DefiantMassRINO]

Globalism is not conservative.

An integrated Global economy is not conservative.

Globalism is Communism by commerce.  It's against our national security, economic security, and military interests to export America's competitive advntages to a totalitarian Communist regime in China.

International trade and commerce is good.  Ceding sovereignty to unelected officials at the UN, WTO, WEF, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc., is not conservative.  The Founders believed Government closest to the People governed best; not pseudo-governments in Brussels, Frankfurt, Davos, etc.

[libertybele]

Globalism is not conservative.

An integrated Global economy is not conservative.

Globalism is Communism by commerce.  It's against our national security, economic security, and military interests to export America's competitive advntages to a totalitarian Communist regime in China.

International trade and commerce is good.  Ceding sovereignty to unelected officials at the UN, WTO, WEF, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc., is not conservative.  The Founders believed Government closest to the People governed best; not pseudo-governments in Brussels, Frankfurt, Davos, etc.

Amen!  Good post.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Globalism is not conservative.

An integrated Global economy is not conservative.

Globalism is Communism by commerce.  It's against our national security, economic security, and military interests to export America's competitive advntages to a totalitarian Communist regime in China.

International trade and commerce is good.  Ceding sovereignty to unelected officials at the UN, WTO, WEF, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc., is not conservative.  The Founders believed Government closest to the People governed best; not pseudo-governments in Brussels, Frankfurt, Davos, etc.

I doubt many here would dispute that.

If you read the last paragraph of article, the author recognizes that fact and recommends to go past the conservative vs non-conservative terminology and embrace Americanists vs Transformationists.

The biggest problems we have right now is that a lot of Americans believe or are led to believe that our country, its culture and its government needs to be changed, and radically.

I will conclude with a recommendation on terminology that could become the basis for a new conservative fusionism. The conflict today is not simply a normal policy argument between conservatives and progressives. It is over the future of the historic American nation, both its creed and its culture. Therefore, those who affirm the American nation—whether they are NatCons, FreeCons, or patriotic liberals—should be called Americanists. Those who find our inheritance deeply problematic and seek a revolutionary transformation of the American regime should, logically, be called Transformationists. Today’s polarization should be viewed as an existential struggle between Americanists and Transformationists.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Americans are feeding the World and curing cancer.

The Government needs change ...

1.) Term limits for Federal Judges
2.) Cap age of eligibility for President at 80 years old.
3.) Congress needs to fulfill its Article I obligations - legislate, debate, amend, compromise, vote
4.) Imperial Presidency and Administrative State needs to be de-fanged.
5.) States need to move away from "winner-take-all" Electoral Vote allocation to encourage more political competitiion in more states.

The economy needs structural change:

1.) Enforcement of anti-trust laws to breakup monopolies, dualopolies, oligarchies, cartels, and collusion.  Media would be a good place to start.

Foreign Policy needs change:

1.) Frig the Mideast.
2.) Make Europeans more responsible for their own national security.
3.) A Marshall Plan for Latin America to reduce illegal immigration and to diversify / de-risk Amercian supply chains.

America would benefit from improvements, but it is not the smoldering wasteland that White Nationalist Christian-extremist billionaires want us to think.  They have a twisted view of Amercia because they have bought into the "Prosperity Bible" - their wealth is a sign of God's favor and they feel entitled to use the Lord's name in vain to Make America Puritan Again.

There's nothing stopping those weirdos from buying a cult compound for themselves.  Leave me alone, and stop taking away my choices.

... The biggest problems we have right now is that a lot of Americans believe or are led to believe that our country, its culture and its government needs to be changed, and radically....

[Maj. Bill Martin]

"
I will conclude with a recommendation on terminology that could become the basis for a new conservative fusionism. The conflict today is not simply a normal policy argument between conservatives and progressives. It is over the future of the historic American nation, both its creed and its culture. Therefore, those who affirm the American nation—whether they are NatCons, FreeCons, or patriotic liberals—should be called Americanists. Those who find our inheritance deeply problematic and seek a revolutionary transformation of the American regime should, logically, be called Transformationists. Today’s polarization should be viewed as an existential struggle between Americanists and Transformationists.

Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue....

[catfish1957]

Americans are feeding the World and curing cancer.

The Government needs change ...

