There’s a fine line between those one might most sensibly call revolutionary conservatives and status quo conservatives, based on their assessment of our existing laws relating to the definition, distribution, use of economic power. Let’s discuss that this week.
Conservative ethics relating to economic power are all about certain property designations, certain means of distributing economic power (inheritance, returns on labor and capital markets, etc.) and expanding the extent of the market, the use of economic power. For conservatives, evaluating the ethics of status quo economic arrangements can be tricky. Does law respect ostensibly correct property “rights?” Has democratic government “interfered with” or “distorted” labor, capital markets? Blocked, provided alternatives, to markets?
For some conservatives, current laws governing the definition, distribution, use of economic power comport with conservative ethics well enough. It’s any potential change from the status quo they’re concerned about. Those are traditional pro status quo conservatives. A tricky bit is that although democratic government is arguably part of the status quo it may also serve as a means to change the status quo, so even pro status quo conservatives typically want to limit or shrink any future, potentially status quo altering role for democracy. The historical prevalence in the USA at least of this sort of conservative has led to an interesting linguistic convention in which “conservative” is often equated with support for the status quo, rather than for certain distinctive “conservative” views on economic power. It’s led to a whole cottage industry relating to defining a true “conservative.” However, it seems abundantly clear the word as currently used does not simply equate to support for the status quo, and many self-identified “conservatives” in fact do not.
For other conservatives, democratic government has already tainted the economic status quo, which they find now ethically incorrect. Among these anti status quo (in terms of economics) conservatives are pro democracy and anti democracy contingents. A tricky bit here is whether anti status quo but pro democracy conservatives are truly pro democracy in the sense of accepting the ethos of democracy with respect to addressing the ethics of economic power, or simply prefer it in some contexts as a potentially useful expedient. To the extent anti (economic) status quo but ostensibly pro democracy conservatives see democracy as simply an expedient, one may expect their support for democracy to be unreliable if they suspect some other expedient may prove more practical, successful. Anti (economic) status quo and anti democracy conservatives are what one might call revolutionary conservatives, fascists, who want both to institute ostensibly proper conservative ethics relating to economic power and eliminate the democracy they feel may interfere with it.
Interestingly, pro and anti status quo conservatives can happily work together disseminating their shared ethical views on economic power, and their concerns about, or outright opposition to, democratic government, but there are inherent limits to their cooperation. That’s because at some point any non-democratic, fascist government would have to decide if status quo patterns and use of economic power are consistent with conservative ethics on economic power or not, decide to maintain or change the status quo, by a little or a lot, etc. One might suppose in any sort of violent, authoritarian fascist showdown in favor of the economic status quo or against it, those supporting the economic status quo must surely have the upper hand due to their superior economic power, control of resources, etc. But it’s not a done deal by any means. Once fascists gain control of the legal system, the police, the courts, the military, one supposes they may be in a position to prevail over even the economically powerful, if ever they had a mind to do so. The point is they cannot both ultimately have their way, one side will eventually be shown to have been useful tools for the rise of the other, similar to the anti democracy tools helping the fascist cause of ending democracy thinking they’re creating anarchism or communism.
How can these alliances work so effectively in trying to end democracy in the USA without more general agreement on goals, objectives? Do they each simply expect to emerge victorious? Have they just never thought about it? Do they purposefully avoid discussing it? Do they truly prefer rule by other factions and their potential ossification into violent anarchy or authoritarian, repressive government to the ability to argue their case under democratic government? Do anti status quo conservatives prefer pro status quo fascism to democracy? Would either of the conservative factions prefer anarchism, or let’s say communism, to arguing their conservative views in a democracy? And similarly for those factions with respect to conservatism? Seem odd they would, but the world is full of oddities.
What’s my point? Maybe just try to understand the similarities and differences between pro and anti status quo conservatives, get over the notion terms like revolutionary conservatism or revolutionary fascism are oxymorons. More generally, when discussing the various anti democracy creeds and ideologies of the right or left, don’t just end the discussion with the perceived failings or deficiencies of democracy. Inquire about the intended alternatives, the goals or objectives being proposed.
