The crisis in conservatism

[Katsumoto]

VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russia’s president, has declared the liberal idea “obsolete”. It will not surprise you to learn that we disagree. Not just because he told the Financial Times that liberalism was all about immigration, multiculturalism and gender politics—a travesty—but also because he picked the wrong target. The idea most under threat in the West is conservatism. And you do not have to be a conservative to find that deeply troubling.

In two-party systems, like the United States and (broadly) Britain, the right is in power, but only by jettisoning the values that used to define it. In countries with many parties the centre-right is being eroded, as in Germany and Spain, or eviscerated, as in France and Italy. And in other places, like Hungary, with a shorter democratic tradition, the right has gone straight to populism without even trying conservatism.

Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as a disposition. The philosopher Michael Oakeshott put it best: “To be conservative…is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant.” Like classical liberalism, conservatism is a child of the Enlightenment. Liberals say that social order emerges spontaneously from individuals acting freely, but conservatives believe social order comes first, creating the conditions for freedom. It looks to the authority of family, church, tradition and local associations to control change, and slow it down. You sweep away institutions at your peril. Yet just such a demolition is happening to conservatism itself—and it is coming from the right.

The new right is not an evolution of conservatism, but a repudiation of it. The usurpers are aggrieved and discontent. They are pessimists and reactionaries. They look at the world and see what President Donald Trump once called “carnage”.

Consider how they are smashing one conservative tradition after another. Conservatism is pragmatic, but the new right is zealous, ideological and cavalier with the truth. Australia suffers droughts and reef-bleaching seas, but the right has just won an election there under a party whose leader addressed parliament holding a lump of coal like a holy relic. In Italy Matteo Salvini, leader of the Northern League, has boosted the anti-vaxxer movement. For Mr Trump “facts” are just devices to puff up his image or slogans designed to stir up outrage and tribal loyalties.

Conservatives are cautious about change, but the right now airily contemplates revolution. Alternative for Germany has flirted with a referendum on membership of the euro. Were Mr Trump to carry out his threats to leave NATO (see “The World If” in this issue), it would up-end the balance of power. A no-deal Brexit would be a leap into the unknown, but Tories yearn for it, even if it destroys the union with Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Conservatives believe in character, because politics is about judgment as well as reason. They are suspicious of charisma and personality cults. In America plenty of Republicans who know better have fallen in with Mr Trump even though he has been credibly accused by 16 different women of sexual misconduct. Brazilians have elected Jair Bolsonaro, who fondly recalls the days of military rule. The charismatic Boris Johnson is favourite to be Britain’s next prime minister, despite being mistrusted by MPs, because he is deemed to be the “Heineken Tory” who will, like the beer, refresh the parts other conservatives cannot reach.

Conservatives respect business and are prudent stewards of the economy, because prosperity underpins everything. Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, paints himself as a low-tax economic conservative, but undermines the rule of law on which businesses depend. Mr Trump is a wager of trade wars. Over 60% of Tory members are willing to inflict “serious damage” on the economy to secure Brexit. In Italy the League is spooking markets by toying with issuing government paper that would act as a parallel currency to the euro. In Poland Law and Justice has splashed out on a welfare bonanza. In France, in the campaign for the European Parliament elections, the rump Republican Party made more of a splash about Europe’s “Judeo-Christian roots” than prudent economic management.

Last, the right is changing what it means to belong. In Hungary and Poland the right exults in blood-and-soil nationalism, which excludes and discriminates. Vox, a new force in Spain, harks back to the Reconquista, when Christians kicked out the Muslims. An angry, reactionary nationalism kindles suspicion, hatred and division. It is the antithesis of the conservative insight that belonging to the nation, a church and the local community can unite people and motivate them to act in the common good.

