#movement conservatives

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A rare view of the Statue of Liberty from the balcony on its torch. This point of view has been closed since 1916.

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 30, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Dec 01, 2024

Cas Mudde, a political scientist who specializes in extremism and democracy, observed yesterday on Bluesky that “the fight against the far right is secondary to the fight to strengthen liberal democracy.” That’s a smart observation.

During World War II, when the United States led the defense of democracy against fascism, and after it, when the U.S. stood against communism, members of both major political parties celebrated American liberal democracy. Democratic presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower made it a point to emphasize the importance of the rule of law and people’s right to choose their government, as well as how much more effectively democracies managed their economies and how much fairer those economies were than those in which authoritarians and their cronies pocketed most of a country’s wealth.

Those mid-twentieth-century presidents helped to construct a “liberal consensus” in which Americans rallied behind a democratic government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. That government was so widely popular that political scientists in the 1960s posited that politicians should stop trying to court voters by defending its broadly accepted principles. Instead, they should put together coalitions of interest groups that could win elections.

As traditional Republicans and Democrats moved away from a defense of democracy, the power to define the U.S. government fell to a small faction of “Movement Conservatives” who were determined to undermine the liberal consensus. Big-business Republicans who hated regulations and taxes joined with racist former Democrats and patriarchal white evangelicals who wanted to reinforce traditional race and gender hierarchies to insist that the government had grown far too big and was crushing individual Americans.

In their telling, a government that prevented businessmen from abusing their workers, made sure widows and orphans didn’t have to eat from garbage cans, built the interstate highways, and enforced equal rights was destroying the individualism that made America great, and they argued that such a government was a small step from communism. They looked at government protection of equal rights for racial, ethnic, gender, and religious minorities, as well as women, and argued that those protections both cost tax dollars to pay for the bureaucrats who enforced equal rights and undermined a man’s ability to act as he wished in his place of business, in society, and in his home. The government of the liberal consensus was, they claimed, a redistribution of wealth from hardworking taxpayers—usually white and male—to undeserving marginalized Americans.

When voters elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, the Movement Conservatives’ image of the American government became more and more prevalent, although Americans never stopped liking the reality of the post–World War II government that served the needs of ordinary Americans. That image fed forty years of cuts to the post–World War II government, including sweeping cuts to regulations and to taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, always with the argument that a large government was destroying American individualism.

It was this image of government as a behemoth undermining individual Americans that Donald Trump rode to the presidency in 2016 with his promises to “drain the swamp” of Washington, D.C., and it is this image that is leading Trump voters to cheer on billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy as they vow to cut services on which Americans depend in order to cut regulations and taxes once again for the very wealthy and corporations.

But that image of the American government is not the one on which the nation was founded.

Liberal democracy was the product of a moment in the 1600s in which European thinkers rethought old ideas about human society to emphasize the importance of the individual and his (it was almost always a “him” in those days) rights. Men like John Locke rejected the idea that God had appointed kings and noblemen to rule over subjects by virtue of their family lineage, and began to explore the idea that since government was a social compact to enable men to live together in peace, it should rest not on birth or wealth or religion, all of which were arbitrary, but on natural laws that men could figure out through their own experiences.

The Founders of what would become the United States rested their philosophy on an idea that came from Locke’s observations: that individuals had the right to freedom, or “liberty,” including the right to consent to the government under which they lived. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In the early years of the American nation, defending the rights of individuals meant keeping the government small so that it could not crush a man through taxation or involuntary service to the government or arbitrary restrictions. The Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—explicitly prohibited the government from engaging in actions that would hamper individual freedom.

But in the middle of the nineteenth century, Republican president Abraham Lincoln began the process of adjusting American liberalism to the conditions of the modern world. While the Founders had focused on protecting individual rights from an overreaching government, Lincoln realized that maintaining the rights of individuals required government action.

To protect individual opportunity, Lincoln argued, the government must work to guarantee that all men—not just rich white men—were equal before the law and had equal access to resources, including education. To keep the rich from taking over the nation, he said, the government must keep the economic playing field between rich and poor level, dramatically expand opportunity, and develop the economy.

Under Lincoln, Republicans reenvisioned liberalism. They reworked the Founders’ initial stand against a strong government, memorialized by the Framers in the Bill of Rights, into an active government designed to protect individuals by guaranteeing equal access to resources and equality before the law for white men and Black men alike. They enlisted the power of the federal government to turn the ideas of the Declaration of Independence into reality.

Under Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, progressives at the turn of the twentieth century would continue this reworking of American liberalism to address the extraordinary concentrations of wealth and power made possible by industrialization. In that era, corrupt industrialists increased their profits by abusing their workers, adulterating milk with formaldehyde and painting candies with lead paint, dumping toxic waste into neighborhoods, and paying legislators to let them do whatever they wished.

