https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/national-conservatism-freedom-conservatism-and-americanism/
Perhaps it was posted back when it came out and I missed it. I think this article (adapted from a speech) does a good job of describing the two factions of the conservative movement "at war" with each other for the GOP party.
There are other layers on this topic that this speech does not go into, but I think it's a great high-level view of the two primary factions. I've noticed those factions debating each other in various ways in the forum over the last decade and I'm hopeful this thread can turn into a discussion between those factions where the temperature stays turned way down.
For those not in the know, Imprimis is a newsletter published by Hillsdale College, they are on the Nat Con side of these two factions for the most part. So, the speech and article come from their vantage point.
Popular figures on the Nat Con Side:
Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Knowles, Charlie Kirk
Popular figures on the Free Con Side:
Jonah Goldberg, Jeb Bush, Williamson Evers, Dick Armey,
Will also a note, it would be a mistake to think that these two sides represent entire institutions or conservative media outlets/think tanks. There are key figures signed onto the manifestos of each faction that work on staff with each other at the same publications or think tanks. Also, a mistake to believe that within these two groups there is total agreement. It's why the current impulse to make these debates within a political party so black and white, pretty nonsensical. It really isn't black and white and it has not been going back to when Jefferson and Adams were going at it or the Federalist vs. the Anti-Federalists.
This is not in the posted article, but I thought I would make this easy. Here is the Nat Con Manifesto. Here is the Free Con Manifesto. I would encourage starting with these manifestos to draw from beyond the article itself.
Some excerpts of this speech I consider key/interesting:
This is such an important note to make, and I think it's important for all the factions to figure this piece out if they want to have any success going forward.
Much more in the speech. My hope is that this thread does not turn into a debate about personalities and politicians. My preference is to have a thread that is talking about the ideas represented by these two factions that have held sway in the GOP off and on for most of our lifetimes. Please leave the debates about Trump and other GOP leaders, Dem leaders, the election. etc. Leave those to other threads. Plenty of threads on that stuff. I'm hopeful we can have a discussion about the ideas found in the article/speech and the linked manifestos.
Here is a quote from the speech that expresses this author's goal of trying to accomplish a new fusionism within the conservative movement. I find it compelling and wonder if factions even including disaffected Democrats, can find enough common ground to work together in the defense and preservation of those things that have made America the best nation on earth for the greatest number of people.
Perhaps it was posted back when it came out and I missed it. I think this article (adapted from a speech) does a good job of describing the two factions of the conservative movement "at war" with each other for the GOP party.
There are other layers on this topic that this speech does not go into, but I think it's a great high-level view of the two primary factions. I've noticed those factions debating each other in various ways in the forum over the last decade and I'm hopeful this thread can turn into a discussion between those factions where the temperature stays turned way down.
For those not in the know, Imprimis is a newsletter published by Hillsdale College, they are on the Nat Con side of these two factions for the most part. So, the speech and article come from their vantage point.
Popular figures on the Nat Con Side:
Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Knowles, Charlie Kirk
Popular figures on the Free Con Side:
Jonah Goldberg, Jeb Bush, Williamson Evers, Dick Armey,
Will also a note, it would be a mistake to think that these two sides represent entire institutions or conservative media outlets/think tanks. There are key figures signed onto the manifestos of each faction that work on staff with each other at the same publications or think tanks. Also, a mistake to believe that within these two groups there is total agreement. It's why the current impulse to make these debates within a political party so black and white, pretty nonsensical. It really isn't black and white and it has not been going back to when Jefferson and Adams were going at it or the Federalist vs. the Anti-Federalists.
This is not in the posted article, but I thought I would make this easy. Here is the Nat Con Manifesto. Here is the Free Con Manifesto. I would encourage starting with these manifestos to draw from beyond the article itself.
Some excerpts of this speech I consider key/interesting:
Quote:
In the past two years, two competing groups of conservativesNational Conservatives or NatCons and Freedom Conservatives or FreeConshave issued competing manifestos. These manifestos reflect a divergent understanding of the progressive challenge to the American way of life.
Quote:
This divergence can best be understood in the context of the history of modern American conservatism, which can be broken into three waves: the first wave, symbolized by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan, lasted from the mid-1950s to the end of the Cold War; the second wave, symbolized by Paul Ryan and the two Bush presidencies, ran from the 1990s to roughly the second decade of this century; and the third wave, symbolized by Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, is ongoing.
Quote:
Modern American conservatism began with the circle around Buckley's National Review magazine. Conservatism in this period united traditionalists, who were concerned above all with virtue, and classical liberals, who were concerned above all with liberty. National Review's Frank Meyer famously developed a theory called fusionism, which argued that freedom was a prerequisite for a virtuous society. Fusionism, whatever its philosophical inconsistenciesand aided by the common and urgent cause of anti-communismworked politically to hold differently-minded conservatives together, particularly during the Reagan administration.
This is such an important note to make, and I think it's important for all the factions to figure this piece out if they want to have any success going forward.
Quote:
Paul Ryan exemplified this second wave of conservatism intellectually and politically by promoting free trade, entitlement reform, increased immigration, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Ryan told the Washington Examiner: "We need an immigration system that's more wired to give our economy the labor it needs to grow faster."
Quote:
The third wave of conservatism can be characterized as a nationalist-populist revolt against the policies and attitudes of the second wave, particularly on issues of immigration, trade, sovereignty, and national identity. Originally leading the opposition was U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, who for years issued amendments, memos, and speeches, explicitly calling for a humble populism and "immigration moderation . . . so that wages can rise, welfare rolls can shrink, and the forces of assimilation can knit us all more closely together."
Much more in the speech. My hope is that this thread does not turn into a debate about personalities and politicians. My preference is to have a thread that is talking about the ideas represented by these two factions that have held sway in the GOP off and on for most of our lifetimes. Please leave the debates about Trump and other GOP leaders, Dem leaders, the election. etc. Leave those to other threads. Plenty of threads on that stuff. I'm hopeful we can have a discussion about the ideas found in the article/speech and the linked manifestos.
Here is a quote from the speech that expresses this author's goal of trying to accomplish a new fusionism within the conservative movement. I find it compelling and wonder if factions even including disaffected Democrats, can find enough common ground to work together in the defense and preservation of those things that have made America the best nation on earth for the greatest number of people.
Quote:
I will conclude with a recommendation on terminology that could become the basis for a new conservative fusionism. The conflict today is not simply a normal policy argument between conservatives and progressives. It is over the future of the historic American nation, both its creed and its culture. Therefore, those who affirm the American nationwhether they are NatCons, FreeCons, or patriotic liberalsshould be called Americanists. Those who find our inheritance deeply problematic and seek a revolutionary transformation of the American regime should, logically, be called Transformationists. Today's polarization should be viewed as an existential struggle between Americanists and Transformationists.