by Matthew Boose
In the wake of the Donald Trump moment, conservatism is up for grabs: white identitarians, “Catholic integralists,” paleocons, and American nationalists all sense an opportunity for greater representation. But the bigger story is that the globalist, anti-nationalist, progressive “conservatism” that came before Trump isn’t yet quite dead, and it’s fighting for survival.
The degree to which this is true has become apparent over the past few weeks as a civil war within campus conservatism has raged on between Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA and paleoconservative activists who follow the nationalist podcaster Nicholas Fuentes.
As Kirk and his allies see it, the Fuentes fans, who call themselves “groypers,” have been trying to “hijack” campus conservatism by injecting “white nationalism” into the debate. But this so-called sabotage has been accomplished with extraordinary simplicity. The groypers have been showing up to Kirk’s events to air their grievances about the failures of mainstream conservatism and its wholesale embrace of the LGBT+ agenda and mass migration.
Rather than talk to these activists in good faith, though, the gatekeepers have decided their ideas are not worth debating. They have instead pursued a campaign of denigration and suppression. Leaving aside personalities, they have dismissed candid, important questions about demographics and the liberalization of the conservative movement as “bigoted” and “racist.”
The elephant in the room is demographics. Not even progressives any longer pretend that mass migration won’t, at the rate we’re going, transform America into a majority-minority nation within our lifetimes. The implications for the nation and the Republican Party because of this shift are profound, and any conservative movement that is not willing to engage with it seriously cannot be taken seriously.
Demographic Realism Vs. Demographic Hypocrisy
In his opening essay for this symposium, Kirk acknowledges that the demographic shifts concerning the America Firsters are real and that leftists are celebrating those changes. But Kirk ends up backing the leftist premise that such demographic shifts are inevitable and that the Republican Party’s only hope is to embrace this growing and diverse reality.
Kirk rejects without explanation putting a moratorium on immigration. Rather than restrict immigration to reverse the trend, Kirk endorses the survival “strategy” endorsed recently by Yoni Applebaum at The Atlantic: Republicans must reject “anti-immigrant” stances and instead do more to reach minority demographics. Only then can the GOP remain viable in a majority-minority future.
The premise is based on an obvious double-standard, one which is becoming more and more difficult to simply ignore. As Michelle Malkin and other America Firsters have pointed out, the Left operates on a premise of demographic hypocrisy. If we’re talking about the interests of “natural Republicans” from El Salvador and “MAGA drag queens,” then Kirk and Conservatism, Inc. have no issue with appealing to demographics. But when it comes to talking about the interests of white Christians it’s a different story altogether. That’s “racist.”
Leftists who celebrate demographic shifts simultaneously attack as racists conservatives who dare to notice their joy. As Democrats hail “flipping Virginia blue,” as national newspapers gloat about how demographic shifts will “doom Republicans,” the gatekeepers join the Left in insisting that anyone who confronts this trend candidly is not a “real conservative” and must be a “bigot.”
The leaders of the conservative movement must be able to answer these questions: why are white Christians, and only white Christians, prohibited from acting in their rational self-interest? Why must Republicans, given the prospect of a dim future in which it can only survive by pandering to the Left, respond by pandering to the Left now, just to win over people who hate and want to persecute them anyway?
In the end, this “strategy” is nothing more than a capitulation to the Left, the same surrender that has laid the country, and the party, so low for decades. By all means, the Republican Party must never waver in its support of the traditional family, of life, and of the Constitution. But it’s also not clear how exactly, or why, appealing to minority groups, and only minority groups, is the best way to do that.
It is disingenuous, not to say illogical, to say that the Republican Party must, for some unexplained reason, not think in terms of demographics when it comes to its most reliable voters—and join the Left in attacking any of those voters who may feel besieged by our liberal monoculture—and instead seek to recruit and celebrate other, reliably liberal groups, such as gays and Latino immigrants. With the exception of evangelicals and Cubans, Latino voters as a group are reliably Democrat, and they have been for decades. They support gun control, the welfare state, and even gay marriage by some margins. Their mythic social conservatism is not as solid as some Republicans would like to think. What does Conservatism, Inc. imagine it can do to change that in short order?
