It is time to face the harsh reality of why the extreme left has been able to seize power in the United States: the logical and inescapable corollary to the left’s victory is the right’s defeat. The conservative professional political class lost.
Yet the right refuses even to acknowledge the left’s victory. The reason is clear. If you admit that the left won, then people will start to ask why the right lost, and the next logical question is why we should continue listening to what they say, giving them money, and so forth.
It has now become so glaring that a few are starting to acknowledge their uselessness:
The establishment Right’s failures over the last generations have been manifold. ... Since the end of the Cold War, what trajectory-altering successes or victories can the Right cite to demonstrate its worth? ... Despite spending billions of dollars supporting its infrastructure…the establishment Right has registered no clear gains and many clear losses. Much of the nation was conquered on its watch.
Thus writes the editor of an unusually forthright recent book assessing professional conservatism. One contributor goes farther. “You could even argue that it abetted most of it[s defeats],” he suggests. “Where official conservatism’s opposition hasn’t been ineffectual, it’s been collaborationist.”[1]
Conservative media today are full of horror stories about the wicked deeds of the left (and they are indeed wicked). They rant and rave, and then they offer wish lists of how they would put things to rights if they had magic wands. But about their own failure, the silence is deafening. This confirms suspicions that the failure involves more: incompetence, cowardice, perfidy, or betrayal.
Imagine a military leader or athletic coach, reviewing a recent defeat with his team, who just lambasted the opposing side for their successes but never critiqued his own team’s performance or told his men how to improve.
With the left having ascended to unprecedented power over the U.S. government (and most Western governments), one might have thought that conservatives would reassess what they may be doing wrong. But no, they expect to dig themselves out of the mess they permitted by doing more of the things that got them into the mess in the first place.
This is not limited to the Republican Party: “RINOs,” “neocons,” etc. It involves the entire professional conservative political class: pressure groups, think-tanks, media, law firms, colleges and universities. One defeat after another.
Why? Here are eight reasons that I would have thought are fairly obvious but apparently need to be rubbed into their faces:
In short, professional conservatism simply does not work. It can never work, and it can never end in anything other than defeat, because paying people to perform your civic responsibilities for you amounts to farming out your citizenship to a different group of overlords. It is like hiring mercenaries to fight your battles. Eventually, they start obeying whoever pays them more. Citizenship is like anything else: if you want it done right...
Political professionalism (“politics as a vocation,” in the words of sociologist Max Weber) was invented by the left, and it serves leftists’ interests well. It does not work for the rest of us, whose aim is to control those zealots whom Lenin exalted as “professional revolutionaries” and professional radicals. Creating a class of professional counter-revolutionaries and conservatives does not check or counteract the left; it merely expands the political class and provides the left with collaborators and infiltrators.
This is the central conundrum of democracy: we say that We the People govern, but in practice we quickly delegate our authority to paid government officials. When those officials inevitably abuse that power in flagrant ways, we then hire paid activists, who abuse their power in more subtle ways, but the result is the same. They pretend to hold the officials to account but readily collude with them.[2]
If we want a permanent political class to run our public affairs, it is better to have a monarchy-aristocracy, whose livelihood does not depend on being justified by numerous social ills and political catastrophes that they can manufacture to make themselves indispensable.[3] Figures like Donald Trump; Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; Elon Musk; and Vivek Ramaswamy can take independent positions and address real needs because they have independent means.
But if the rest of us depend on billionaires to rescue us from the railroad tracks and our own lethargy, then the “conspiracies” will continue, and the left will continue to consolidate control.
Stephen Baskerville is professor of politics at the Collegium Intermarium in Warsaw. His most recent book, Who Lost America? Why the United States Went "Communist” and What to Do about It, has just been published by Arktos. His other books and articles are available at www.StephenBaskerville.com.
[1] Arthur Milikh, ed., Up from Conservatism: Revitalizing the Right after a Generation of Decay (Encounter, 2023), Introduction, vii; Michael Anton, “The Pessimistic Case for the Future,” ibid., 14.
[2] “The deep state arises only within democracies,” writes Alexander Dugin, “functioning as an ideological institution that corrects and controls them.”
[3] This is why republican revolutions that promise power to the people invariably degenerate into authoritarian quasi-monarchies headed by a Cromwell or Bonaparte. The American Republic did not do this – yet.
Image: Chris Dodds via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Source link