I first heard about Hawley when Rod Dreher sang his praises a while back, which was a clear tip off that Hawley is absolute shit. But he’s tailor made for conservatives like Dreher and Vance, who like to praise the traditional virtues of the little guy while they slurp oysters in Paris or enjoy valet service at the D.C. Ritz-Carlton.
Hawley is someone to watch out for. The conventional wisdom has it that Trump is thankfully too incompetent to cause lasting damage. The real danger is the smart, competent rightwing loony who picks up the populism banner after Trump is gone. Hawley looks like he’s positioning himself to be that guy.
I really liked ". . . a conservative cosmopolitanism which was superior to the liberal variety because while “liberal elites tend toward parochial narrowness... conservative elites often manifest a cosmopolitan capacity to engage and appreciate, and even to be changed by, a variety of viewpoints.” These people can't even acknowledge reality, much less "engage and appreciate, and even be changed by, a variety of viewpoints."
Now that conservatives have decided to really let their racist freak flags fly, I will be interested to see just how much of the country ends up repulsed by this and how much of it decides "yeah, racism is great!"
Also, too: Brad DeLong on "National Conservatism"--
"National Conservatism is too long to say easily. We need something that rolls off the tongue. I propose we call them 'NatCs.'"
It's true that so-called conservatives and the GOP, for decades, have tendentiously proclaimed themselves the "party of ideas". But those ideas have really consisted of just one or two beliefs that tax cuts for the wealthy will both trickle down and benefit the whole economy and they will also raise enough tax revenue to pay for themselves. As we all know, this economic set of beliefs has been tested repeatedly by the GOP for nearly 40 years and has failed spectacularly and repeatedly. Have conservatives changed their Main Idea on the basis of its failed real world implementation? Of course not. But then again, they don't believe in the scientific method either.
By my reckoning that's the only actual GOP idea, pathetic as it is. All of their positions and ideas on social issues, federalism and, of course health, the environment and labor have been just variants of Buckley standing astride the course of history and staying stop. Those aren't examples of ideas.
We will know we've achieved final victory over the cosmopolitan elites when everybody is working two jobs without benefits in the gig economy, but they've taken arugula off the shelves.
So, to sum up: Cosmopolitanism is good, when it refers to conservatives' openness to a variety of ideas from a variety of sources; bad, when it refers to "elites" and their "loyalty" to places other than the U.S.; good, when it implies sophistication, affirming that conservatives are smawt, and not dumb like people say; and bad, when it refers to Jews, who are openly un-Christian and therefore traitors to the U.S., which is a Christian nation in which Christians are persecuted.
And you wonder why Jonah Goldberg is considered a conservative intellectual? (Jk. You don't wonder.)
Whereas cosmopolitan conservatives often supported international cooperation and admired elite culture in other countries, fascists espoused extreme nationalism and cultural parochialism. Fascist ideologues taught that national identity was the foundation of individual identity and should not be corrupted by foreign influences, especially if they were left-wing. From (of all places) : https://www.britannica.com.
1) Given the bellyaching among the right about corporate-sponsored pride parades, I think Hawley's dog whistle was more likely blowing in the direction of gays than Jews.
2) Another context is the loss of the wealthier suburbs to Democrats. This is less about questioning laissez faire economics and more about the right trying to figure out how all these lazy socialists got money.
3) Isn't it odd that the general consensus says that Trump's best chance for re-election lies with the economy while the new Young Superstar Republican says that it's been rigged against the common man?
4) For all of his trash talk about elites, Hawley's depiction of the 'Great Middle' is actually more disparaging. They are, in his view, drug-addicted unemployed divorcees. His plans for them are likely far more punitive than anything he's designing for the 'cosmopolitans.'
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives disdained 'libertarianism' (propertarian minarchism) because The Market is the best destroyer of Tradition known.
