Conservatives claim credit for invention of sex...film at 11

It's too bad they suck at it, but they're too busy trying to rule the world

I saw this ridiculousness on Truth Social and was thankful I didn’t have a mouthful of coffee. I’d probably be in the market for a new MacBook because the keyboard would be swimming in French Roast, half-and-half, and on the verge of shorting out.

Granted, I realized that Truth Social is the equivalent of autofellatio for today’s Conservatives, but some of the stuff I come across gives absurdity a bad name. It isn’t bad enough that most of today’s “Conservatives” know nothing of classical Conservatism. They have no grounding in the writings and thoughts of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Jr., and others who gave Conservatism its philosophical foundation.

No, today’s “Conservatives” barely deserve the name. They’re more authoritarian/fascist in their ideological orientation. Classical conservatives believed that the government's role should be limited to defense, economic, and foreign policies. To their way of thinking, the government should hand off most other functions to the states.

I want to lay a foundation for understanding what Conservatism used to be, at least in the traditional sense. Once the reader understands the historical context of the movement, it’s easier to understand how much it’s been bastardized and corrupted by today’s Republican Party, who are interested only in power for power’s sake.

Classical Conservatism emphasizes the importance of transcendent moral principles, which manifests through natural laws to which society should adhere.

The foundation of classical Conservatism was laid down primarily by two great Conservative thinkers:

• Edmund Burke emphasized the value of tradition, institutions, and continuity.

• Joseph de Maistre contributed to the development of what came to be known as “traditionalist” Conservatism.

Four fundamental core beliefs define classical Conservatism:

• Preservation of ancestral institutions- Traditionalists like de Maistre prioritized the conservation of ancestral institutions over excessive individualism to maintain order.

• Emphasis on tradition- Concepts like nation, culture, custom, convention, and tradition are significant in maintaining order. Hierarchy and ritual also help enforce this sense of order and predictability.

• Practical reason over theoretical reason- Traditionalists like de Maistre believed practical reason was superior to theoretical reason. They believed that change comes about organically and spontaneously from traditions within a community rather than deliberate, reasoned thought.

• Natural hierarchy- Leadership, authority, and hierarchical structures are typical and natural aspects of society.

These classical Conservative views originated in Europe as a reaction to the Enlightenment as well as the English and French Revolutions. They migrated to “the colonies” and eventually gained an intellectual and political foothold in America in the mid-20th century.

Of course, classical Conservatism in Europe was not altogether altruistic and was, in fact, quite classist. It was rooted in the educated and landed classes who had a significant stake in maintaining their places atop the socioeconomic pyramid in an often volatile Europe.

Maintaining order and hierarchy was crucial for keeping an often restive peasant class in their place so those at the upper end of the socioeconomic food chain could enjoy the life to which they’d become accustomed.

On these shores, classical Conservatism also had a decidedly classist tinge to it, intended as it was to keep the wealthy in their gilded perches and the unwashed masses moored to theirs.

American classical Conservatism quickly lost the “classical” label and became far more “classist.” By the mid-’50s, American Conservatism became synonymous with anti-Communism, which we know now was more propaganda-driven than anything, but “red scares” were severe and frequent. Virulently anti-communist forces like the House Un-American Affairs Committee or Sen. Joseph McCarthy could make or break lives and careers with an unadorned accusation. Evidence was an afterthought; merely being accused of being a communist could be sufficient to ruin someone.

As American Conservatism moved through the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, anti-communism remained a big part of Its appeal. Still, moral issues grew in prominence as fundamentalist religious groups like the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority captured national attention and fused religion, moralism, and authoritarianism with political activism.

Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election in large part because of intense support from the Moral Majority. Though Reagan went on to disappoint Rev. Falwell (Reagan wasn’t a born-again Christian; it was always a marriage of convenience), the power of the Fundamentalist Christian Far-Right soon became evident and impossible to ignore.

Over the past 40+ years, fundamentalists have become a voting bloc courted by Republicans. Donald Trump won in 2016 with a sizable assist from the evangelical community, even though he was perhaps the least godly candidate ever to seek the Presidency.

Now we come full circle, back to my argument that today’s GOP is “Conservative” only in the sense that it still claims the name. Truthfully, though, nothing in the GOP's philosophy or actions indicates any allegiance to classical Conservatism's ideals. Republicans are about power for power’s sake; they want to be the ones making the rules and calling the shots.

One can look at Republicans in the House and easily see little more than a cabal of self-interested careerists whose only interest in government lies in burning it down. They throw themselves in front of cameras as if diving on live grenades. They live to generate controversy, creating more attention and focusing the spotlight on themselves. It’s the GOP version of the “Me” generation.

They care nothing for the job they were elected to do; elections are merely necessary evils they must endure to retain access to the platform they crave. They have no ideas, no commitment to anything bigger than themselves, and no plans to make America better.

For someone to seriously argue in the Wall Street Journal that “Conservatives Made Same-Sex Marriage Possible” is serious coffee-spew material. Narrow-minded moralists and authoritarians (usually one and the same) attempted to define marriage in a way that fell within their comfort zone, i.e., one-man/one-woman.

In attempting to define marriage to their liking, however, they neglected to recognize and/or consider the feelings and opinions of those who may have disagreed with them to greater or lesser degrees. They, in effect, discounted the opinions of those who happened not to share their narrow, moralistic view of marriage.

The version of the Supreme Court that heard Obergefell decided that marriage was not an institution that should be available only to heterosexual couples, not just from a moral perspective but also from a legal perspective. Previously, same-sex couples didn’t enjoy the same legal rights heterosexual married couples have historically taken for granted.

It’s a matter of simple humanity, and from a classically Conservative standpoint, same-sex marriage makes sense. From a moralistic/authoritarian standpoint, which is how today’s “Conservatives” approach same-sex marriage, it’s about granting same-sex couples “special rights.”

Sure, if you define “equal” rights as “special” rights, then that argument holds water. To any reasonable person, it’s a hypocritical and utterly ridiculous argument.

Then again, welcome to the logical world of today’s moralistic/authoritarian “Conservatives.” It has nothing to do with “classical Conservatism;” but everything to do with power, control, and maintaining the hegemony of White Christian Cisgender Heterosexual Patriots.

So, when is Conservatism not Conservatism? When it’s in the hands of today’s Republican Party, which cares nothing for ideological consistency and the philosophical underpinnings of classical Conservatism. Today’s “Conservatives” are engaged in the political equivalent of a game of “King of the Hill,” and they’ll do whatever it takes to remain on top.

Fealty to a bunch of dead ideologues is WAY overrated.

All of my posts are public at this time. Any reader financial support will be greatly appreciated. There’s no paywall blocking access to my work (except for a few newsletters), but that remains an option. I’ll trust my readers to determine if my work is worthy of their financial support and at what level. To those who do offer their support, thank you. It means more than you know.