Conservatism has been radicalised for several reasons. One is the decline of what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons” that it relied on, such as religion, unions and the family. Another is that the old parties on both right and left were discredited by the financial crisis, austerity and the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Outside the cities, people feel as if they are sneered at by greedy, self-serving urban sophisticates. A few have been wound up by the xenophobia of political entrepreneurs. The collapse of the Soviet Union, some believe, loosened the glue uniting a coalition of foreign-policy hawks, libertarians and cultural and pro-business conservatives. None of these trends will be easy to reverse.
The right stuff

That does not mean everything is going the way of parties of the new right. In Britain and America, at least, demography is against them. Their voters are white and relatively old. Universities are a right-wing-free zone. A survey by Pew last year found that 59% of American millennial voters were Democratic or leaned Democratic; the corresponding share of Republicans was only 32%. Among the “silent generation”, born in 1928-45, Democrats scored 43% and Republicans 52%. It is not clear enough young people will drift to the right as they age to fill the gap.

But the new right is clearly winning its fight against Enlightenment conservatism. For classical liberals, like this newspaper, that is a source of regret. Conservatives and liberals disagree about many things, such as drugs and sexual freedom. But they are more often allies. Both reject the Utopian impulse to find a government solution for every wrong. Both resist state planning and high taxes. The conservative inclination to police morals is offset by an impulse to guard free speech and to promote freedom and democracy around the world. Indeed conservatives and liberals often bring out the best in each other. Conservatism tempers liberal zeal; liberals puncture conservative complacency.

The new right is, by contrast, implacably hostile towards classical liberals. The risk is that moderates will be squeezed out as right and left inflame politics and provoke each other to move to the extremes. Voters may be left without a choice. Recoiling against Mr Trump, Democrats have moved further to the left on immigration than the country at large. The British, with two big parties, may have to pick between Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s hard-left leader, and a radicalised Tory party under Mr Johnson. Even if you can vote for the centre, as with Emmanuel Macron in France, one party will win repeatedly by default—which, in the long run, is unhealthy for democracy.

At its best conservatism can be a steadying influence. It is reasonable and wise; it values competence; it is not in a hurry. Those days are over. Today’s right is on fire and it is dangerous.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/20...n-conservatism

This is something that has been an ongoing trend in recent years and it is a shame to see conservatism witnessing such a decline. I'm not sure when it began but it became more noticeable for me as conservatives began to attack institutions they once considered practically holy (the FBI, Department of Justice) and supporting reckless tax cuts where once they called for fiscal responsibility.

I share the author's appreciation for the conservatism of old, which "tempers liberal zeal". A vital role, I'm sure we can all agree. However, as the article quite nicely explains, the 'radical conservatism' of today seems to have abandonded too many of the aspects that defined it in the past. Do you agree with this assessment? Will classical conservatism be able to make a return? Or will conservatism continue to move away from its core beliefs?

[PointOfViewGun]

It's what happens when an ideology faces massive shift at a global scale away from its tenants. To stay in power conservatives choose to corrupt all the principles they once had to pollute the well and drive the ignorant.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

It seems to me like both ends of the spectrum are and have been experiencing the bottom ends falling out, even as a great many people who had subscribed to both sides - and continue to - remain planted in part or in full onto traditional ideals and more central decision making, as well as a rational outlook that does not demonize one or the other.

You hear most on this board about how liberalism has gone off the deep end, and to an extent, I think it has for some, but I think the idea expressed here is also entirely reasonable; though there is an extreme where the old interpretation 'left' is now center or even slightly right, there's certainly the case of that effect happening on the conservative end as well.

Polarization. The aggressive elements continue to drive stakes and magnify differences in people who otherwise get along perfectly fine at a basic level. On the assumption that polarization is the cause and crisis, I do think it is possible for classical conservatism to return and for the spectrum to be more balanced, but I think it will get worse before it improves.

[Sar1n]

Nah. The real crisis lies neither in conservatism nor liberalism, but in breakdown of debate as main political tool in favour of polarization, partisanship, misinformation and propaganda. US are among leaders in this, but unfortunately this trend has already permeated European politics too.

[paleologos]

Nah. The real crisis lies neither in conservatism nor liberalism, but in breakdown of debate as main political tool in favour of polarization, partisanship, misinformation and propaganda. US are among leaders in this, but unfortunately this trend has already permeated European politics too.