Those concerned about the survival of liberal democracy worried that individuals were not actually free when their lives were controlled by the corporations that poisoned their food and water while making it impossible for individuals to get an education or make enough money ever to become independent.

To restore the rights of individuals, progressives of both parties reversed the idea that liberalism required a small government. They insisted that individuals needed a big government to protect them from the excesses and powerful industrialists of the modern world. Under the new governmental system that Theodore Roosevelt pioneered, the government cleaned up the sewage systems and tenements in cities, protected public lands, invested in public health and education, raised taxes, and called for universal health insurance, all to protect the ability of individuals to live freely without being crushed by outside influences.

Reformers sought, as Roosevelt said, to return to “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

It is that system of government’s protection of the individual in the face of the stresses of the modern world that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the presidents who followed them until 1981 embraced. The post–World War II liberal consensus was the American recognition that protecting the rights of individuals in the modern era required not a weak government but a strong one.

When Movement Conservatives convinced followers to redefine “liberal” as an epithet rather than a reflection of the nation’s quest to defend the rights of individuals—which was quite deliberate—they undermined the central principle of the United States of America. In its place, they resurrected the ideology of the world the American Founders rejected, a world in which an impoverished majority suffers under the rule of a powerful few.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[ravensvalley]

#TheRavenKeeper

I'm still very busy but I always have the time between 2 trails for a quick stop to say hi.

So Hi Folks! And hope you all having a good day so far.

[troythecatfish]

To protect the Palestinian mountain gazelle is to protect the land. To fight for its survival is to fight for Palestine's liberation-free, whole, and uncolonized.

[shalom-iamcominghome]

I usually say that my judaism looks like conservative judaism since that's what is closest to what I do (and want to do), and also about my general beliefs... but if I'm honest, my judaism is just a tapestry filled with every little thing I adore about judaism. My rabbi described it as a smorgasbord, and that's true, as well, but in reality, I see my judaism as nothing but love

[goldenwaves]

wow! purity culture and censorship in fiction sure is getting scary out there isn’t it!

[wachinyeya]

From water-testing polluted rivers to measuring radiation levels, ordinary people are taking environmental research into their own hands.

[relaxedstyles]

[philosophicalconservatism]

Are the angry American women who are flirting with embracing South Korea's 4B movement also going to embrace that movement's rejection of Transgenderism?

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 26, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

DEC 27, 2023

On December 26, 1991, the New York Times ran a banner headline: “Gorbachev, Last Soviet Leader, Resigns; U.S. Recognizes Republics’ Independence.” On December 25, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev had resigned, marking the end of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, often referred to as the Soviet Union or USSR.

Former Soviet republics had begun declaring their independence in March 1990, the Warsaw Pact linking the USSR’s Eastern European satellites into a defense treaty dissolved by July 1991, and by December 1991 the movement had gathered enough power that Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine joined together in a “union treaty” as their leaders announced they were creating a new Commonwealth of Independent States. When almost all the other Soviet republics announced on December 21 that they were joining the new alliance, Gorbachev could either try to hold the USSR together by force or step down. He chose to step down, handing power to the president of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin.

The dissolution of the USSR meant the end of the Cold War, and those Americans who had come to define the world as a fight between the dark forces of communism and the good forces of capitalism believed their ideology had triumphed. Two years ago, Gorbachev said that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, "They grew arrogant and self-confident. They declared victory in the Cold War." 

The collapse of the USSR gave the branch of the Republican Party that wanted to destroy the New Deal confidence that their ideology was right. Believing that their ideology of radical individualism had destroyed the USSR, these so-called Movement Conservatives very deliberately set out to destroy what they saw as Soviet-like socialist ideology at home. As anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “For 40 years conservatives fought a two-front battle against statism, against the Soviet empire abroad and the American left at home. Now the Soviet Union is gone and conservatives can redeploy. And this time, the other team doesn't have nuclear weapons.”

In the 1990s the Movement Conservatives turned their firepower on those they considered insufficiently committed to free enterprise, including traditional Republicans who agreed with Democrats that the government should regulate the economy, provide a basic social safety net, and promote infrastructure. Movement Conservatives called these traditional Republicans “Republicans in Name Only” or RINOs and said that, along with Democrats, such RINOs were bringing “socialism” to America. 

With the “evil empire,” as President Ronald Reagan had dubbed the Soviet Union, no longer a viable enemy, Movement Conservatives, aided by new talk radio hosts, increasingly demonized their domestic political opponents. As they strengthened their hold on the Republican Party, Movement Conservatives cut taxes, slashed the social safety net, and deregulated the economy. 

