To draw on several things I have posted in other thread on semi related, matters, too many politicians failed to grasp who their own base was and what they wanted and found themselves shocked and horrified when they all turned out in support of an orange man.
This is in part because of the lies that the Conservative movement has told itself about the history of their own movement as well as the history of the country, while at the same time failing to adequately adapt to and incorporate the views of the millions of ex-Democrats who had streamed into the party and weren't going to be satisfied with a party still catering to the Mark Sanford low country South (cut taxes, open the borders and outsource the manufacturing) and thinking that was the end all be all of conservatism when the earth was created by St. Ronaldus Magnus in 1980.
If the Republican establishment (inclusive to the leadership of the conservative movement generally) had not been so dogmatic, so corrupted and so out of touch with their own voters and had instead read the writing on the wall and quit trying to force feed top down liberal views (historically speaking) on trade, immigration and foreign policy), Trump probably never would have had his opening. And for those of you who are repelled at the concept of a major party taking the conservative positions on these issues, keep this in mind. Arbitrary consensus enforced from above by both parties, when a large segment is opposed and the parties are realigning along these axis, is the recipe for either an internal revolution (WJB and currency in the 1890s, Reagan and Supply side Econ in late 70s) or the collapse and replacement of one or both parties (1850s on slavery).
Was wondering if you could explain this more. I think this is a key point. And it goes hand in hand with my post on this subject.
This is regarding the conservative movement as an organic entity that pulled together various sources of political thought in the 1960s-1980s for the sake of creating a national coalition that could over power and dismantle the New Deal Coalition
1. Longevity of existence: While the movement draws on a lot of centuries old concepts and puts them as the bedrock basis of the ideology, at the end of the day Conservatism as a movement as we define it today (Goldwater to Reagan) is a product of the time in which it was created and thus it took on attributes that defined both its opposition to the world as it existing in that time period and in its need to successfully incorporate select voting blocs into its movement to give it a kind of strength.
This means that a good deal of what we think of as conservatism is really more a product of its time, as opposed to an absolutist laundry list handed down from time immemorial. To get around this and assert the dominance and legitimacy of these views other understandings of conservatism were written out of existence, re-labeled as liberal, or otherwise made to be out of the way to make this ascendancy possible and not get in the way of necessary elements (the South realigning for instance).
2. Continuity of Composition: This is where you get into the problematic rewriting of history and casting figures like say Jefferson as a Conservative, among other issues. This of course backwards applies the modern understandings of what it means to be a conservative back onto historical figures to establish some kind of continuous existence and lineage with the same set of views. The problem is they are "trying to recreate what had yet to be created".
3. Writes over instances in which traditions equally adhered to within the movement, were at odds as hinted at above. For instance to favor a strong military in the 1790s meant to be on the opposite side of the guy who favored "smaller government". Likewise with religion in politics and society. This failure to understand historical instances of friction between various components, meant that people were unable or unwilling to see the problems this caused today.
I speak often of how the family/religion aspect of the movement was at odds with the economic part. (Classical) Liberal economics is inherently chaotic, disruptive and often erodes away at traditional pillars of society. Religion and family are traditional conservative fixtures that would be recognizable historically in multiple periods and many European countries. Outsourcing for the sake of satisfying the quest for less and less government intervention in the company, leads to fewer jobs, less tax base for schools, more crime and of course massive divorce rates and government dependence. All of the solutions are even more disruptive, telling high school drop outs in their 50s to learn to code or "move to find work" (breaking apart the family, religious and community bonds).
This disruption of societal cohesion is anathema to the traditional conservative mindset and yet in this country, in this time and in this movement, such sentiments were relegated as "fringe", "liberal", "fascists", "authoritarian", or "populist", by erstwhile "conservatives" who were dying on the alter of "liberal trade policies". This at the same time that "Wilsonians" were doing the same thing to isolationists and advocates of restraint and realism, denigrating the "traditionally conservative position" as "Liberals" and "hippies" by "conservatives" who were dying on the alter of a foreign policy born of Democratic Progressivism in the early 20th century.
This is the result of combining strict conformity along a set of arbitrary lines drawn in response to a particular political environment forty years prior and with control of who gets to define what conservatism to a bunch of business influenced donor backed politicians, whose only consolation is that the opposition to the establishment (Tea Party) is "expected" to just dial up the same positions even more "because that is what the base demands". Yet Ted Cruz did not win the GOP nomination in 2016, which tells you all you need to know about this sort of mindset and its flaws.
