6 Warning Signs for Today’s Political Right

There are many things I appreciate about the current government in the United States.

There are also some glaring issues in our camp and the seeds of philosophical changes that may affect the right side of American politics for years to come.

Let me be upfront on terms. As you will see from the following, I’m not a political theorist, but this is how I try to differentiate and understand some labels (sorry, not sorry, libertarians and other misfits). Give me a hard time in the comments.

Right wing: will often emphasize merit/effort over manufactured social equity, individual responsibility vs. collectivist economic systems such as communism… this is one of the broadest categories as it ranges from neoliberalism to the right’s version of totalitarian extremism (fascism). It can include any combination of anti-leftist values socially, economically, nationally, etc.

Conservativism: focused on tradition or “stability,” conservatives tend to be realists when it comes to human nature and the utopia that progressives strive for. Conservatism considers the benefits of freedom to outweigh the costs. They believe in the authority of government to punish evil. So conservatives will usually be tough on crime, supportive of individual liberty (think “bill of rights”), and reticent to change government to rapid realignments of cultural whims. They would say you can’t regulate a nation into safety or spend it out of poverty.

Republican: as the name suggests, an essential underpinning is that Republicans believe in a representative “republic”. Traditionally in the United States, this party has an emphasis on federalism and the sovereignty of the individual, the individual state, etc. While many would associate conservatism and right-wing with Republicanism, these cannot be fully equated. The party has taken on aspects of a coalition, including everything from laissez-faire libertarians to global interventionists. Classical liberals to (the relatively fringe) neo-Nazis.

Noting the vast array of views on this side of the aisle, I must further stress that not all in these camps support the entire current congress and Whitehouse.

Now, what are my complaints?

1. Small Government Has Morphed

The republican administration across Congress and the Whitehouse seems a little too comfortable using power to implement their agenda. While their agenda may align with conservative/right-wing principles, the current efforts of getting it in place seem more modeled after the left’s methodology.

There is something to be said, for instance, about the number of executive orders required to repeal prior executive orders. Exorbitant actions by a Democrat predecessor will almost always result in a necessary escalation in order to undo damage. Also, this has been seen arguably as a method to effect immediate movement as a precursor to legislative action.

…you can’t regulate a nation into safety or spend it out of poverty…

However, Trump seems to accept this precedent for executive growth, and I have not seen a clear paradigm for enforcing his agenda through a collaborative congress instead of his pen. A small-government conservative would seek to keep the level of executive action at prior levels or even backtrack and boast on “lowest level” of direct action, emphasizing state-level policy and representative process.

From a process standpoint, the Trump administration seems to take action with an “agenda” first –> discover which legal strategy/angle to play, –> then “whatever it takes” order of operations. This has often meant more effective movement on party platform/campaign promises, which is popular (we don’t see so much thumb-twiddling), but a small-government, traditional approach would be more civilly principled, though frustrating. A better focus would be getting the legislative branch to reform some of that process to reduce red tape, implement policy more efficiently, and do their jobs in representing constituents better… so the voters don’t get frustrated to the point of appointing an executive to do Congress’s job for them.

2. Self-Justified Retribution Lacks Integrity

Republicans and democrats are fueled by the same accelerants. They ride the same crazy train, but it only takes one of them getting off to save America from antagonistic idealism. The party that has long complained of government overreach and the revolutionary instincts of the leftist/student population are now jumping to counter in a tit-for-tat frenzy.

How can you still claim moral superiority or that you’re not “snowflakes” when your entire political existence is based on being triggered, fear of wokeness, and wounding your fellow citizens of the other ilk? When you barter away principles in favor of trading blows “because the other side deserves it,” you have abandoned the integrity that undergirds credibility.

While the Trump administration has, so far, avoided actually persecuting political opponents, the grievances of the Biden era’s insane overreach and politicization of the justice system are now serving as an excuse to enable the republican narrative. There was a time when “cleaning the swamp” meant both exposing the corruption and firing career government alligators (you know, swamp creatures). Now, at least in rhetoric, the conversation is elevating the previous abuses of the justice system as grounds for prosecution of purveyors of the same. This unlocks a cycle of round after round of political prosecution from admin to admin, destroying the institution of the court system.

Allow at least one more cycle of letting bygones be bygones (I know, I know how unjust that feels) and let the next democratic admin abuse their power publicly again… that should always be a leftist problem. Everybody is against totalitarian governments; you can’t beat them by matching totalitarian use of power, or you just become the alternative “bad guy.”

3. Survival Mode Does Not Build Enduring Strength

Based on the more conservative instincts within the republican ranks, efforts to hold social, cultural, economic, educational, and foreign influence/transformation at bay have taken the front seat of this political rollercoaster. We get 4 years, make them count in undoing bad democratic policy and galvanizing the system against further damage… without building anything new that can speak positively for itself, we will consistently face exhaustion campaigning to keep enough market share among voters.

