By Matt Stone
The modern conservative movement is the most successful rebranding in political history. It has convinced generations of people that it stands for tradition, stability, and the preservation of all that is good.
It is a lie.
Conservatism has never been about conserving anything of value. It has always been about one thing: the conservation of power for a wealthy ruling class. It is not a philosophy; it is a protection racket, and it cannot survive without a steady diet of the gullible and the ignorant.
The ideology was born not in a defense of the good, but in a defense of the grotesque. As a coherent movement, it begins with Edmund Burke’s horrified reaction to the French Revolution. The story is that he wanted to “conserve” the beauty of tradition against the rabble. The reality is that he was defending a feudal aristocracy that kept the vast majority of human beings in illiterate squalor. He wasn’t conserving a stable society; he was conserving a system of hereditary power so absolute and so rotten that it made revolution an act of survival. He was conserving privilege, not people.
This lie was perfected in America. The Southern cause in the Civil War was draped in the noble-sounding language of “conserving states’ rights.” It was a transparent fiction to conserve one thing and one thing only: the right to own other human beings. But they couldn’t sell that horror to the poor white farmer who didn’t own slaves. So, they pandered. They stoked his ignorance with fear, convincing him that his “race” made him superior, that freeing the slaves would mean he’d be competing with them, that his entire identity was tied to the conservation of this brutal hierarchy. They weren’t just conserving an investment; they were conserving it with an army of the manipulated.
The 20th century offered no redemption. As the Gilded Age barons built booming fortunes on the backs of broken workers, the conservative movement fought to “conserve” the free market. What they meant was they wanted to conserve the right to pay starvation wages and kill workers with impunity. But they couldn’t win that argument honestly, so they pandered to the weakest minds. They red-baited, calling union leaders godless communists. They preyed on religious fears, framing the struggle for basic dignity as an assault on God and family. They convinced the very people they were crushing to vote for them, to see their own exploitation as patriotism.
Today, the hypocrisy has become so blatant it is suicidal. The modern conservative movement wages war against environmentalism under the banner of “conserving” our economy. They are actively choosing to not conserve the only habitable planet humanity has ever known. To sell this insanity, they must pander to the most ignorant. They create a fake debate, insisting the science isn’t “settled.” They prey on the fears of people in dying coal towns, telling them environmentalists are coastal elites who want to take their jobs, rather than corporations who are automating them away. They turn a question of planetary survival into a culture war, and the gullible lap it up.
And so they fight their culture war, claiming to “conserve” traditional values. This is their masterwork of manipulation. They prey on the religious, convincing them that “godless liberals” are coming for their children and their bibles. They prey on the insecure, convincing them that their whiteness or their nationality is an achievement under threat from “the other.” They create a fantasy past and sell it to people terrified of the present. They aren’t conserving culture; they are weaponizing the fears of the ignorant to conserve their own power.
Conservatism has never conserved a single thing that benefits the average person. It conserved slavery. It conserved child labor. It conserved segregation. And now, it is conserving a climate in collapse. It has done so by pandering to the weakest minds, by stoking ignorance, by weaponizing fear. It has always, always been on the wrong side of history, fighting tooth and nail to protect the powerful and the wealthy at the expense of everyone and everything else. It is not a political movement. It is a death cult, powered by the votes of its willing victims, dedicated to conserving a world of profound inequality until the last resource is extracted and the last dollar is squeezed from the last dying worker. Its only true tradition is the conservation of power.
Somewhat interesting, but simplistic article. Let’s start with some things that immediately stood out:
“Today, the hypocrisy has become so blatant it is suicidal. The modern conservative movement wages war against environmentalism under the banner of “conserving” our economy. They are actively choosing to not conserve the only habitable planet humanity has ever known.”
Ironically, some self-proclaimed “progressives” are fully on board with “trickle down economics” in regard to housing.
“They prey on the insecure, convincing them that their whiteness or their nationality is an achievement under threat from “the other.”
You’ve got it backwards. Some progressives are trying to convince “whites” that their skin color is something to be ashamed of, and that they forever “owe” every other skin color “reparations” as a result. (Usually, this is emanating from “white” progressives supposedly speaking on behalf of other skin colors.)
The underlying drumbeat of this message is not actually new – but it’s become more blatant (to the point where San Francisco is seriously considering reparations). Which of course would be paid by more than “white” people. (Ironically, it might include some black people being forced to pay, if they can’t meet the qualifications.)
You don’t “see” that some progressives have fully embraced “trickle-down housing”?
You don’t see how strangely quiet they are regarding the cancer spreading into Lagoon Valley, etc.?