1.) Term limits for Federal Judges
2.) Cap age of eligibility for President at 80 years old.
3.) Congress needs to fulfill its Article I obligations - legislate, debate, amend, compromise, vote
4.) Imperial Presidency and Administrative State needs to be de-fanged.
5.) States need to move away from "winner-take-all" Electoral Vote allocation to encourage more political competitiion in more states.

The economy needs structural change:

1.) Enforcement of anti-trust laws to breakup monopolies, dualopolies, oligarchies, cartels, and collusion.  Media would be a good place to start.

Foreign Policy needs change:

1.) Frig the Mideast.
2.) Make Europeans more responsible for their own national security.
3.) A Marshall Plan for Latin America to reduce illegal immigration and to diversify / de-risk Amercian supply chains.

America would benefit from improvements, but it is not the smoldering wasteland that White Nationalist Christian-extremist billionaires want us to think.  They have a twisted view of Amercia because they have bought into the "Prosperity Bible" - their wealth is a sign of God's favor and they feel entitled to use the Lord's name in vain to Make America Puritan Again.

There's nothing stopping those weirdos from buying a cult compound for themselves.  Leave me alone, and stop taking away my choices.

Sorely missing?  Constitutional amendment requiring the US Government to operate within budgetary inlays. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sorely missing?  Constitutional amendment requiring the US Government to operate within budgetary inlays.

AMEN

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue....

No it does not.

Fundamentally, the author is saying that we used to deal in this country's success by prescribing to either a conservative or liberal view of how to fix problems with this country, with the foundation that both sides were energized to improve the country.  The Hoover vs FDR approaches.

Fior instance, I disliked immensely the liberal nature of Joe Lieberman, but when push came to shove he was a patriot and supported the country.

One cannot say that for the vast majority of Dems today.  Hell, they even voted unanimously to not keep illegals from voting in Presidential elections.

Now we have leftism entered into our vernacular which says the country is fundamentally no good and we need something new like communism, or whatever.

The terminology could be improved, but fundamentally the two groups represent who wishes to destroy America and who wishes to retain our foundations.

We have centered out discussions around conservative vs non-conservatives' and we need to change that as it does not recognize the gigantic situation that has evolved with groups attempting to dismember totally this country while others attempt to keep it.

[Bigun]

No it does not.

Fundamentally, the author is saying that we used to deal in this country's success by prescribing to either a conservative or liberal view of how to fix problems with this country, with the foundation that both sides were energized to improve the country.  The Hoover vs FDR approaches.

Fior instance, I disliked immensely the liberal nature of Joe Lieberman, but when push came to shove he was a patriot and supported the country.

One cannot say that for the vast majority of Dems today.  Hell, they even voted unanimously to not keep illegals from voting in Presidential elections.

Now we have leftism entered into our vernacular which says the country is fundamentally no good and we need something new like communism, or whatever.

The terminology could be improved, but fundamentally the two groups represent who wishes to destroy America and who wishes to retain our foundations.

We have centered out discussions around conservative vs non-conservatives' and we need to change that as it does not recognize the gigantic situation that has evolved with groups attempting to dismember totally this country while others attempt to keep it.

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Here's an example of what you will get once Kamala is sworn in.

Kamala Harris Supports a 25% Wealth Tax on Unrealized Gains
Joe Bide was up to his old tricks last night when talking about billionaires and what they pay in taxes. He has been lying about this for years so why stop now. CNN fact-checked him this morning:

During his speech, Biden asked the audience if they knew what the average billionaire in the United States pays in taxes.

“We have a thousand billionaires in America. You know what the average tax rate they pay? 8.2%,” Biden said.

Facts First: Biden used this figure in a way that was misleading. As in previous remarks, including his State of the Union address in March, Biden didn’t explain that the figure is the product of an alternative calculation, from economists in his own administration, that factors in unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

I've gone over all of this before. Billionaires actually pay around 24% or higher on their income. The figure Biden has repeated endlessly is made up out of whole cloth. If you count unrealized gains as income (which our tax law does not) then billionaires are only paying 8 percent.

This same lie, which has been fact checked by everyone from Politifact to the Washington Post, is also included in the Democratic Party platform document released yesterday. As you can see, the document calls for a 25% tax also presumably on unrealized gains.

There are a thousand billionaires in America, and they pay an average 8 percent in taxes– a far lower rate than a firefighter or teacher. Democrats will make billionaires pay a minimum income tax rate of 25 percent, raising $500 billion in 10 years. We’ll end the preferential treatment for capital gains for millionaires, so they pay the same rate on investment income as on wages.