Liberalizing the Party to Death
While the TPUSA controversy has focused on demographics, another core grievance of the “groypers” is the conservative movement’s inability to conserve the morals and traditions that made America great, especially traditional marriage. The conscious embrace of leftist identity politics, particularly LGBT rights, by Kirk and other Conservatism, Inc. figures justifies the impression that this is by unconscious design, if not conscious choice.
They pander to every identity group under the sun while at the same time feeling very free to attack white Americans who are troubled by the prospect of becoming a minority in their own country. Such people are denounced as “racists” just for feeling that way. It’s hard to see what’s conservative about this, or how it will help Republicans win elections in a deeply uncertain future.
It is no accident that some liberals have encouraged their Republican adversaries to embrace the “diversify” strategy Kirk advocates, as it advances the Left’s own goals and commitments. The gatekeepers in Conservatism, Inc. embrace the same ideas, the same methods, and even the same rhetoric as the Left to advance a globalist, anti-nationalist agenda. Their smears of outspoken America Firsters are indistinguishable from the Left’s familiar drive-by attacks on even the most unobjectionable conservatives.
The “conservatism” of groups like TPUSA isn’t conserving anything—nothing, that is, but liberalism itself. It does not offer young people anything they cannot already find in the ethos of consumerism and vacuous personal “liberation” so pervasive in our liberal culture and advanced relentlessly by the globalist Left.
For conservatives to embrace gay marriage is not an intuitive position by any means, but Kirk and his boosters have done exactly that, denouncing those with questions about this development as “homophobes.” Especially at a time when leftists scheme in the open about taxing churches that don’t recognize gay marriage, it’s hardly a logical position for a conservative to take.
The “conservatism” of Conservatism, Inc. isn’t conservatism, but a species of libertarianism. Like many in the libertarian camp, Kirk takes the view that matters of marriage and morals should be left to private contracts between individuals and what they do in the so-called privacy of their own lives; never mind that the Left has already invaded the public square and has made persecuting Christians and conservatives a moral mission. To the libertarians of Conservatism, Inc., moral authority appears not to rest with a higher power, but is arrogated instead to individuals. All that matters is the “free market” and securing the freedom to legitimize a deeper and deeper backslide into barbarism.
I’m not going to question Kirk’s faith, but the morality he advocates has more in common with the Left than with Christian principles. In an interview with Dave Rubin, Kirk described himself as a “conservatarian” and expresses the view that there is no contradiction between the libertarian non-aggression principle and his religious views: “you should be able to make your choices as you see fit, as long as you’re not harming someone else.”
This is the classic formulation of liberalism: the idea that society should be arranged to make people as free as possible to pursue their own adventures. But there is nothing obviously conservative about this mentality. By following it, Kirk has embraced a very recent cultural shift that repudiates centuries upon centuries of tradition on marriage and the family.
This libertarian ethos of personal liberation justifies the damage done to the social fabric by leftism, while inviting further degeneration down the road. It has no cohesive social vision beyond securing the “blessings of liberty” to invite drag queens into libraries to read stories to schoolchildren. It has neither the desire nor the conviction to resist America’s free-fall into social anomie and moral decay, and it has no plan for repairing the destruction of the past decades of experimentation. America is imagined not even to be a concrete place at all, but rather a collation of hoary abstractions coined by the Founding Fathers, who surely fought and died so that future generations of Americans would embrace state-sanctioned gender reassignment surgery for 7-year-olds.
Coupled with this moral indifference is a worship of the “free market” and its miraculous power to distribute goods, resources, and labor as efficiently as possible. It’s not by mistake that conservatives of Kirk’s stripe talk more about markets than morals. If all that matters is the free market and “doing whatever you want,” then it’s hard to justify restricting immigration or opposing gay marriage to preserve American jobs, values, and traditions.