I tend to agree with some of this.
I believe that both conservatism and liberalism have been eroded and the process of erosion continues because of the adoption - by both - of the fundamental post-modernist assertion that there is no such thing as objective, factual truth, only opinions and it's only a matter of having the power to shove yours down other peoples' throats.

The result of this is the breakdown of debate, which polarizes society and reinforces the belief that belief is the only reality that matters.
More than a decade ago, a well known comedian (Steven Colbert) made a joke about this (I'm paraphrasing): "Truth comes from the gut, facts have a liberal bias".
The Democratic party has a lot of responsibility for this, as their use of statistics, as a proxy for fact, was systematically superficial and intentionally deceptive.

[Daruwind]

It is the wheel of time? From generation to generation, topics and main issues are constantly changing. Like in medieval people were warring because of religion, then nationalism, then struggle of workers vs capitalism, then about ideology..(i skipped a lot things ) and simply things that were main concern or some important lines faded over time. Cold War? Gone..we are moving into world where globalism might be yet again under fire due to moving from bi-polar world into multi lateral world with many powerful countries. (>2) adding unprecedented technology development. Facebook, post truth....Just look at voting rights for women, black segretation....now? We are debating rights for minorities.

https://proto-knowledge.blogspot.com...ple-today.html

They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning -- all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything -- they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.

(Aristotle)

'The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.'

(Commonly attributed to SOCRATES by Plato,

I would simply state that "major" issues of new generation are always little different from previous one..usually...especially in our rapid time.

Does it make sense?

[The spartan]

I believe that both conservatism and liberalism have been eroded and the process of erosion continues because of the adoption - by both - of the fundamental post-modernist assertion that there is no such thing as objective, factual truth, only opinions and it's only a matter of having the power to shove yours down other peoples' throats.

I agree with this to extent, but it seems as if the Republican constituency in particular has gone off of a deep end, politically speaking. Norm Ornstein wrote in a book of his, it's even worse than it looks : how the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism:

The Republican Party, as we noted at the beginning of the book, is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government's role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with Republicans, and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties. This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for "balance," constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.

This has been observed by the massive shifts in institutional function instigated by Republicans, the SCOTUS fiasco by McConnell particularly standing out to me. Democrats don't seem as keen at smashing our institutions.

The Democratic party has a lot of responsibility for this, as their use of statistics, as a proxy for fact, was systematically superficial and intentionally deceptive.

Are you referring to some specific event here?

I share the author's appreciation for the conservatism of old, which "tempers liberal zeal". A vital role, I'm sure we can all agree. However, as the article quite nicely explains, the 'radical conservatism' of today seems to have abandonded too many of the aspects that defined it in the past. Do you agree with this assessment? Will classical conservatism be able to make a return? Or will conservatism continue to move away from its core beliefs?

I doubt they will go back to the way they were, times have changed. What "politics" is has changed in people's minds. Partisanship now. Partisanship forever.

[Heathen Hammer]

Depends on what you view as "conservatism". Clearly neocons (I think OP is referring to rhino-style neocons as "true conservatives" for some odd reason) are thankfully in decline -although they are conservatives in name only, essentially being liberals who pretend to care about "family values" or some other boomer gobbledegook, while pursuing same cringy globalist nonsense.
In a broad sense of the word, I guess as an idea of individual freedoms, small government, accountability for interests of taxpayer and ethnic and cultural sovereignty is hardly in crisis, as such movements are gaining momentum and power all over the Western world, and beyond it too.

[Prodromos]

As the Economist article correctly points out, the 'New Right' isn't particularly conservative, and many of its 'thinkers' happen to be recent migrants from the Left. On issues ranging from economics to foreign policy, it's difficult to differentiate the New Right from the Far Left. This is because both the New Right and the Far Left, though superficially distinct and hostile ideologies, are fundamentally reactionary/illiberal and share the same worldview.

What distinguishes illiberals from liberals (like American conservatives) is their denial of universal principles and their belief in the subjective will to power of a tribal coalition over the rest of society. On the Left, this tribal coalition typically revolves around class, gender, race, or more recently "sexual orientation", while on the Right, it's generally based on characteristics like religion, race or citizenship.

