No true Scotsman: is MAGA no true conservative?
Commenter “Bauxite” writes:
What I also see, however, is that MAGA is willing to throw overboard everything that we all professed to believe until about 10 minutes ago now that it is inconvenient to Trump.
I don’t know what MAGA is, but conservative it ain’t.
Bauxite make a point that I think is central to the confusion and disagreement about the value of Trump and the MAGA movement. It hinges on the definition of “conservative.”
The word has a meaning in the vernacular, and by that definition Trump is not conservative. For example, we’ve got these definitions:
… marked by moderation or caution …
marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners : tending to avoid qualities or elements that are novel, showy, etc.
Trump is the antithesis of those things.
“Conservative” – in the US anyway; the definition in Europe is somewhat different – also has a political meaning. Back when I was in school, I was taught this meaning or something approximating it:
… tending or inclined to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions …
a person who adheres to traditional methods or views
Here’s where it gets really complex. What existing views? Existing when? And, in particular, what is “conservative” after many years in which the left has been in ascendance and has transformed what for a long time had been “existing views” so that today’s “existing views” are very different – at least among the bureaucrats who run our government these days, plus great deal of the judiciary? Today’s conservatives wouldn’t be upholding what’s been put into place by Obama and the Biden crew, for example. How far back should today’s conservatives go, and how far forward into newer views? Because the term “conservative” has also come to be a synonym for a smaller federal government, the preservation of individual liberties, and long-held social values involving the family and who is male and female. MAGA stands for those principles, which used to be called – just to make matters more complex – classical liberalism.
Once the left has been in charge for a while, it’s not conservative to preserve what they’ve put in place. Perhaps we now have the need for terms like “reactionary” – which you seldom hear these days, and which has a pejorative ring. Or, as Victor Davis Hanson says, counter-revolutionary – that is, undoing the Obama-Biden revolution, or perhaps even the FDR revolution if you want to go back further into smaller federal government. But one never goes back, not exactly. It will always look different
Counter-revolution is not conservative in the sense of conserving what is, or of being restrained in nature. It’s bold. How bold is too bold? At what point do we lose the point and become something else, something dangerous in its negation of traditional avenues such as courts? Trump dances around the edges of such things, and that’s why some conservatives disapprove. But he must approach those edges in order to be effective. Therein lies the dilemma.
For some commentators, “true conservatism” includes free trade absolutism. This characterizes Steve Forbes, for instance. MAGA people follow more nearly Trump’s thinking, expressed in his first term and more now, which is that we don’t have free trade with international trading partners today, and many of those countries have been imposing tariffs on US goods for years to our great disadvantage. If the US observes “free trade” but nobody else does, it’s not free trade.
I think the principles of “classical liberalism” as you describe them, Neo, are more nearly what most Trump voters approve of today.
No true Scotsman: is MAGA no true conservative?
Love the title! No true neo reader does not know this classic fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
In United States of Socialism, Dinesh D’Souza defines an American conservative as one who wants to preserve the frameworks established after independence.
Re MAGA:
Good government and a legal framework that supports innovation He points out that the founders were very concerned about tyranny of the majority–which does not concern those who want to abolish the Electoral College.
Dinesh D’Souza sees two things to preserve: 1) the principles of government as laid out in 18th century America (the Constitution,The Federalist…) ; 2) the legal and social framework that encourages innovation. He points out that the patent laws, by giving the inventor a time (17 years) where the inventor has a monopoly on his invention, reward the innovator.
Trump is definitely a counterrevolutionary.
It’s more complicated than that. The notion that classical liberalism IS American conservatism just isn’t so. It’s been a big part, often the most part, but not the whole thing. The name most associated with the opposition, for most of my life, was Russell Kirk. Today, I suppose it’d be Patrick Deneen or Adrian Vermeule. The sites Chronicles, The Imaginative Conservative, The American Conservative, and Compact often include the voices of those who dissent.
some people have made a very good living ‘talking the book’ of the status quo, which has come to mean, a decrepit infrastructure base subject to supply chain interruptions by hostile foes, a declining working class, and an empowered financial elite, an endless series of military expeditions with little reward but heavy losses among the fighting men, both physical and psychological, the Afghan campaign is the most recent version of this, yes they say ‘peace through strength’ but have we shown strength in our last engagement, or the reverse,
has peace been what we have sowed or more wars, Reagan one is reminded was sparing in his use of force, much like the short lived Punitive exercises of the 19th Century,
the simple precept Libya and Grenada as examples now there are certain areas that do suggest concern, the Witkoff
negotiations with foreign adversaries like Hamas and Iran, show the same naivete that even a cold warrior, like Paul Nitze fell privy to
of James Q Wilson of Broken Windows criminology became too controversial his is being restored to it’s proper place, after the restorative justice has receded into the past, Harmeet Dhillon has done much in recent days to bring the pendulum back,
There are lots of ‘quizzes’ all over the internet – and have been for decades – that attempt to determine just where on the political spectrum you and your view of government power exist.
