Even if conservatives succeeded in seceding from Leftist America, which conservatism would the new America then follow?

In an earlier entry today, I wrote about how after the Guelphs finally emerged triumphant over the Ghibellines in the centuries-long civil war in medieval Florence, the Guelphs then split into Black Guelphs and White Guelphs, and the civil war continued under a new name. In reply, Dean Ericson wrote:

If ever the leftist party (we’ll call them the Ghibellines) were thoroughly defeated, then we remaining Guelphs would divide into warring Black and White parties too: traditionalists vs. right liberals/libertarians.

I replied:

Right. That’s a huge problem that hasn’t been confronted yet, even in discussions at VFR. We’ve talked about conservatives seceding and forming a conservative, “red state” country. But among the people who call themselves conservatives, all of whom oppose the statist system the left seeks to impose on us, there are two distinct groups, social conservatives and social liberals, and these two factions would have very different notions of what that new country should be like. And suppose the social conservatives won out over the social liberals. Among the victorious social conservatives, some would be racial conservatives, wanting the new country to remain white majority and Anglo-European, while others would be Glenn Beck-style racial liberals, eager to turn the new country into a hand-holding, Kumbaya-singing, Martin Luther King-worshipping, multiracial mirror of mankind.

- end of initial entry -

Mark Jaws writes:

First and foremost, we all agree the overwhelming majority of blacks and dark-skinned Hispanics could not survive without government largesse—welfare and affirmative action. So I can almost guarantee you that in our break away Guelphist republic, the national government would be constrained to performing the most minimal of functions—and “spreading the wealth around” would not be part of its job description.

Jim C. writes:

White leftists would be good neighbors as long as there are no minorities in the population. Liberals would be neutralized as most of their destructive programs are aimed at helping low IQ Americans. Race is the most important variable for a thriving society, not ideology.

Mark Jaws writes:

As one of VFR’s most ardent proponents (or dreamers) of the Red State Republic (RSR), I want to be clear that I would never advocate ethnic cleansing of any type imposed on anyone. I am a realist, though, and given the demographic situation in America with blacks and nonwhite Hispanics overwhelmingly more likely than whites and Asians to be on welfare and food stamps and reliant on affirmative action for their very survival and well being, the odds of many of them choosing to live in the absolutely race-neutral/no welfare RSR once the split were to occur, would be as likely as finding a Hindu in 1949 Pakistan. The relatively few black and nonwhite Hispanic conservatives who would chose to stay in the RSR and live under our constitution (in which diversity would not be a “compelling state interest” and social engineering prohibited) would certainly be welcome, but not catered to. Therein lies the difference with the Beckistas, and the prescription for our survival.

John McNeil writes:

The prospect of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin being the faces of a “radical conservative movement” is why I still prefer calling myself an ethnonationalist, even though I agree with your criticism of the term that it has too much of a biological context, and doesn’t hint at understanding the big picture, unlike the term traditionalist, which encompasses a moral, social, and biological order. However, ethnonationalist is a buzzword that will keep the Glenn Beck types far, far away: for it flat out rejects propositional nationhood which is one of the central tenets of conservative orthodoxy.

I know you have expressed preference for the term “racial conservative,” but really, I think that could be misconstrued. “Oh you’re a racial conservative, that means you support MLK’s conservative philosophy of color-blindness.” A lot of people just assume that ethnic identity for whites isn’t anywhere on the spectrum; it’s Third World tribalism allied with Leftwing globalism (and I believe the two factions will turn on each other) vs. Rightwing colorblind civic nationalism.

Of course this goes back to the problem of the term conservative. It’s a relative term that is a reflection of the current morals and trends of modern society, without any clear cut ideas attached to it. I also think traditionalist is problematic, since traditions are changing, especially in this day and age. Whose traditions are we seeking to preserve? I’m sure in 20 years time, “conservatives” will consider gay marriage to be “traditional.”

Ethnonationalism, despite its fearful and negative connotation, isn’t a relative term. It’s very obvious as to what it means, and it’s very difficult for Glenn Beck to subvert it, unless he can somehow get millions of “conservative Americans” to forget what the term ethnos means. And unlike white nationalism, ethnonationalism is a much more neutral philosophy that leaves room for working with other ethnicities and races. I believe in preserving my people and culture, but I also believe that other peoples and cultures should be preserved. Ethnonationalism also takes into account the role of culture, religion, and language, since those attributes are also what define an ethnicity along with race, unlike white nationalism which makes it sound like all we care about is skin color.

It’s true that ethnonationalism as a term doesn’t automatically state social or economic views. But since ethnicity is defined as a group defined by common racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic attributes, I think what we consider to be traditionalism tends to go hand-in-hand with ethnonationalism. Since the preservation of an ethnic people is one of the goals of an ethnonationalist, it makes very little sense to support social liberalism which has a very obviously destructive influence from a ethnic, cultural, religious, and demographic standpoint. From an economic standpoint, ethnonationalism is certainly much more neutral, although one could argue that capitalism is a part of white American cultural identity. Yet being an ethnonationalist, I see my fellow white Americans as kin, part of an extended family, and were I a boss or CEO, I would want to treat my ethnic-kin who work for me much more fairly, and support my nation economically by not selling out to cheap foreign labor. This has the potential for a more humane capitalism whose loyalty is something greater than money. From what it sounds like, Sam Walton very much fit this mold, being a nationalist and a humane boss, good to his workers, and opposed to outsourcing.

January 31

James P. writes:

The discussion of factional politics in the hypothetical secessionist Red State America brings to mind the recipe for jugged hare — “First, catch your hare.” Let’s not have a big fight about the politics of our new country until we actually have a new country!

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 30, 2011 06:58 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):