The Death of American Conservatism

In their constant efforts to revive the mythical ‘good ol days’ of early America or the phony bologna golden age of the 1950’s, I’ve noticed some rather interesting changes in the way dime store conservative “thinking” seems to approach matters…that is to say, changes from the times that they seem to want to return.

In early America, what we might consider ‘conservative thinking’ meant a variety of things in a very short time. Initially, at the very beginning, conservatism was loyalty to the crown. In this sense, the claims made that most of our founding fathers were conservative is correct, to a point. The Adams (both John and Samuel), Mr. Franklin, Mr. Washington and for a short time, even Mr. Jefferson all demanded, as statesman, not liberty from mother England, nor independence as a nation, but simply what they viewed as their rights as Englishmen.

The wanted representation in parliament, fair trade and the right to claim land in the west without immediate need for approval from the Crown. Washington especially, given that he had been a soldier and commander in the King’s army originally and was in his private professional life, a land surveyor and speculator. But then the tides turned and loyalism was no longer politically fashionable…or realistic given the rising tide of insurrection in the population.

However its important to note a few interesting things. Samuel Adams did not lead the Boston Tea Party, nor was he the legendary rabble rouser he is painted, for these were both British lies published and promoted through propaganda. Much in the way Yankee Doodle Dandy was a song written in mockery of colonial insurrectionists, much of the legend surrounding Mr. Adams is a British lie taken on by historians to sex up a prominent figure who in reality, rode (as opposed to lead) the wave to independence.

But the long and short of it is, original American conservatism was loyalty to the crown despite maltreatment by great Britain. And yet modern conservatives look to what were essentially loyalists, as their heroes, thanks largely to the popular mythologizing of their character and the romantic notions now associated with them. Still, in either case, one school of thinking would say that loyalists would be the modern nationalist-conservatives biggest historical enemy, despite their views having been conservative for the time. Likewise, were they true revolutionaries seeking an abandonment of the old ways and adoption of new ideas, they are by definition, liberal. Moving on…

Another stark change in conservative “republican” thinking, is the view of the military as an essential and fundamental part of American culture. The militarization of our history and the military band tattoos which accompany most civic patriotic activities these days, is not truly rooted in our real national history, as much as it is implanted in our popular historical mythology. Original republican philosophy not only declared that a standing army was unnecessary for a civilized nation, but that it was a threat to popular sovereignty and the soul of a republic.

Throughout history, standing armies played not only a military role in societies, but political ones as well. In times of crisis, be it real or manufactured, the military would often assume control, either partial or total, of the country they served and if not a direct coup, would be used as an instrument of imperialism and authoritarianism by whoever sat atop the political food chain (or whoever wished to.) Early Americans with any degree of education in political history or philosophy were aware of this and in their forming of a free republic, most found the concept of maintaining a military when not in time of war antithetical to the dreams and aspirations to create a true democratic republic.

It was largely General and later President Washington who pushed to maintain said military after the surrender of Cornwallis and the withdraw of British forces from American territories. This was not entirely without reason of course. Cornwallis was but one general in the King’s army and the total forces still in country during the time of his surrender could have easily overtaken and eliminated the revolutionary forces, however as America was not the only active conflict zone at the time, but rather one of almost a dozen world wide for Great Britain, an end to hostilities here was taken on by the crown as a strategic and intelligent move. Afterwards, Washington remained wary of British presence in Canada and at sea and also desired a military force with which to capture further western lands, should the native tribes and nations not relent to colonial demands.

However, despite the President/General’s desires to continue westward expansion and his mistrust of the British army still nearby, many political thinkers and activists of the time often demanded that the standing army of the new republic be disbanded and that state militias maintain responsibility for national security. Essentially, by modern standards, conservatives of the day advocated for nothing more than national guard units, while calling for the US Military to be disassembled in the name of popular sovereignty and true republicanism.

In our modern world, ardent support for the military in almost any endeavor or aspect is a hallmark of “conservative” thinking. In a manner of temporary abandon to their small government, reasonable taxation and spending philosophy, the modern conservative sees the military as something that can do no wrong and can never be too big. To them, the concept of any nation without a standing army is absurd and despite the now long history of the US military being used generally for imperialist efforts to secure foreign resources and American interests abroad, the steady beat of the war drum never fails to rouse the cockles of the new conservative heart.

Now, for a third and final example in the shift of right wing thinking, its best to look modernly and historically to wall street. Now granted, wall street did not exactly exist in its modern form in post-colonial America, however among the great debates of the time was the nature of American economy and what roots it should hold.

Conventional, conservative thinking of the time called for production based economics which was more centered and rooted in individual colonies and localities, while on the flip side, their political opposition at the time sought a debt based multinational economy with trade and exchange being largely centered in the north. The latter got their way to a respectful degree and the banking and lending industry in the agriculturally disparate north came to dominate the economies of the rich and bountiful south, much as it does today.

In modern times, Wall Street and the financial industry dominates almost all aspects of the American economy with the stock market now becoming like a tempermental pet which must be tended an appeased to regulate its often bizarre behavior. And while recent partisan political developments (the election of Democrats) has turned the right wing in part against the banking establishments, the free-market conservative minds of today and the “business friendly” conservatives of recent decades have traditionally been Wall Street’s best friend. And rather than laying blame for economic turmoil on the banking industry and its endless collusion with government officials, generally via campaign donations and support, the modern conservative instead generically blames the government and ignores the classic arguments against the centralized debt and credit economy once decried by their forefathers.

So in essence, it is my position that modern partisan conservatives are not actually conservative, nor republican in any conventional aspect. They beat the drums of war with a frothing excitement whenever possible, they support with reckless abandon, anything with the label of “free enterprise” regardless of its potential pitfalls and problems and in their considerations of historical precedent, they are all too often so keen to revise and relabel the classic philosophies at work throughout time to support their modern ideas.

To me, the label of “conservative” or “republican” is at best, reserved for only the mildly libertarian thinkers, while the Sarah Palin, George Bush style “thinker” can really only be described as militant ultra-nationalists. Add to this the single concurrent theme of racial and ethno-centrism which not only fought to preserve slavery and segregation, but modernly focuses on Latino immigrants as the bane of our society as a whole and the threats from foreigners as cause to hold fast and stay armed and one might be tempted to say that the only legacy adopted by modern right wing advocates is a somewhat racist ethno-centric world view.