For the last 25 years, at least, my ‘political compass’ has been more libertarian and to the right of center.
Other surveys suggest I am a ‘committed conservative’.
For the most part I just want to be left alone with my beliefs. And leave others to believe what they wish to believe.
To me MAGA is trying to restore the norm that what you think and how you act is YOUR business and no body else’s.
Eeyore:
Nothing I wrote here should be construed as meaning “classical liberalism IS American conservatism.” It shares some principles with it, however – the ones I listed, for example.
My political conservatism is based on the principle of a small federal government that does three things:
1. Maintain the national defense.
2. Regulate interstate commerce.
3. Conduct foreign policy and trade.
Everything else that the feds do is extra-constitutional. Those programs and agencies have been shoehorned into place under the interstate commerce clause. The electorate has been willing to go along because many of these programs have brought federal tax money into people’s pockets, and so many are uniformed about government finance. Too many people don’t understand that the government has NO money. It is all our tax money or money they borrow that we are on the hook for. ($36 trillion and counting.)
My support of politicians is based on how well they understand the above and how inclined they are to try to get rid of as much of the extra-constitutional baggage. Baggage that has made our government into a mammoth regulating entity that does almost nothing well. Conserving what we have is moving us along the path of the Decline and Fall of the United States of America.
We have a top-notch military with superior weapons, but inadequate strategy and leadership from our political leaders. We have not lost a battle since WWII, but we have not succeeded in using our military to effectively deter our enemies. If we had, 9/11 would not have happened. Nor would Iran still be as belligerent as they are. Nor would China be considering invading Taiwan.
My conservatism is a desire to go back to a small and less expensive federal government that does the things it is tasked with very well. Elon Musk has given us a peek at what needs to be done. I doubt that Trump and DOGE will be able to make all the changes needed in the next three and 1/2 years, but I’m behind him 100%. He’s a practical minded, hard-working, creator of results.
What I also see, however, is that MAGA is willing to throw overboard everything that we all professed to believe until about 10 minutes ago now that it is inconvenient to Trump.
==
No, he doesn’t see that. That’s just the talking point of the moment.
==
For me, true conservatism is represented by the views found in the National Topsider founded by T. Coddington Van Voorhees VI and shepherded so ably by his son T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII. An excellent precis of conservative principles may be found in his article, As a Conservative, I Must Say I Do Quite Like the Cut of this Obama Fellow’s Jib:
American conservativism is founded in Declaration and Constitution… Pro-Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, under a social compact that mitigates authoritarian progress, and acknowledges individual rights for the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity.
Thinking through various positions usually denominated “conservative”, I’m not sure how many of them have a plurality of Republicans and Trump voters.
But what I am quite sure the vast majority of these folks are NOT for, is the following:
Continued tolerance of illegal immigration and the abuse of the asylum process
Continued increase in the national debt
Trump is at least doing something serious about one of those, which is a change from GOP-as-usual.
Niketas:
That’s pretty funny stuff.
IMO, Trump is an idiosyncratic and improvisational figure attempting to address different elements of an entropic process. Musk in the political world is much the same. Musk is superlatively talented and Trump is remarkable for his stamina. There are more conventional figures within the GOP who can and have made some contributions toward these ends (Gov. deSantis comes to mind). However, the default settings of the corps of GOP politicians are to be some mixture of otiose, craven, and treacherous. (See the comments of the self-identified state legislator on his experiences).
==
Please note, NeverTrump is all but non-existent among street-level Republicans. It’s an Acela corridor phenomenon embracing some others on the payroll, like the erstwhile Governor of Michigan. They make excuses for grossly abusive behavior by establishment organs and have no program apart from more failure theatre.
That’s pretty funny stuff.
==
No, lame.
We just spent the last four years decrying Joe Biden for using novel interpretations of old statutes to (attempt) to do things that no one previously believed the president had the power to do. The courts shut him down. The left responded by demonizing the courts and threatening to pack the Supreme Court.