It seems to me that the Democratic party was taken over by illiberals a long time ago, though a contingent of liberals still remains. When one faction in society abandons liberalism, it motivates the other factions to follow suit. The illiberal Right is very much a reaction to the illiberal Left; the more the illiberal Left continues its assault on the Right, the more likely that illiberalism will be viewed as the best means of defense against the Left.

Of course, this is evidently false, potentially disastrous to society, and ultimately self-defeating, since liberalism makes up a large part of what makes America worth fighting for in the first place. That's what we call American Exceptionalism: America is not just another country, it's the embodiment of a set of ideas, which both the Far Left and the New Right oppose, as did virtually every nation in history until America came into being. Anti-Americanism, along with perhaps anti-Semitism, is the one thing that unites all illiberal ideologies in the world.

So far the illiberal Right is over-represented online, but it's still very much a minority faction in the GOP, especially among Republican politicians and party leadership. Hopefully liberals on both the Left and the Right will unite to defeat the illiberals in both parties. That means returning to federalism in politics and adopting a live-and-let-live attitude in the public sphere. The ball is largely in the Left's court, I think.

[Cope]

I agree with this to extent, but it seems as if the Republican constituency in particular has gone off of a deep end, politically speaking. Norm Ornstein wrote in a book of his, it's even worse than it looks : how the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism:

The Republican Party, as we noted at the beginning of the book, is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government's role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with Republicans, and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties. This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for "balance," constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.

This is just generic partisan criticism dressed up in flowery language: were you to have switched the party names I would have been non the wiser.

[Aexodus]

Donald Trump supporters believe that their man is the chosen one for real change in society and to drain the swamp of Washington. The liberal media wants to prevent this and put out negative coverage of Dear Leader. What the people want is more important than the politicians.

Jeremy Corbyn supporters believe that their man is the chosen one for real change in society and to drain the swamp of Westminster. The right wing media wants to prevent this and put out negative coverage of Dear Leader. What the people want is more important than the politicians.

PS I agree that postmodernism is a contributing factor to the overall problem.

[The spartan]

This is just generic partisan criticism dressed up in flowery language: were you to have switched the party names I would have been non the wiser.

No, you are right, Norm Ornstein is a nobody with a nothing take on issue. Good call.

[Abdülmecid I]

Interesting article. In my opinion, the author is a bit nostalgic and tends to embellish the past situation, as even moderate and enlightened conservatism was always marked, at a small extent, by the negative traits he lists, such as tribalism and bigotry. The recent phenomenon essentially consists of the increasing preponderance of these radical elements, at the expense of the more "civilised" characteristics. Without doubt, the main culprit for this change is the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent stagnation or anemic growth. As income equality decreases and the middle class shrinks, it's normal for the relatively "impoverished" society to endorse more agressive doctrines, which promise a quick and easy return to the previous prosperity. That being said, other factors, albeit less significant, also contributed to the rise of the new/alt/identitarian right.

Since the economic boom of the '80s and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early '90s, public discourse has evolved to gradually become more and more reactionary. Center-left and centrist parties (like the Democrats in America) responded to this change, by also adopting a more conservative approach. Mainstream media and entertainment companies also played a crucial role, by exploiting the collapse of the Warsaw Pact to almost completely silence even factual criticism of the dominating social and economic systems or to indulge in gross historical revisionism, which resulted into indirectly justifying a portion of the Third Reich's villainy. Company of Heroes 2 is the most typical example, but ironically even the Economist should be blamed, as, in 1999, it praised a propaganda comic, full of racist stereotypes and published by a clerical fascist and future collaborator with the Nazis, as "uncannily accurate". I personally suspect that this reactionary narrative did somewhat legitimise the extreme doctrines of the New Right and facilitated the radicalisation of several citizens, by rendering their new, far-right views socially acceptable. Obvious historical anachronisms aside, this intellectual and cultural movement could perhaps be compared to what happened in France after the exile of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty.