These “conservatives” understand that the common good is most helped by inviting millions of foreign laborers to boost the GDP, that the Gospel preaches acceptance of whatever sexually permissive fashions the Left dreamed up yesterday, that America is just an idea in which all lifestyles, peoples, and cultures except those which define the historic American nation must be celebrated.
This ideology is not conservatism but liberalism, and it helps explain some of Kirk’s positions, many of which fit squarely within the very free market, corporatist, libertarian consensus that Trump voters rejected in 2016. To his credit, he has sometimes amended some of these positions when criticized. But it wasn’t until Michelle Malkin attacked his support of “stapling green cards to diplomas” that he shifted and admitted his error. He now claims to support significant reductions in illegal and legal immigration, but the way he keeps shifting around his position calls either his sincerity or his understanding into question.
Whether our of sincere conversion or opportunism, Kirk is moving toward more hawkish views on immigration. But if he’s going to adopt some of the positions of that America First crowd he has been too ready to denounce, how can he continue to say that they’re not worth debating? Why doesn’t he just take demographics seriously, instead of rejecting it the examination out of hand and criticizing those who want to ask questions about it as bigots?
Kirk says that he supports the RAISE Act and its goal to cut legal immigration in half.
If he is willing to take reducing legal immigration more seriously, then that’s something that the America Firsters and Turning Point USA can agree on. But his continued refusal to talk about demographics in good faith does little to inspire confidence that his movement has a plan for an American future.
The Gatekeepers Work with the Left
The intellectual heft of Conservatism, Inc. can be summarized in the Turning Point slogan, “socialism sucks!” Socialism, of course, does suck, but for an organization geared to a young population that is struggling to pay off college debt, find good jobs, and start families, this is not a self-evidently appealing message. Young people today are inclined to find socialism appealing precisely because conservatism, under its current leadership, sucks. It has nothing to offer the future generations of this country.
Conservatism, Inc. can offer no assurances that Americans may expect to raise their children in a decent, moral society that cares about family, community, and faith. It does not seek to build a world where Americans may live free and prosperous lives without bearing false witness to the same idols that the Left, and the controlled opposition of Conservatism, Inc., worship. Americans are provided not the least guarantees of job security, or that America will even speak their native language in thirty years time. Neither are they provided the reprieve of knowing that they will be able to worship and raise their families in the faith of their upbringing and their ancestors without incurring ruinous financial and social consequences.
Kirk acknowledges that conservatives are besieged by a “far-left mainstream culture leading an assault on American values,” but whether he realizes it or not, Kirk and his defenders are part of enabling that mainstream. The entirety of Conservatism, Inc. is working towards the same ends as the progressive, globalist left. The irony is that they do this while styling themselves the “real conservatives” and attacking anyone with serious questions about the movement’s priorities.
Rather than answer challenging questions about the future of conservatism, the Beltway conservatives have responded with emotive attacks, threats of censorship and doxxing, and outright smears. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) has warned that questioners who venture outside the gentle sandbox of Heritage Foundation good-think will regret showing their faces on camera. Ben Shapiro dedicated a 45-minute speech to obliquely attacking the groypers, but refused to engage with them directly. Coming from the guy who coined “facts don’t care about your feelings,” that’s just rich.
Conservatism, Inc. isn’t a movement but a corporate enterprise. Its self-styled “dissent” is all part of a shallow brand of rebellion that begins and ends with “triggering” blue-haired gender studies majors. Beyond these shallow displays of edginess, Conservatism, Inc. promotes the same agenda of social liberalism and open borders as the Left. They wear a mask of intellectualism and “free thought,” but the moment anyone questions the dogma, the gatekeepers fall back on exactly the kind of emotive attacks that they project onto the “triggered” Left.