Now Trump is using a novel interpretation of a decades-old statute, the IPEEA, to impose sweeping and ever-changing tariffs on every country in the world, something that no one thought the president had the power to do previously. The courts are beginning to shut him down. MAGA has responded by demonizing the courts and threatening to impeach judges.
A limited government with distributed, separated powers is worth conserving. Neither Trump, nor Biden (nor Obama, for that matter) agree.
That’s the issue.
@Bauxite:The courts shut him down.
He did it anyway:
The courts are beginning to shut him down.
By exceeding their authority and making up Trump-only exceptions.
The right has responded by demonizing the courts and threatening to impeach judges.
We did it the other way for decades and see where we are. Norms will never be restored by one side rolling over to their violation. Let the Dems feel in their bones why the norms were there and sincerely cooperate to restore them; but in no event are we fighting with one hand tied behind our backs anymore. Some folks in the Acela corridor may be affected, true.
Who is this “WE” that Bauxite speaks of? He wasn’t very animated about Brandon and his junta antics but certainly has been outraged since 2016 about The Great Orange Whale. That’s why he is a Concerned Conservative; totally ineffective about leftists, but deeply concerned about those who resist the left.
Chris Rufo just won the Bradley Prize and gave the associated speech, whose transcript is here: https://christopherrufo.com/p/conservatism-must-be-at-the-heart
I think his definition of conservatism is worth spreading around:
“[C]onservatism, at its best, is a tradition that is not opposed to change but seeks to maintain continuity and hand down hard-won wisdom.”
The tariff issue is a perfect example of the courts interference in policy issues. Congress has both explicitly and implicitly delegated authority to POTUS. Only Congress as a body and absolutely NOT the courts can decide if POTUS has both exceeded the delegated authority and is going the wrong way.
Congress can:
A give POTUS more authority if they think he has exceeded it.
B act to pass his tariffs but they take too long when events are moving so quickly
C clearly retract his authority
D do nothing because the majority are ok with it
The courts should STFU.
My conservatism is a desire to go back to a small and less expensive federal government that does the things it is tasked with very well.
==
I think the scope rather than the scale is what should be reduced. As for scale, you can sand some surfaces down. Notable things:
==
requiring ballot security in all elections wherein federal offices are contested.
==
balancing the budget over the course of a business cycle, bar in exceptional situations (1929-47, 1950-54, 2008-13, 2019-21).
==
floating currency, limiting the use of exchange controls to exceptional situations, and, distributing foreign exchange via multiple price auctions when exchange controls are in effect.
==
nom-improvisational monetary policy which aims to limit the rate of growth of all major price indices to values between 0% and 2% per annum
==
regulating hiring and promotion within federal employment by impersonal examinations (no DEI at all) and stripping federal courts of their seized jurisdiction to interfere;
==
Having a stated compensation for all federal employees, and financing fringe benefits out of withholdings on that state compensation. This would include moving toward a defined-contribution model for federal employee retirement benefits.
==
allowing three persons in a federal civil servant’s chain of command to discharge him with a signed and counter-signed letter and limiting post-termination reviews to presenting evidence that this was done for one of a half-dozen impermissible reasons.
==
ending the distribution of grant money to corporate bodies with a half-dozen precisely defined exceptions;
==
ending sectoral preferences in the federal tax code outside of the tariff schedules and some spot excises, instituting a federal VAT, and restructuring how income, payroll, capital gains, gift-and-inheritance, and corporation liability are calculated;
==
limiting federal regulatory authority to transactions between parties domiciled in different jurisdictions, the intramural operations of corporate bodies with employees in multiple jurisdictions, and environmental processes which cross jurisdictional lines;
==
limiting the scope of the federal penal code to common crimes contra the federal government as a corporation, assaults on federal employees at work, federal tax evasion, corruption of (federal) governmental processes via extortion and bribery; forgery of (federal) public documents, currency and seals; unlawful defiance of the federal courts, corruption of judicial process through jury tampering, witness tampering and perjury; national security offenses of treason, treachery, espionage and insurrection (the real kind, not J6); malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance by federal officials; conspiring to prevent someone from exercising their rights as a citizen under the color of law or not; and offenses against the moral order for which it is integral (not incidental) to the crime that a party crossed a jurisdictional line, shepherded others across a jurisdictional line, trans-shipped merchandise across a jurisdictional line, contracted for services with a person domiciled in another jurisdiction, provided services to a traveler, transferred funds from one jurisdiction to another, or operated a racket with boots on the ground in multiple jurisdictions. (By way of example, very little of what Jared Fogle and his confederate did would have been of interest to federal law enforcement and federal courts).