Again, my concern here is that in campaign efforts, right-wing institutions discovered that the democrat staples (catastrophizing and social pressure) were highly effective at mobilizing a base. And as the political conversation gets an early start by staying on between elections, Republicans are now more than ever relying on “we can’t survive more democrat control” instead of “see how good life is when lived by our principles.” The first narrative is 1000 times easier for a coalition, but the second narrative builds a truly “values” orientated base and disincentivizes political stakeholders from keeping the frenzy going (and lining their retirement pockets in the process).

…winning the political narrative via dopamine hits will not ingrain constitutional principles in the next generation…

Realigning political identity entirely around the necessity of the next win also means arguments are being primarily generated around the next soundbite or what will “destroy” in the next viral debate clip. While this does not invalidate pithy arguments and quick, logical refutations, winning the national sentiment based on dopamine hits will not ingrain constitutional principles in the next generation (I’m not calling out TPUSA, or am I?). This has its place, but from an outreach and education perspective, we must lay more holistic groundwork for the future. The sky has been falling since 1776. Maybe we pause to build it some pillars?

4. Truth is Not Reactionary

How do we know what is true? Especially concerning the media, information vs disinformation is now, more than ever, a grave concern by the conservative side of institutional distrust.

The worldview study of the origin of knowledge is “epistemology.” Watch yourself on this one. Especially during the height of the pandemic and the simultaneous QAnon craze, I saw many on the right adopt a spurious epistemological framework: contrarianism. Basically, “whatever is the mainstream idea, the opposite is automatically true.”

This has many, fairly obvious issues. A primary one is that all “they” have to do to discredit your opinion is to mix some truth into the mainstream reporting, making you demonstrably wrong when you support the opposite and destroying your credibility as a “truther.” On this reactive theme of political retribution, harnessing fear, and relying on survival, making your view of the truth just an inversion of the media and cultural narrative does not align you with reality.

Discernment will always, always, always and forever require hard work and a measure of uncertainty. You can’t claim to be a “truther” by making every day opposite day. Your political identity and “alternative” vision for your country should not make you suspicious of gravity.

5. Truth is Not Defined by Offensiveness

Truth very often offends. Or, it’s at least likely to offend those who tie their identity to lies… but you must never use triggered “libs” as your canary in the cage. There’s a certain type of right-wing activist who employs the cries of the left as a compass for truth.

This is very similar to my previous point on contrarianism. You shouldn’t base your views of reality on the disturbed psyche of other humans. If you must purposely cause the distress of another to confirm your viewpoint, you’re doing the “truth” thing wrong. I get that “facts don’t care about your feelings,” but your facts seem to care about the leftists’ feelings.

…stop field testing your opinions on your neighbor; that’s inhumane…

Strong disagreement or disdain from others within our culture should be relegated to “a byproduct of principle” or simply allergic reactions to rational conversation. Stop field testing your opinions on your neighbor; it’s inhumane. Carry yourself with dignity and respect, and if others cannot engage rationally, that reveals only their shortcomings, not a cruel or arrogant streak in your character. Make this your northern light.

6. Reclaim the Rhetoric of Education

Propelled by the desire for social media hooks and the power of inflammatory language, the “college is a scam” statement has taken on a life of its own. If you listen to someone like Charlie Kirk actually explain why he says this, the push isn’t really for people to be dumb and uninformed. But this can easily be distorted.

The critique of higher education stems from 2 issues:

1. While universities may allow some form of “critical thinking,” they seemingly less and less product free thinkers. We can see students, or more often than not, taught what to think and not given skills for how to think.
2. It’s a scam when many of the degrees don’t live up to the implicit college promise: spend “x” thousands of dollars and you will have a job waiting for you with a decent living wage or unlock access to some wealthy American dream.

Taken properly, both of these concerns should promote young people pursuing more education, more cultural engagement, reading and understanding of more diverse sources, and preparing for competence in actual areas of industry need. But the clickbait rhetoric makes it seem that the republicans are backward and anti-education in the interest of control, and so forth.

Build a more positive narrative around reforming education quality. Build on the primary/secondary school choice initiatives, efforts to focus the classroom back on core subjects/skills, and the dissolution of an incompetent Department of Education… and add a vision for incentivizing high literacy rates, trade schools and apprenticeships, and challenging/thought-diverse college programs.

---

I hope something in this smorgasbord of ideas got you thinking about where the conservatives, republicans, and general right-wing are headed today. I have more specific callouts against the extremists and the neo-Nazis but for now I won’t be enfranchising them as part of the same group.

My point is, let’s get our house in order, our reactive emotions in check, and our vision for the future constructive. Then let’s engage the opposition with dignity and integrity, retaining a sense of moral surety backed up by facts and reason rather than the outrage it induces.

Stay tuned for future analysis of positives I see or my remaining hopes for this presidential term.

I don’t know.

I could write anything. Isn’t that thrilling?