​​At the same time, the oligarchs who rose to power in the former Soviet republics looked to park their illicit money in western democracies, where the rule of law would protect their investments. Once invested in the United States, they favored the Republicans who focused on the protection of wealth rather than social services. For their part, Republican politicians focused on spreading capitalism rather than democracy, arguing that the two went hand in hand.

The financial deregulation that made the U.S. a good bet for oligarchs to launder money got a boost when, shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act to address the threat of terrorism. The law took on money laundering and the illicit funding of terrorism, requiring financial institutions to inspect large sums of money passing through them. But the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) exempted many real estate deals from the new regulations. 

The United States became one of the money-laundering capitals of the world, with hundreds of billions of dollars laundered in the U.S. every year. 

In 2011 the international movement of illicit money led then–FBI director Robert Mueller to tell the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City that globalization and technology had changed the nature of organized crime. International enterprises, he said, “are running multi-national, multi-billion dollar schemes from start to finish…. They may be former members of nation-state governments, security services, or the military…. These criminal enterprises are making billions of dollars from human trafficking, health care fraud, computer intrusions, and copyright infringement. They are cornering the market on natural gas, oil, and precious metals, and selling to the highest bidder…. These groups may infiltrate our businesses. They may provide logistical support to hostile foreign powers. They may try to manipulate those at the highest levels of government. Indeed, these so-called ‘iron triangles’ of organized criminals, corrupt government officials, and business leaders pose a significant national security threat.”

In 2021, Congress addressed this threat by including the Corporate Transparency Act in the National Defense Authorization Act. It undercut shell companies and money laundering by requiring the owners of any company that is not otherwise overseen by the federal government (by filing taxes, for example, or through close regulation) to file with FinCEN a report identifying (by name, birth date, address, and an identifying number) each person associated with the company who either owns 25% or more of it or exercised substantial control over it. The measure also increased penalties for money laundering and streamlined cooperation between banks and foreign law enforcement authorities.

But that act wouldn’t take effect for another three years. 

Meanwhile, once in office, the Biden administration made fighting corruption a centerpiece of its attempt to shore up democracy both at home and abroad. In June 2021, Biden declared the fight against corruption a core U.S. national security interest. “Corruption threatens United States national security, economic equity, global anti-poverty and development efforts, and democracy itself,” he wrote. “But by effectively preventing and countering corruption and demonstrating the advantages of transparent and accountable governance, we can secure a critical advantage for the United States and other democracies.” 

In March 2023 the Treasury told Congress that “[m]oney laundering perpetrated by the Government of the Russian Federation (GOR), Russian [state-owned enterprises], Russian organized crime, and Russian elites poses a significant threat to the national security of the United States and the integrity of the international financial system,” and it outlined the ways in which it had been trying to combat that corruption. “In light of Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine,” it said, “we must redouble our efforts to prevent Russia from abusing the U.S. financial system to sustain its war and counter Russian sanctioned individuals and firms seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system.” 

The collapse of the USSR helped to undermine the Cold War democracy that opposed it. In the past 32 years we have torn ourselves apart as politicians adhering to an extreme ideology demonized their opponents. That demonization also helped to justify the deregulation of our economy and then the illicit money from the rising oligarchs it attracted, money that has corrupted our democratic system. 

But there are at least signs that the financial free-for-all might be changing. The three years are up, and the Corporate Transparency Act will take effect on January 1, 2024.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[ravensvalley]

#WildHabitat

It should be built the simplest way as possible to not disturb the environment… always in tune with nature. Be concerned with protecting the natural environment and the planet.

[blondebrainpowered]

Kittens interacting with a Newton's Cradle.

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Can you talk more about how you decided to convert through conservative judaism over reform and what the process was like for you? I've been going to a reform shul for a while, to the point where I know everyone who regularly comes and I also love our rabbi. It almost feels like a second home, but I realized recently that I think I agree more with Conservative views on halacha and would prefer converting through that stream, but I also don't wanna leave all the nice people I've met so far, and also the nearest conservative shul is over an hour drive away :( I thought I'd just convert through reform anyways but maybe talk about keeping a conservative level of observance for my conversion, but I feel like it would be dishonest to convert reform if I don't agree with their fundamental views on halacha and such. It's hard thinking about leaving the community I love, but I also feel that I'd get more of what I personally want out of Judaism from a conservative conversion. Would really love some advice on navigating this if you're willing!!

I'll preface this by saying that this is included in my FAQ, so if you want to check that out, you might get more information that I might have forgotten to include here.

What I fundamentally believe people should do in the conversion process is to do what is accessible to them. If reform is accessible to you, I don't see why you would have to upend yourself and leave behind your pre-established community.