Or, do you not call those people “progressives”, let alone “environmentalists”?
Seems to me that they’re “conservatives in progressive clothing”.
“Some progressives are trying to convince “whites” that their skin color is something to be ashamed of” – this is completely false. There is a difference between critiquing systems associated with “whiteness” and telling individuals to feel ashamed of their skin color.
There may be a difference to you.
Similar to how you might be able to separate Israel from Jews.
Unfortunately, that’s not how reality sometimes works.
As for Matt’s comment, I don’t hear anyone stating that whiteness is an “achievement”.
On the other hand, there are groups who loudly proclaim their pride in regard to their own self-perceived groups (which they also had nothing to do with). And some of them expect payments/benefits from other groups, for money they think is owed to them on that basis.
Perhaps you can show examples of progressives attempting to convince whites to be ashamed of their skin color and then we can evaluate your claim.
Whites (and other groups) are attacked and victimized by blacks, far more than the other way around.
As you know, I’ve personally experienced and witnessed racially-based physical and verbal attacks for years in the public school system and on transit, when I was younger. It’s the reason for “white flight”.
These were not one-time anomalies, it was a pattern that likely exists to this day. The systems (e.g., public schools and transit) allowed this to occur. They were not ignorant of it.
If you don’t believe that, I have some cities and neighborhoods for you to “test out” this observation at a moment’s notice.
But it’s actually more insidious, in regard to the type of “systems” that some advocate to change. For example, some look at the disproportionate percentage of black people in the prison system as a sign that the system itself is racist. Whereas I look at it as a group of people who (on average) commit crimes at higher rates than others.
Now, one can debate “why” that’s true (or what might be done to alleviate it), but the fact that it’s true is undeniable, and evidence-based.
Of course, Asians commit fewer crimes than whites, which is the reason for their “under-representation” in the system. Same is true regarding women and older people (of all skin colors).
In any case, how about asking Matt for an example of someone telling whites that their skin color is an “achievement”? (That’s what I was responding to.)
I asked for a specific, concrete example
You don’t think that race-based physical and verbal attacks (tolerated by systems) are an attempt to instill self-hatred and shame?
And that it’s more that way if you happen to be male?
Pretty sure I can find examples of that, even in the other article today. Putting responsibility on “whites” is a form of shaming.
Again, where is an example of Matt’s statement, that whites are being told their skin color is an achievement? (As opposed to those who claim “black pride”, for example?)
If there was a corresponding “white pride” movement, would you or someone like Matt automatically conclude that they’re racists? And if so, then why wouldn’t you view “any” pride in skin color/origin as racist?
You said this: “Some progressives are trying to convince “whites” that their skin color is something to be ashamed of”
I asked for a specific example of this.
Already provided – more than once.
Racially-based attacks are intended to instill fear, control, and shame based on skin color. So are attempts to hold “whites” responsible for racism in general.
I could find countless articles blaming “white men” (including from the author of this article) for societies ills, which would be yet another example of this.
Do you actually need me to find those articles (including from Matt, himself)? Or his comments?
Just yesterday, he claimed that white males commit the largest percentage of crimes compared to their population size (in the Vanguard article that was posted on Facebook). This is a blatant lie, and is yet another attempt to create a sense of “shame” and “responsibility”.
So now that I’ve answered more than once, when are you or Matt going to answer the question I have in regard to his comment?
That is, where/when are white people being told that their skin color is an “achievement”?
Blaming white men for societies ill is not the same thing as being embarrassed about the color of your skin and I have not seen anything that resembles a concrete example which would include a link and a quote
“where is anyone telling whites that their skin color is an achievement?”
OMG Ron!
“Blaming white men for societies ill is not the same thing as being embarrassed about the color of your skin . . .”
It’s difficult for me to believe that you can’t see the irony of your own comment. You think that “blaming white men for societies’ ills” can be separated from white men on an individual level?
You think that people in general are so sophisticated that they’ll recognize the difference? (And won’t immediately take to calling someone like me a “NotSee”?)
You think that these type of messages don’t instill hatred toward whites on an individual or group level?
Really?
Do you actually know what racism or sexism is, how it arises, how it’s tolerated? It doesn’t seem like you do.
Did you not witness what’s recently happened on campuses, in regard Israel/Gaza? And how that ended up with racial overtones?
“where is anyone telling whites that their skin color is an achievement?”
OMG, Ron”
Why are you asking ME this question? It’s in Matt’s article above, and is what I responded to in the first place.
Your lack of objective analysis is showing once again.