==
recalibrating the sentencing schedule for federal crimes so that penalties reflect the median of state practice for offenses of comparable severity.
==
replacing federal grand juries with preliminary hearings in front of a magistrate or panel of magistrates, with some requiring an adversary proceeding.
==
limiting technical assistance by federal police to that requisitioned by state police.
==
Putting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on an actuarially sound footing;
==
limiting the federal welfare state to overseas development and relief programs, domestic disaster relief, veterans benefits; subsidies delivered to certain niche clientele (e.g. military families and reservation Indians) via public agency or federal contracting, and the five majors (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and SSI). Among those things which go: housing subsidies, grocery subsidies, utility subsidies, TANF, and generalized financing of primary, secondary, or tertiary schooling.
==
building a human and physical infrastructure to thoroughly enforce the immigration laws
==
making it the law that the civil status of those born in the United States (and its abiding dependencies) is derived from that of your mother unless you are of legitimate birth and your father has a preferred status. Aliens cannot beget citizens.
==
requiring by statute that one must have spent the majority of one’s natural life living within the law as a palpable resident of the United States or its abiding dependencies ‘ere one can be eligible for naturalization and that naturalization requires an application, passage of examinations, signing declarations renouncing your citizenship in each and every foreign country in which you have a cognizable claim to it, and taking an oath.
==
making it the law that preventive detention (federal or state) is the order of the day for any alien hit with a criminal complaint (with a schedule of indemnities if a case is not processed &c) and that alien convicts are deported upon release and denied re-entry for a term of years which is a function of the severity of their offense.
==
requiring one pass a proficiency test in English (written and oral) ‘ere one can enter the queue for a settler’s visa and ordering said queue on a more-or-less first-come-first-served principles.
==
limiting the annual issuance of settler’s visas to about 250,000
==
summary denial of refugee status to those who have skipped over other countries ‘ere arriving here and placing all refugee applicants in detention while their case is processed.
==
setting the target value for the stock of temporary residents at about 1.5 million; limiting temporary residency permits to the accredited employees of foreign governments and their dependents, authentic refugees and their close family, students, teachers, and the dependents of students and teachers; and placing a moratorium on the issuance of temporary residency visas when one is over the target value.
==
requiring schools seeking to recruit foreign students, faculty, and dependents to (1) limit their mandatory charges to tuition and room-and-board; (2) have one stated price for all comers and disclose to all the mean discount granted those matriculating, the share of matriculants granted discounts and the mean granted to each, and the sources which financed those discounts; and to (3) purchase non-renewable educational visas at multiple price auctions the federal government will hold periodically if they want to recruit of hire someone from abroad.
==
auctioning off federal assets to retire debt. Targets: the Postal Service, Amtrak, federal grazing land, federal timber land &c.
==
provide in law for debt-for-equity swaps to recapitalize bust financial institutions.
==
separating in law the insurance business from the capital markets and the firms trading on them from deposits-and-loans banking and miscellaneous services. Limit firms working the capital markets to one line of business each: securities underwriting, proprietary trading, retail brokerage, prime brokerage, funds, private equity &c.
==
requiring financial firms domiciled in the United States (insurance companies excepted) to limit their overseas subsidiaries to service points (with customer accounts in the States only). Make a reciprocal requirement of foreign firms operating in the States.
==
Dramatically reducing the scope of federal anti-discrimination law and, again, limiting it to inter-state transactions and enterprises. Federal agencies, natural monopolies, and firms providing services specifically to travelers should be regulated by anti-discrimination law and that’s it.
==
requiring schools who recruit across state lines to publish audited data on the standardized test scores of demographic segments of their student body and their faculty and prosecute both the corporation and officials for lying.
Related:
“IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE TODAY: I strongly encourage you to read Rod Martin’s The Counterrevolution, which is an excerpt from his forthcoming book on what must be done and who must do it to save the Republic. Here’s a sample:…”
https://instapundit.com/723007/
Barry Meislin thanks for the link. A good read.
We thought we had a new direction when Reagan was POTUS. It turned out that Bush and many other Republicans did not understand the Reagan Revolution, and let it die. I fear the same will happen after Trump.
None of these should exist at the Federal level:
Income tax
A poll tax eliminates the bureaucracy and corruption of tax deductions and is inherently equal.
——————————–
Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, HUD, and all other welfare programs.
The Federal government can mandate defined contributions for salaried workers, but the money remains in privately held accounts.
As with car insurance, the Federal government can require minimal health insurance coverage – and leave it to the free market to create the actual insurance packages.
Individual states or private philanthropy can cover the irresponsible or indigent.