To me, movement means very little. If you've converted halachically (which reform absolutely can do and does), you've converted. You can be a reform jew who follows or believes in a myriad of things - I doubt a rabbi is going to say, "now, I want to convert you, but you don't believe only in the Reform Positions, so it looks like you can't be converted." If anything, a rabbi would be thrilled to hear what your positions are and why. It reminds me of my ITJ class where the presenting rabbi asked if we believed in g-d or not. She literally balked about how none of us voted "no." She was amazed.

I only decided to convert through the conservative movement because it was the most accessible to me. Nothing about the conversion process changed because I chose conservative - I'm still working with a rabbi, I'm still engaged with my community, and I will stand before a beit din and immerse in the mikvah. If I could let you in on a secret... If movement didn't matter to others, I wouldn't even put which movement I'm affiliated with on this blog.One of the most important things in jewish conversion and jewish life in general is having a community. It sounds like you've found that - it isn't dishonest to be in community and to just be yourself (yes, even if you disagree with some aspects of different practices - two jews, three opinions, anyone?). Plenty of people in my conservative shul are more frum than others, and some are less frum. Even within your own movement, your practices will look wildly different than other jews of the same movement. In actuality, we're all starting from more or less the same starting point which is judaism. You have a lifetime to explore the mitzvot and see how you will practice. Nothing about that is inherently dishonest or disingenuous.

[leaning-right]

4B

To all the liberals abstaining from sex during Trump’s next presidency… thank you for making your ideals extinct!

[philosophicalconservatism]

Female Post Election Anger (Response)

knavesravenraves

Flirting? Nothing women do can exist outside the realm of sexual for you. Some women already reject transgenderism and some don't/won't. What's your point? Scaremongering for those who support it so that 4B becomes an issue not focused on women and their rejection of men but whether or not trans women are real women? Sowing division so that the movement fizzles out as those it caters to waste time arguing about it?

Philosophicalconservatism

Nothing has done more to sexualize women than the modern cultural Left. No force has done more to replace love with sex. Sex reconceived in crude transactional terms inevitably leads to a greater perception of women as sexual objects. Your side seems to only be angry about it when you suspect that Conservatives are thinking in this way (even if it is just a simple euphemism as it is in this case) .

I know that some women reject transgenderism in the U.S. they are called Conservatives. Women of the Left are not permitted to reject transgenderism; ask J.K. Rowling. Even if you are a Feminist icon who helped to put the modern version of that movement on the map, like Germaine Greer, you will be cancelled if you do not fall in line on this issue. No dissent is permitted.

Sowing division? We aren't doing anything. Once you start by dividing people (which is how the modern Left operates) the dividing never stops. Look at the reaction to the election. It starts out as contempt toward Conservative Americans. But soon it becomes a hostility toward all men (even the Left-wing men that voted with you). Then black women start to turn on all white women (white women voted for Trump by 52 percent, the majority). Then everyone starts to attack all Latino men, whom they once defended (this group supported Trump by 45 percent). We are seeing this bitter division and animosity across demographic lines play out all over social media.

You will get division when you are dealing with a fundamentally divisive cultural ideology.

[kick-a-long]

The first concert I have felt totally safe and excited at since Oct 7th. Yo la tango puts on a yearly Hanukkah concert and night six was amazing.

Love child opened. David Sadaris performed some amazing raunchy limericks and short stories. Yo la tango was incredible. Swamp dog has an amazing voice and told stories about the 70s pissing off Nixon with Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland (KLUTE!)

It felt so good to have a room full of Jews all around. The sterile cool and aesthetic only identity politics, the Token language and regurgitated opinions of “correct” language and politics of so many concerts I’ve been to the last year was gone. It felt honest, funny, the opposite of repressed, unchristian, kind.

I miss talking to people like that. I miss being unafraid of language and tone and ideas. I miss seeing and reading and hearing things that aren’t pre approved, sterile, zombie talking points. I miss being allowed to have opinions in public free of the fear that people will think it’s distasteful to someone else somewhere else. I miss seeing genuine passion and good art. I miss seeing wit and clever writing that turns anger and pain into jokes and motivation rather than panic, pessimism, and shallow wallowing in the misery of others. I don’t have conservative opinions. I’m happy I finally got to enjoy being surrounded by people who are fed up with shit and laughing and dancing, unafraid of fucking social media and its control over what you’re allowed to feel and how you think about yourself and the world.

Sorry for the rant. I’m just so fucking happy to see a fucking menorah on stage and hear people reacting genuinely and creating art for themselves and not the search engine optimization of it all. It’s weird to say but this concert was one of the first times I’ve been out where the entire thing from the crowd to the bands to the comedians didn’t feel performative.

I even got David Sadaris’s autograph.

[stimmingandstruggling]

on one hand i think tim walz is a genuinely decent guy who would make an awesome vice president (without considering if he’s “too liberal” to earn votes etc).

on the other hand i’m minnesotan and yall can’t have him