This is apparently a carryover from Joe Biden's last budget which also included a 25% tax on unrealized gains. And while Harris hasn't said anything about this publicly, a recent Committee for a Responsible Budget look at her proposals included this line:

Although the Harris campaign does not specify how these proposals would be financed, the fact sheet says that Vice President Harris and Governor Tim Walz would “fulfill their commitment to fiscal responsibility, including by asking the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations to pay their fair share – steps that will allow us to make necessary investments in the middle class, while also reducing the deficit and strengthening our fiscal health.” The campaign has also communicated to us that Vice President Harris continues to support all of the revenue-raising provisions in the President’s FY 2025 budget.

In other words, the Harris campaign says it supports all of the tax increases in Biden's last budget which includes the 25% wealth tax on unrealized gains. That news was celebrated by Gabriel Zucman, a Berkeley economist who supports a wealth tax and who has been an adviser to Bernie Sanders.
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2024/08/20/kamala-harris-supports-bidens-plan-for-a-25-wealth-tax-on-unrealized-gains-n3793442

The stark contrast cannot be clearer

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Here's an example of what you will get once Kamala is sworn in.

We won't get it unless it passes Congress.  And if they're Kamala's proposals, Republicans in Congress will resist.

I'm less sure Republicans in Congress will resist Trump's own budget-busting plans.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We won't get it unless it passes Congress.  And if they're Kamala's proposals, Republicans in Congress will resist.

I'm less sure Republicans in Congress will resist Trump's own budget-busting plans.

Likely so on both accounts.

Problem is this is the direction the socialists wish the country to take where wealth is distributed to the government towards its ends rather than retained by the individuals.

And the sausage machine of politics permits some idealogical opponents to accept some things they dislike in order to get things they support.

[roamer_1]

And the sausage machine of politics permits some idealogical opponents to accept some things they dislike in order to get things they support.

Except in the end, it doesn't.
The politically slick get their way, and the weight falls on the rubes and sheep.

Conservatism is a collection of things that work... From all of history... Follow these things because historically, they are the good ways.

So which of those good ways are you willing to compromise or even give up for this new 'fusion'?
What makes this fusion any damn different than the last one that came along?

You know... ask any moderate - anyone backing the likes of the Bushes - And they will declare themselves 'conservative'... because the last round of bullshit was 'kinder, gentler conservatism' and 'compassionate conservatism'. That fusion, born of RINOs, cherry-picked principles to make a whitewashed facsimile that got them the power they needed to push globalism...

Hail the new fusion, same as the old fusion. With the very same motive: compromise.

So I will ask it again... in simple terms: Which of 'the ways that work' are you willing to compromise and corrupt with the ways that don't work?

[libertybele]

Except in the end, it doesn't.
The politically slick get their way, and the weight falls on the rubes and sheep.

Conservatism is a collection of things that work... From all of history... Follow these things because historically, they are the good ways.

So which of those good ways are you willing to compromise or even give up for this new 'fusion'?
What makes this fusion any damn different than the last one that came along?

You know... ask any moderate - anyone backing the likes of the Bushes - And they will declare themselves 'conservative'... because the last round of bullshit was 'kinder, gentler conservatism' and 'compassionate conservatism'. That fusion, born of RINOs, cherry-picked principles to make a whitewashed facsimile that got them the power they needed to push globalism...

Hail the new fusion, same as the old fusion. With the very same motive: compromise.

So I will ask it again... in simple terms: Which of 'the ways that work' are you willing to compromise and corrupt with the ways that don't work?

I'm waiting for the ways that work to be implemented once again, otherwise there's nothing to compromise.  The corruption is overwhelming, just on one side of the aisle over the other.

There were better ways that were implemented under Trump, only thing is he wasn't able to get those policies to stick.

[roamer_1]

I'm waiting for the ways that work to be implemented once again, otherwise there's nothing to compromise.  The corruption is overwhelming, just on one side of the aisle over the other.

All the more reason to shine light on the ways that work.

There were better ways that were implemented under Trump, only thing is he wasn't able to get those policies to stick.

Of course, I will refute that... Though under the rubric you propose, 'better than now', I would admit you're  right. But that is such a low bar that its use might be called incidental - Kinda a 'So You Want to go Back to Egypt' sorta thing...

That was not the right way.