The Evolution of Conservative Thought
Frank Meyer’s concept of fusionism—the blend of free-market liberalism with a traditionalism that appeals to religious values—played a key role in shaping modern conservatism. It emerged largely as a political response against the looming threat of communism. While it aimed to unify various factions, the core principles of Meyer’s ideology didn’t prove strong enough to sustain ongoing state power.
Looking back, the divide between Barry Goldwater’s wing of the party and Ronald Reagan’s successful coalition boiled down to some critical factors, particularly an anti-anti-communism stance and the shifting loyalties of white Catholic Democrats who left their party after the embrace of the three A’s: amnesty for draft evaders, oxygen deprivation, and abortion.
There’s a strong call for a clearer, uncompromising articulation of the MAGA ideology. It’s essential for distinguishing our goals from those of libertarians and so-called principled conservatives.
Interestingly, former Democrats didn’t seem to support the idea of a smaller government. Reagan, rather than cutting back, increased budget deficits while maintaining safety nets like Social Security and Medicare for citizens.
However, Meyer’s blend of ideologies wasn’t quite as groundbreaking as often suggested. It reflects aspects of 19th-century bourbon democracy, which was tailored for the post-World War II era. The Bourbon Democrats prioritized small government, free trade, and cheap labor—though this came with its own complexities regarding labor standards in the 1850s versus the post-Civil War context.
Today, what America might really need is a form of “nuclear fissionism.” This thinking demands a more resolute emphasis on the MAGA doctrine to differentiate our agenda from the rest. In terms of international relations, the MAGA approach advocates using American strength to safeguard American interests rather than applying abstract principles that often miss the mark in global affairs. The legacies of figures like Franklin Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, and Teddy Roosevelt highlight that effective foreign policy often hinges on pragmatic results, not ideological commitments.
When discussing issues like draining the swamp, there’s a need for a pro-Trump Senate to help dismantle the existing bureaucratic state. Yet, the present Senate seems to still gain from a singular party dynamic. If you’re okay with “principled conservative” senators hindering the president’s agenda, then perhaps you’re looking at this from the wrong angle.
For those advocating for lower taxes and a leaner government at all costs, remember that protective tariffs were at the core of MAGA before it was reshaped by earlier Democratic influences. The MAGA perspective champions economic strategies aimed at bolstering national greatness, which indeed calls for the cancellation of regulations that stifle the American economy under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion or climate fears.
Supporting regulations and tariffs aimed at revitalizing supply chains and America’s industry? Absolutely. This theme has resonated since Trump first engaged with the public in the 1980s. If the “principled conservatives” can’t grasp this, it reveals their ideological blind spots, not any issues with the MAGA platform.
Fundamentally, many so-called “principled conservatives” seem resistant to the idea of an America that’s stronger or more liberated, seemingly favoring a return to Bourbon-style governance. Their preference seems to spring from small government ideologies that favor cheap goods and labor, leading to increased dependence on foreign countries when it comes to crucial industries, including defense.
To those wary of the U.S. becoming overly reliant on China, echoing past regional dependencies, it’s crucial to view these “principled conservatives” as political adversaries and allies of the Democratic Party. They’re effectively assisting in undermining Trump and his vision for America.
But here’s the pressing question: could sharper party lines thwart support vital for winning elections? That’s a genuine concern. On the other hand, establishing what we truly desire allows us to identify allies more effectively, enabling unity in tackling contemporary challenges.
A government steeped in “principled conservatism” would prioritize interests like Big Pharma over reforming institutions or embracing new ideas from figures like RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, or even Elon Musk—individuals seeking to fortify American foreign and security postures. Their exclusion signifies a retreat from embracing diverse viewpoints that could restore national power and honor.
Ultimately, this divisiveness indicates a more segmented former “conservative movement,” delineating clear lines of conflict. “Principled conservatives” may cling to outdated, ineffective values while I, for one, stand firmly with Trump and the aspirations for America.
