“Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit” – Michael Malice
My Freshman year of college, I fell down the rabbit hole of conservative YouTubers. Much like many of my peers, I fell out of love with the left’s narrative of income inequality and its incessant focus on hate speech. I was soon introduced to Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and other mainstream conservative voices. I was intrigued by how they entered hostile environments and confronted their opposition head-on. I admired their bravery and their supposed willingness to speak their minds. As I listened to their podcasts, read their articles, and digested any material I could readily access, I came to find that it was never their belief system with which I fell in love. The same individuals who quoted John Locke and sang the praises of Ludwig von Mises also justified NSA spying programs, harsher drug possession penalties, and military spending on endless regime-change wars. I found Conservatism to be an unprincipled ideology masquerading as an advocate for liberty, while in practice, adopting mainstream progressive agendas from just ten years prior.
The most blatant example of conservatism’s ideological flip-flopping has been its stance on gay marriage. In just 2001, 57% of the United States opposed the legalization of gay marriage while 35% were in favor of it. By 2019, the number in favor has reached 61%, with only 31% opposition. Since public opinion has shifted, the once anti-gay marriage conservatives have done the same. In his 2016 interview on the Rubin Report, Ben Shapiro stated: “I think the government ought to be completely out of the business of marriage.” Shapiro, who opposed the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, has openly admitted that his stance has changed. Certainly, Shapiro could have changed his mind and seen an ideological awakening, but the conservative movement has undergone a similar shift the Democrats saw just a few years prior. In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama ran openly against same-sex marriage. Once the tides began to turn, he changed course and became the first president to be elected on a pro gay marriage platform in 2012. Instead of sticking to their guns and fighting for what they believe, the conservative strategy was more or less bash Obama’s inconsistency, call ourselves principled, and adopt a libertarian justification for our change of heart once public opinion has overwhelmingly shifted.
The intellectual inconsistencies do not end at gay marriage for the conservatives. On December 6th, 2012, Matt Walsh, a conservative contributor at the Daily Wire tweeted:
Walsh has a valid argument. I do not believe that the force of the state should be used to shut down websites, but as a Christian, I certainly understand his point of view. Much like Shapiro, Walsh demonstrates some concerning intellectual inconsistencies. Just 12 days later, Walsh follows up his initial statement with this:
Based on Walsh’s initial argument, the banning of tobacco products altogether would be a sensible solution to the problem (not just at 21 years old). Children are getting their hands on Juuls. Vaping has become an epidemic. People are coughing up blood and going to the hospital with collapsed lungs. If we should ban porn, we should ban cigarettes, vapes, chewing tobacco, and any other method used to get nicotine. The conservative message is difficult to buy into because of examples like these. For one winning issue, they will preach the virtues of liberty, while for another, they will call for government crackdowns and increased regulation.
One might argue that these are just journalists and YouTube personalities. Their opinions do not reflect all conservatives. While President Trump may not be a traditional conservative, he certainly carried their vote in the 2016 election. Many of those same ‘principled’ individuals quickly jumped ship to back the messages of populism and nationalism. On the campaign trail, Trump ensured that he would not raise the age of social security benefits. Old school conservatives would be appalled. The fiscal irresponsibility would be deeply troubling. In his Firing Line Debate, influential conservative William F. Buckley touched on the unsustainability of social security, proposing that the U.S. could : 1) freeze the social security system; 2) mandate an overdose of sleeping pills at the age of 72; or 3) forbid doctors and scientists from developing cures for the ill. Many old-school conservatives would denounce Trump’s position as a socialist disgrace.
Progressives drive culture and dictate what fits inside the Overton window. What was once acceptable (whether it be language, policy proposals, or social values) have since been deemed problematic by the left. Conservatives may fight back, and even occasionally get a short-lived victory, but the message of keeping things the way they are is unappealing. What intellectually curious twenty-something year old hears conservatives worshipping Ronald Reagan and thinks, “that’s a winning message?” The right wing is, in part, to be blamed for driving individuals to the fringes. Instead of embracing the ideas of liberty, they capitulate to the left on social programs as long as they get their military spending, resulting in an ever-expanding federal government. Combine that with individuals who see no appeal in the progressive message and you get the alt-right. To stabilize America’s right wing and actually give it a backbone, liberty must be the central issue, not some rhetorical tool that attracts a few moderates.
Will Allen
themiddlepath.home.blog 