Thirdly, special circumstances were also influential. During the last presidential elections in the United States, whose immense cultural and economic importance means that they disproportionately affect the rest of the globe, Hillary and Donald were so remarkably despised, that they both heavily invested on polarisation, in order to win the contest. Simply put, undermining your opponent was easier and more efficient than increasing your popularity. This helped create a hostile atmosphere that was proven very beneficial for the unreconciled right and whose consequences, mainly thanks to the fiery rhetoric of Mr. Trump, we can still observe today. As a final note, I am a bit skeptical about the prediction of the journalist regarding a more progressive and liberal future. To be frank, the parents of the current students used to be definitely more revolutionary than their offspring, whose vigour seems to be limited to social justice and tolerance issues, in sharp contrast to their parent's anarchism or Maoism (back then China was trendier than Russia). As the years pass and our penniless students integrate to the economy as small enterpreneurs or regularly paid clerks, their progressivism recedes appropriately. The same conclusion could maybe employed for the infuriated alt-right adolescents who spam frog memes in Twitter and Facebook. Unless the economy worsens, instead of improving.

[Gaidin]

Donald Trump supporters believe that their man is the chosen one for real change in society and to drain the swamp of Washington. The liberal media wants to prevent this and put out negative coverage of Dear Leader. What the people want is more important than the politicians.

Jeremy Corbyn supporters believe that their man is the chosen one for real change in society and to drain the swamp of Westminster. The right wing media wants to prevent this and put out negative coverage of Dear Leader. What the people want is more important than the politicians.

PS I agree that postmodernism is a contributing factor to the overall problem.

It's not even the press. It's Congress. Laws would have to be passed. And well, lets just say that so much support for voters literally comes out of federal government that no congressman wants to do what Trump wants to do. Let's take a look at Food Stamps for example. Comes out of Department of Agriculture. Feeds poor people. They vote. Every time the power shifts in Congress to the right the funding shifts down but they don't disappear. They'll never disappear. No way will Congress starve the poor. When the power in Congress shifts left the funding for food stamps shifts back up. If the funding were to literally be cut an entire Section in Agriculture would literally be removed. Contractors no longer funded. Government employees reassigned. Nevermind the food stamps that are no longer being paid for.

But Congress, even Mitch, isn't going to do that. Not even Mitch is willing to have it pinned on him that he's starving people. He's willing to play the villain to have some crazy judges appointed. But starving people? He's not passing a law that not only defunds food stamps but removes the program.

This has nothing to do with the Press. To "drain the swamp" of Washington you need law. Law that Congress is willing to pass. The Press at large has no clue how the government works. And neither did Trump before he came into office. Hell, Trump still thinks he can demote Powell.

The swamp isn't going anywhere because it's packed full of programs that underneath it all people discover they liked once they discover they don't have it anymore. Programs that are actually useful. Unless you picture private news agencies putting multi-million dollar weather satellites up in space themselves. That'd be fun, watching them bicker over whose data is whose. And then fighting over whose supercomputer and whose algorithm to chomp on the hurricane data this fall. Picture that. Going through hurricane season blind. And Congress knows they'll be out on their ass if they try to get rid of it.

So really. Don't pin this on the press. Learn what is what, why it might be useful, why Congress might not repeal it, and pin it on Congress.

[DaVinci]

The crisis in conservatism - your thread title is the thing, in pretty much every respect.

Will classical conservatism be able to make a return?

Probably not. While, not easy to define "classical" conservatism. Perhaps or probably you mean the one from post WW2 (with growing tendency to liberal forms, at least from on 1970s; excluded must be the right-wing conservative economy-political neo-liberalism)?

Or will conservatism continue to move away from its core beliefs?

Probably. In case you mean the once partially moderate (liberal) form of conservatism (excluded must be the right-wing conservative economy-political neo-liberalism from moderate).

Overall crisis, connected confusion and fear will increase, and thus as we can exactly see (observe, learn) from history, the worst tendencies from the worldviews will win.
It's what i called renaissance of fascism a few years back already, prior or parallel to 2015 events (most relevant for Europe). Instead of fascism you can also call it radicalism or for that matter right-radicalism/extremism.
The only hope i have is that the quantity of the properly informed youth will increase and gets motivated for politics (and most important overall, environment), and, that they get heard right now.

