He’s been a rock, like on pro-life stuff.
This is, of course, hypocritical nonsense. Trump himself gives no shits about abortion at all. Elliot Broidy, Trump’s buddy and hand-picked deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, demanded and paid for an abortion for his mistress. If Republicans actually cared as deeply about abortion as they constantly claim, you’d think this revelation would have triggered a major scandal within the party and an investigation by conservatives into the actions of Trump’s inner circle on this issue - a pro-life #MeToo.
Instead, Broidy resigned and Republicans immediately suppressed any mention of the issue. Because none of the ones actually in power care in the slightest. For them, the point of being a Republican is giving the rich white guys who run the club unlimited license to do whatever they like, as well as unlimited authority to push around those outside the club. What Lowry really means is that untouchable Donald Trump gives no fucks if state legislatures in some distant red state use the power of the government to push poor women around.
(How long before someone jumps on this thread to tell us that Rich Lowry, who has edited the National Review since 1997, is no true conservative?)
jpinard
3329
The abortion thing is bullshit. My parents are super anti-abortion but they vote Democrat because they see the Republican party for what it is. Evil and manipulative. The people who still claim to vote Republican because of abortion only do so because they have some kind of internal racism, hate, bigotry, Taliban-minded autocracy bubbling inside them. Most important - let’s not forget how much Republicans hate kids once they’re born and poor (or were born south of the border).
Abortion is now just an excuse to vote for what they really want, but don’t want to be called out on because it is phenomenally anti-Christian.
Nesrie
3331
Well several people keep telling themselves that but yeah…
Uh, have you read the National Review in the last three years? It’s perfectly consistent with the Lowry passage cited upthread.
-Tom
I think the point was that conservatives will support Trump’s abuses of power over literally any Democrat.
Right, and my point is that supporting abuse of power isn’t a conservative principle. It’s a Republican principle. Seriously, go read the National Review. They’ve been as big of a joke as the Republican party itself for the last three years. As an ideology and not another member of the tribe fellating Trump, there are places you can go to still see conservative values being expressed. Not a one of them approves of Trump’s abuses of power.
Countdown until someone explains that “conservative” means “conserving white privilege” in 5…4…3…
-Tom
Matt_W
3335
I don’t think anyone’s said this. There’s a bunch of handwringing on the forum here over what is essentially a semantic argument. We need another term for what you’re calling “conservative.” 81% of self described conservatives voted for Trump in 2016. 70% say they will vote for him in 2020.
Since “conservative” has been co-opted to mean “Republican party” in today’s language, we need a way to distinguish the kind of conservative that @tomchick has been talking about. Too bad “classical conservative” is taken. How about “early 20th century conservative”?
jpinard
3338
I like that. Or even 1860’s Conservative :)
“That which is not dead can eternal lie…”
They’re actually a pretty good match up for what Tom is talking about, e.g.
Historian Daniel Walker Howe argues the Whigs were modernizers, “who attached a great deal of importance to protecting property, maintaining social order, and preserving a distinct cultural heritage, three characteristic conservative concerns.”[120] The Whigs themselves adopted the word “conservative,” which they associated with “‘law and order’, social caution, and moral restraint.”[121] Political scientists John H. Aldrich and John D. Griffin note that the labeling of Whig ideology as conservative is “somewhat [counterintuitive] for those who associate a small role for government rather than a pro-business orientation with conservatism.”[122]
tomchick
3340
@scottagibson would like to have a word with you.
There’s certainly something to be said for the term being coopted, but those are exactly the wrong people to get their sticky little fingers on how we use words. Look at how they’ve controlled political discussions with terms like “pro-life”, “liberal”, “gun control”, “nationalism”, or “patriot”. They know what they’re doing. When today’s Republicans call themselves “conservative”, they would have you believe they have a consistent political ideology. Do you believe that? I don’t. They’re an authoritarian cult of personality whose only values are those that will help them maintain power, smaller government, free trade, and traditionalism be damned.
In discussions about political philosophy, conservative and liberal are two ends of a spectrum. The Republican party and the Trump supporters who comprise it exist nowhere on this spectrum because authoritarianism is independent of that spectrum.
But, sure, they call themselves conservatives. They also call themselves patriots, true Americans, and even public servants. That doesn’t mean you have to call them those things, too.
-Tom
tomchick
3341
Neo-conservative would have also worked, but that’s taken. Maybe neo-neo-conservative?
-Tom
ShivaX
3343
Authoritarians works and is accurate.
Yes, but I thought we were trying to find a novel term for Trump supporters, not just another synonym for conservative.