Kirk says that the Right must resist “excommunicating” those with different opinions on important issues, but that is exactly what Kirk and his allies are trying to do to the America Firsters. He complains of being subjected to an ideological “purity test” by the America First crowd while simultaneously, and arbitrarily labeling them “fake conservatives,” “white nationalists” and “anti-Semites.” This is nonsense.
What Kirk calls a fake purity test is conservatives who are concerned about the direction of the Trump movement making sure that it actually remains committed to its priorities. Their concerns are legitimate. It doesn’t matter when and whether Kirk became a Trump supporter if his ideas don’t align with the agenda that propelled Trump to office.
The truth is that the groypers, however weird the “groyper” brand might be, are closer to the mainstream of how the American Right actually feels than the Beltway types who wear the conservative label while behaving exactly like leftists. They should be applauded for challenging Conservatism, Inc. and its bankrupt ideology. Their “trolling” is more effective activism than the totality of the establishment’s pathetic kowtowing to the gods of Diversity and Progress.
This controversy will continue to rage because it springs from the same unanswered questions that prompted Tucker Carlson’s famous monologue, and which have been bandied about in a certain, now pointless debate over “post-liberalism” and drag queens. They are questions occasioned by the increasingly untenable fusion between conservatism and libertarianism or right-liberalism, one which has become indefensible in a time of extreme, militant leftism.
In lieu of a definite answer on how and whether to pursue a “post-liberal” order, we can safely assume that America’s Founders would balk at the enormities now being justified in their name by so-called conservatives. They were wise men who understood that the blessings of liberty mean nothing in a regime that has lost its faith, its virtue, its sense of public good, and its connection with past and future generations.
A growing number of young people on the Right are waking up to the reality that a vast number of pundits, news outlets, and institutions that fall under the umbrella of “conservative” are just careerists who lack sincere convictions. These people have nothing to offer the movement, and in fact pose a greater obstacle to making this country great again than the Left, who are at least, comparatively speaking, open about their intentions.
Why don’t establishment conservatives like Kirk, who have also been smeared by the Left, ally with the conservative “trolls” who actually want to conserve something instead of pandering to the people who hate them? That they do not raises two possibilities: that they are not sincere, or that they are sincere liberals.
Whatever they are, it isn’t “conservative.”
Ours is a conservative establishment that does nothing, and has done nothing, to conserve the traditions that made America great. This fact cries out for an accounting, and it is becoming impossible to ignore. If Conservatism, Inc. refuses to engage candidly with serious, legitimate questions about its priorities, then it deserves to be called out for its hypocrisy and emptiness.
– – –
Matthew Boose is a Mt. Vernon fellow of the Center for American Greatness and a staff writer and weekly columnist at the Conservative Institute. His writing has also appeared in the Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter @matt_boose.
Right now (no pun intended), it has been conserving the wrong stuff since the early 1950’s. Conservatism used to mean caution especially when it pertained to military/foreign policy intervention issues. By that, I mean that it advocated strict Congressional oversight over military and foreign policy issues and a very lean budget for the military, thereby limiting it to a strictly self-defense role instead of an offensive imperialist role. It also meant examining issues rationally instead of succumbing to bigotry and knee-jerk ignorance.
But then, along came that oxymoron called “Cold War Liberalism” which was really a reckless form of military imperialist expansionism that disguised itself as liberalism in order to trick at least some progressives into supporting it in order to prove that they were not “soft” on communism. By the mid-1960’s, Republicans joined the act by nominating Barry Goldwater and his Dixiecrats who advocated the same type of reckless military spending and foreign adventurism that the Truman Administration has pushed on the American people. The Goldwater element also added white racism and other bigotries to the brew, thereby distorting the historically cautious meaning of conservatism into something reckless and terrible. All these ugly changes predated Trump long before he approached adulthood.
So, I don’t put the major blame on Donald Trump as much as I disagree with him on most issues. No, I put more blame on the “deep state”, the Cold War interventionists who eumphamistically called themselves “internationalists” or “cold war liberals, and the subsequent Goldwater conservatives for the mess that our country is now in.