[Heathen Hammer]

The main reason behind environment being harmed is... liberalism and its various aspects, from elitist corporate greed to archaic central banking model that needs to be thrown into trash. So indeed informed youth being heard is what is being slandered as "fascist renaissance" where criticism of liberalism and its institutions is conflated with "fascism" in a fit to preserve the status quo, even at the cost of tremendous damage to humanity and planet overall.

[Cope]

No, you are right, Norm Ornstein is a nobody with a nothing take on issue. Good call.

I didn't make any remark about the author's renown or lack thereof. The excerpt you chose simply presents a series of generic criticisms which can broadly be translated as "Republicans are ignorant extremists". If you want to get to the heart of social fragmentation in the US and Europe you need to start looking beyond party lines. Abdülmecid I's post is a good place to start for a serious discussion. The ideological carte blanche that the collapse of the USSR afforded the economic and social leaders of the Western world served to facilitate the resurrection of an insufferable, self-indulgent Western elite for the first time since 1914. It is this class of people, intoxicated as they are on their own hubris, who are finally beginning to be rejected by electorates. Trump, Brexit, Corbyn, Le Pen and the rest are not a symptom of radicalized conservatism; they're a reaction to a ruling elite which is not only self-righteous and intellectually lazy but which, in the absence of any real global opposition, has deliberately stoked (in some cases created) internal divisions for the purposes of political and financial profiteering. The reason that it reacted so viscerally to the events of 2016 was because it was the first time, really since before Reagan, that it had been told "no".

[hellheaven1987]

It is the wheel of time? From generation to generation, topics and main issues are constantly changing. Like in medieval people were warring because of religion, then nationalism, then struggle of workers vs capitalism, then about ideology..(i skipped a lot things ) and simply things that were main concern or some important lines faded over time. Cold War? Gone..we are moving into world where globalism might be yet again under fire due to moving from bi-polar world into multi lateral world with many powerful countries. (>2) adding unprecedented technology development. Facebook, post truth....Just look at voting rights for women, black segretation....now? We are debating rights for minorities.

Ha no, it is all about control of resource.

[PointOfViewGun]

The main reason behind environment being harmed is... liberalism and its various aspects, from elitist corporate greed to archaic central banking model that needs to be thrown into trash. So indeed informed youth being heard is what is being slandered as "fascist renaissance" where criticism of liberalism and its institutions is conflated with "fascism" in a fit to preserve the status quo, even at the cost of tremendous damage to humanity and planet overall.

This post is a nice example of the intellectually bankrupt version of conservatism. It defies any kind of reality or understanding of logic.

[The spartan]

I didn't make any remark about the author's renown or lack thereof. The excerpt you chose simply presents a series of generic criticisms which can broadly be translated as "Republicans are ignorant extremists". If you want to get to the heart of social fragmentation in the US and Europe you need to start looking beyond party lines. Abdülmecid I's post is a good place to start for a serious discussion. The ideological carte blanche that the collapse of the USSR afforded the economic and social leaders of the Western world served to facilitate the resurrection of an insufferable, self-indulgent Western elite for the first time since 1914. It is this class of people, intoxicated as they are on their own hubris, who are finally beginning to be rejected by electorates. Trump, Brexit, Corbyn, Le Pen and the rest are not a symptom of radicalized conservatism; they're a reaction to a ruling elite which is not only self-righteous and intellectually lazy but which, in the absence of any real global opposition, has deliberately stoked (in some cases created) internal divisions for the purposes of political and financial profiteering. The reason that it reacted so viscerally to the events of 2016 was because it was the first time, really since before Reagan, that it had been told "no".

So I make a post that largely centers on an excerpt from Ornstein (at it is related to the thread), and you respond with:

This is just generic partisan criticism dressed up in flowery language: were you to have switched the party names I would have been non the wiser.

As if Ornstein is just dressing generic partisan criticism up. You are either saying he is acting as a partisan (lol) or his take on the issue has no merit. Which is it?