I did notice that neither you nor Matt want to talk about my other observation – that conservative principles have infiltrated some progressives regarding housing.
You wrote that quoted comment
David: I quoted Matt directly (earlier).
Here it is again (from his article):
” . . . convincing them that their whiteness or their nationality is an achievement under threat from “the other.”
Where and when is this is occurring? And why is it that these type of threads become so much work to even respond to, when you don’t even read the articles yourself (even when quotes were specifically pointed out to you)?
Can’t help but think of at least one outcome (which resulted in Grand Teton National Park), which was entirely-dependent upon one wealthy individual determined to make that happen (one of the Rockefellers).
He secretly bought up vast amounts of land in that area, with the intention of preserving it (and turning it over to the government). But when he accomplished that goal, the government initially refused to take it. (I recall that he had to threaten to sell it off if they didn’t take it, which ultimately convinced them to take it.)
So obviously, neither the government nor the “riff raff” trying to make a buck were in support of it. (If you want to see what happens when places aren’t preserved, the area around Niagara Falls provides an example.)
Today, Jackson Hole is an ultra-wealthy small town. Kind of reminds me of the same situation in Marin, where vast amounts of public land was created and maintained. The environmental movement as a whole seems to be recognizing this, and is taking some steps to ensure that access to the outdoors is more “equitable”.
In any case, the point being that it sometimes takes private wealth to “make things happen”. Philanthropy, in other words. (The same reason that Woodland has a Carnegie library.)
Even Trump claims to have a conscience – and he probably does. :-)
And maybe Musk will get us to Mars (for what that’s worth). In any case, he’s certainly advanced electric car design and manufacturing.
But seriously, government is sometimes too bureaucratic to get anything done. (This also seems to be related to the rise of land trusts, which obtains/preserves land – sometimes turning it over to public agencies if they’re willing to take it.)
“(And won’t immediately take to calling someone like me a “NotSee”?)”
Says the person who has argued numerous times on this blog for the white person’s “right” to call a Black person the N word with absolute impunity.
A person like that is not a serious person and should be shunned by decent society. That is the Paradox of Tolerance in action.
KS say, ” “(And won’t immediately take to calling someone like me a “NotSee”?)” Says the person who has argued numerous times on this blog for the white person’s “right” to call a Black person the N word with absolute impunity. ”
First of all, how is the NotSee (get it?) thing being perpetuated when it’s original use by the author was eliminated?
Second, I’ve been reading comments for decades, and except for long arguments back-and-forth between RO & DG, have read probably most of what RO has written. What KS say is at best a mischaracterization and more like a smear. What I remember RO saying are things like he didn’t think someone should be prosecuted for using the word, opposing violent responses and opposing efforts to control language. But this idea that RO thinks white people should be able to attack black people with that word doesn’t sound like anything I’ve read, as I’d remember that. And this ‘with impunity’ thing seems like a rerun of a past accusation isn’t it? So why is this accusation being allowed to stand, since it’s about the worst accusation that can be made against a person short of child molester. This is why people stop taking moralizing seriously. Moral condemnation is not coercive sanction.
KS say, “A person like that is not a serious person and should be shunned by decent society. That is the Paradox of Tolerance in action.”
Instead of engaging with the actual argument being made in this thread about how collective blame, racialized guilt, and rhetorical abstraction bleed into individual animus, KS substituted the character assassination of “not a serious person.” Invoking the “Paradox of Tolerance” again is especially lazy. Popper’s argument is about political movements that seek to abolish tolerance itself, not about disfavored speech or people who refuse to affirm one’s preferred moral language. Stretching it to justify social shunning over a misrepresented argument is ideological ineptitude.
KS never rebutted RO’s concern that generalized accusations aimed at “white men” predictably land on individuals and didn’t address how systems talk becomes interpersonal reality, nor engage the substance of the Israel/Gaza analogy RO raised. KS went straight to denunciation.
If the standard for participation in “decent society” is that one must adopt KS’s exact personal framing, accept KS’s interpretations, and submit to KS’s definitions — or be exiled (from ???) — then what KS is defending is not tolerance at all. It is conformity enforced by a fascisticly-left moral threat.
Thanks, Alan.
Yes, I was speaking to the (legal) right, regarding free speech. I believe the use of that word would normally be protected by the First Amendment.
Don’t know what she’s talking about, in regard to “impunity”. Presumably, it means that she has some “punishment” in mind, whether or not it’s legal to do so. Perhaps she can explain that. For example, does she think that a violent, physical response is justified, if someone used that word? If she believes it is justified (whether or not it’s legal), would she even be able to function on a jury, for example?