I first heard about Hawley when Rod Dreher sang his praises a while back, which was a clear tip off that Hawley is absolute shit. But he’s tailor made for conservatives like Dreher and Vance, who like to praise the traditional virtues of the little guy while they slurp oysters in Paris or enjoy valet service at the D.C. Ritz-Carlton.
Hawley is someone to watch out for. The conventional wisdom has it that Trump is thankfully too incompetent to cause lasting damage. The real danger is the smart, competent rightwing loony who picks up the populism banner after Trump is gone. Hawley looks like he’s positioning himself to be that guy.
I really liked ". . . a conservative cosmopolitanism which was superior to the liberal variety because while “liberal elites tend toward parochial narrowness... conservative elites often manifest a cosmopolitan capacity to engage and appreciate, and even to be changed by, a variety of viewpoints.” These people can't even acknowledge reality, much less "engage and appreciate, and even be changed by, a variety of viewpoints."
Now that conservatives have decided to really let their racist freak flags fly, I will be interested to see just how much of the country ends up repulsed by this and how much of it decides "yeah, racism is great!"
Also, too: Brad DeLong on "National Conservatism"--
"National Conservatism is too long to say easily. We need something that rolls off the tongue. I propose we call them 'NatCs.'"
Trying to remember where I'd heard this "take" before. . .https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/12/gore-sullivan-and-fifth-column.html
It's true that so-called conservatives and the GOP, for decades, have tendentiously proclaimed themselves the "party of ideas". But those ideas have really consisted of just one or two beliefs that tax cuts for the wealthy will both trickle down and benefit the whole economy and they will also raise enough tax revenue to pay for themselves. As we all know, this economic set of beliefs has been tested repeatedly by the GOP for nearly 40 years and has failed spectacularly and repeatedly. Have conservatives changed their Main Idea on the basis of its failed real world implementation? Of course not. But then again, they don't believe in the scientific method either.
By my reckoning that's the only actual GOP idea, pathetic as it is. All of their positions and ideas on social issues, federalism and, of course health, the environment and labor have been just variants of Buckley standing astride the course of history and staying stop. Those aren't examples of ideas.
We will know we've achieved final victory over the cosmopolitan elites when everybody is working two jobs without benefits in the gig economy, but they've taken arugula off the shelves.
So, to sum up: Cosmopolitanism is good, when it refers to conservatives' openness to a variety of ideas from a variety of sources; bad, when it refers to "elites" and their "loyalty" to places other than the U.S.; good, when it implies sophistication, affirming that conservatives are smawt, and not dumb like people say; and bad, when it refers to Jews, who are openly un-Christian and therefore traitors to the U.S., which is a Christian nation in which Christians are persecuted.
And you wonder why Jonah Goldberg is considered a conservative intellectual? (Jk. You don't wonder.)
Whereas cosmopolitan conservatives often supported international cooperation and admired elite culture in other countries, fascists espoused extreme nationalism and cultural parochialism. Fascist ideologues taught that national identity was the foundation of individual identity and should not be corrupted by foreign influences, especially if they were left-wing. From (of all places) : https://www.britannica.com.
All he's got to do is find a war to start.
Random thoughts I'm dumping here --
1) Given the bellyaching among the right about corporate-sponsored pride parades, I think Hawley's dog whistle was more likely blowing in the direction of gays than Jews.
2) Another context is the loss of the wealthier suburbs to Democrats. This is less about questioning laissez faire economics and more about the right trying to figure out how all these lazy socialists got money.
3) Isn't it odd that the general consensus says that Trump's best chance for re-election lies with the economy while the new Young Superstar Republican says that it's been rigged against the common man?
4) For all of his trash talk about elites, Hawley's depiction of the 'Great Middle' is actually more disparaging. They are, in his view, drug-addicted unemployed divorcees. His plans for them are likely far more punitive than anything he's designing for the 'cosmopolitans.'
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives disdained 'libertarianism' (propertarian minarchism) because The Market is the best destroyer of Tradition known.