Conservatism Plus X

1,161 words

What the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has uncovered thus far is a resounding indictment of the federal government and neoliberalism. But it is an even greater indictment of the establishment GOP. If they weren’t in on it, they were either too scared, stupid, clueless, or incompetent to even ask meaningful questions about how our money was being spent.

They certainly liked to talk about fiscal responsibility, but talk is cheap. They failed to follow through. For example, Ron Paul’s campaign manager, Lew Moore, describes in his book Forerunner how in 1994, the GOP planned to defund and close four federal departments as part of their Contract with America: education, housing and urban development, energy, and commerce.[1] But within two years, many of the 200 programs that the GOP had pledged to cut actually had larger budgets.

In their defense, the Republicans lacked experience with wielding state power because they hadn’t controlled the House of Representatives for over 40 years. But raising that fact as a defense only leads into another indictment. Why were they so inept at winning elections? Forty years is a long time to be a beautiful loser even with the legacy of FDR and the Civil Rights era.

Conservatism failed because the conservatives failed to conserve anything, and I don’t care to indulge their excuses. DOGE sent an email asking federal employees to report five things they accomplished in the previous week. Can vanilla conservatives even report five things they accomplished in the last century? And no, aggrandizing China, amnesty for illegals, offshoring our industry, common core, and lying about WMD in Iraq don’t count. Maybe real fiscal conservatism just hasn’t been tried yet.

The biggest problem with conservatives and conservatism is that they are inherently defensive. Their world view is best defined as a lack of a world view. They have no affirmative vision and thus are easily outplayed by those who do, even if that vision is stupid, evil, or crazy. Yes, not doing what the left does is usually a good idea, but pure contrarianism isn’t reliable, as seen with conservatives developing an irrational hatred of Ukraine through guilt by association with the Democrats.

It also leads to bad policy, as exemplified by Speaker Mike Johnson (who has an adoptive black son. Take that racist demonKKKrats!) opposing Elon Musk’s plan to send a portion of the DOGE savings to the taxpayers. Johnson’s reasoning was that this would go against muh conservative principle of fiscal responsibility and that it should be used to pay down the national debt. I agree that paying down the national debt is a priority, but we don’t need to use all of the DOGE savings for that. Sending even a fifth back to the taxpayers would be wildly popular and help ensure a Republican victory in the next election. And if the Republicans don’t win the next election, there is a good chance that the Democrats will not just continue to rack up the national debt, but send us to prison camps. Johnson’s disapproval was entirely a product of his Esoteric Ned Flandersism.

The establishment must make its peace with the radicals because we have proven to be the only ones capable of getting anything done. We must replace Ned Flanders with Ernst Jünger and black sons with black suns if we are to survive, let alone balance the budget.

Conservatives must start seasoning their politics because basic, bland conservatism is not enough to accomplish even its modest goals. Conservatism needs to be spiced up with an extra X factor to be effective. How much spice and what type can be debated, but at the very minimum it must be nationalist not globalist and populist not elitist.

If we want to make the future better, we need an affirmative vision and a concrete plan with specific policies for achieving that vision. Even if you think some of these ideologies have plans that are imperfect or even bad, a bad plan is better than no plan. Basic conservatism is defined by its lack of a concrete plan and is thus doomed to failure. Whether in business, technology, or politics, the notion that things will magically improve on their own because reasons is a cowardly optimism. The future will only become a better place if we make it so, and this is a matter of survival because the current trajectory is one of stagnation and ultimately collapse.

Yes, these political spices are different from conservatism in their underlying type, rather than degree. We are not simply a more radical version of the Chamber of Commerce. We differ from the conservatives not just in methods but in goals. Conservatives were correct in detecting that fact, but not correct in instinctively shunning us because of it. Our goals might be different, but they are not diametrically opposed and hostile as the left’s goals are.

The Left does not shun their radicals. When they don’t outright embrace them its because they are quietly incorporating them. What would have happened if such people had won the 2024 election? They do not see much difference between the GOP and the radical youth. Just as lawfaring our radicals at Charlottesville was a prelude to lawfaring MAGA at January 6, lawfaring Trump and Elon would have been a prelude to hammering any conservative who dared to stick up like a defiant nail. Its not hyperbole to say that both conservatives and radicals would have eventually gone to the gulag together. Conservative incompetence would have doomed us both.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right here

The American youth who are politically engaged are almost entirely radical, the only question is if they are on the right or the left (and the recent German elections suggest that this is a global phenomenon). If the country and broader world is inexorably headed towards radicalization and polarization, conservatives would be wise to ensure the victory of the radicals who don’t hate them, don’t want open borders, and don’t want to tax unrealized capital gains. No, we aren’t free market capitalists, but conservatives can live with our agenda. They can’t live with gay race communism. Perhaps quite literally.

The recent drama involving one of the DOGE staffers was a turning point of the conservative establishment embracing their radicals instead of cowering before cancel culture. One of young DOGE staffers, Marko Elez, was doxed for having recently made “problematic” remarks by gossipy journalists trying to sabotage DOGE. But Elon Musk, JD Vance, and 78% of X users in a poll stood by Elez. If someone under thirty isn’t in at least one racist group chat, they are probably not sufficiently radical to be competent.

We have a lot to gain from working with the establishment, such as legitimacy, policies, and positions. But the establishment has even more to gain by working with us: a cohort of loyal, competent, and driven staffers, not to mention not being lawfared to oblivion. We’re the fiscal conservatives now.

Notes

[1] Forerunner page 46-47