——————————-
Central bank or other money supply regulation… it could be argued that the SEC can also be outsourced.
——————————
Education Department – no loan guarantees. Spin this department down into a Board of Regents and a set of standardized tests, so parents and homeschoolers can evaluate their kids’ standing.
——————————-
All funding of Arts and Sciences, and government-sponsored broadcasting like NPR.
Can one make it relatively simple…and start with the demand / hope / wish that the political party in power AT LEAST NOT strive relentlessly to destroy the country it purportedly leads…?
(Or is that really too much to ask?)
Of course one then has to debate with Orwellian “patriots”—or intellectuals—what exactly words like “destroy” (or “Build Back Better”…or “Our Democracy”, etc…) mean…
+ Bonus (channelling one’s favorite Humpty Dumpty quote, UK edition):
“Starmer’s Humpty Dumpty routine is intended to drive you insane”—
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/starmers-humpty-dumpty-routine-is-intended-to-drive-you-insane/
H/T Instapundit
I’m reminded that Mr. Sailer refers to libertarianism as ‘applied autism’.
To be sure, destroying the country one leads does seem to be in fashion these days….
‘AfD’s Weidel Slams “Grotesque” “Authoritarian” Attack On German Democracy’—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/afds-weidel-slams-grotesque-authoritarian-attack-german-democracy
Not sure if it has something to do with the initials, but I’m with J.J. and n.n. on this one. Labels can be and usually are misleading and unenlightening. “Conservative” and “liberal” are words without any consensus on meaning at this point. On the other hand, “Marxist” and “communist” are quite well defined by their originator, Karl Marx. I eschew a label, but if one should be deemed necessary, it would probably be “anti-marxist/communist.” Whatever those freaks are for, I’m against.
Conservatism is not a suicide pact.
Tuvea wrote “For the most part I just want to be left alone with my beliefs. And leave others to believe what they wish to believe.”
Nice to want. But as always, there are people whose every breath is taken to get (more) power over others. They work to indoctrinate or force people to accept or comply with their whims.
Two big types we are at war with:
Rogue judges and perverse teachers!
The left’s innate mission of “change” — i. e., “progress” — succeeds in eroding the understanding or perception of “normal”.
Without intentional teaching of our founding principles, and wide civic support of them (not well said … sorry), the left have shoved the “Overton’s window” much nearer to the cliff.
I hope we can turn the ship around.
. . . ……..
(Mixed metaphor alert! But I’m still serious.)
@om: Who is this “WE” that Bauxite speaks of?
Seconded. Not me, Kemosabe.
And I didn’t change my mind “ten minutes ago.”
Related?
Compare and contrast:
‘Everything Has Been Alarmist”: Bessent Shuts Down CBS Over Inflation, Says US Will ‘Never Default’ On Debt’—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/everything-has-been-alarmist-bessent-shuts-down-cbss-margaret-brennan-over-inflation-says
“Wall Of Confusion”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/wall-confusion
“…in fashion…”, continued…
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/taxation-confiscation-europes-wealth-exodus-coming-asset-seizureAnd
Oops, bad link…
“From Taxation To Confiscation: Europe’s Wealth Exodus & The Coming Asset Seizure”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/taxation-confiscation-europes-wealth-exodus-coming-asset-seizure
Well, you asked…sort of…but even if you didn’t….
More panic mongering, this time from the CBO! (But, um, why would the CBO want to scare Americans?)
“Don’t Let CBO Scoring Fool You”—
https://pjmedia.com/charlie-martin/2025/06/01/dont-let-cbo-scoring-fool-you-n4940351
Key grafs:
https://nypost.com/2025/06/01/us-news/hakeem-jeffries-kathy-hochul-rage-at-trump-after-nadlers-aide-nabbed-by-dhs-agents-clearly-trying-to-intimidate/
Marlene,
You write some excellent points!
I, too, “… hope we can turn the ship around …”.
“Conservatism” became petrified, as ideologies tend to. It lost touch with economic and social realities. It came to belong to people who went through the seminars and think tanks and magazine cruises and to ignore serious national problems. Now conditions are in flux. I don’t expect that everything Trump does will be right or will work, but saying something isn’t “conservative” isn’t a decisive argument against it.
There’s much “kabuki theater” involved as “conservative” stalwarts rebuke Trump for not doing things that they didn’t do themselves when they had power. No president and no Congress has ever come close to doing the things that “classical liberalism” or a return to pre-FDR ways would entail — and that’s unlikely to happen in the future, barring some disastrous collapse.