The Distraction Is the Point
[bvs↗: To consider the implications of reticence.]
There is a reason why I suggested this was a
straightforward question. It's one thing if some part of the discussion gets complicated because people have different opinions about how and when, but the reluctance to directly answer the question is not unexpected.
I don't know how many people would remember certain discussions in which Christians would tacitly disqualify each other by separating those folks over there in order to avoid answering a question. And, sure, it's one thing if different churches look at their common label differently, but the Corpus Christi
always dismembers itself like this. Very little actually unites the Corpus Christi, and a considerable amount done in its name is not actually Christian, and only nominally so. And, sure, the First Amendment can complicate the idea of formally disqualifying Christians from Christianity, but don't lose sight of the fact of fragmentation.
Per the question of Republicans and conservatives, sure, it
should be easy enough to make the historical case
if that case is so easily apparent. And presupposing against the solipsism that Republicans were no longer conservative when it became inconvenient to the beholder really ought not be any extraordinary constraint.
†
The question of what Republicans should have done if they were actually conservative opens up myriad pathways; it can get complicated really fast. But there is also a fair question of when who knew—
i.e., learned—what insofar as some old superstitions about how the economy works don't hold up to scrutiny. Living wages, for instance, in an economy dependent on consumer spending. Or government spending; what we couldn't afford at home we bought on credit, abroad, and the thing is, certain forms of domestic spending, even on credit, turn out to actually grow the economy. What "conservatism" would say in those alternative circumstances is unclear, but we can probably wonder about at least thirty years, if not more. At some point, the argument becomes utterly speculative.
Still, though, it
should be easy enough to at least assert an historical case for when and how the GOP stopped being conservative. And toward that, the question of what they should have done is largely framed by the when and how.
What, then, of the possibility that the problem is that there is no case to make? As an absolute proposition, that seems impossible, but, sure, as a practical question, that might be where we're at.
†
Consider Trump's conditions are not conservative (states' rights, &c.) according to the conservative pitch, but precisely conservative according to the conservative track record over the last fifty years, at least. If you want the complex formulation, it's like Buckley conservatism met the Southern Strategy, realized they were the same person, spent decades pretending otherwise, and if ever cornered will appeal to compassion as a split personality while fuming fury at any discussion of illness, disorder, disability, or even dysfunction.
(Hint: If we consider an American disabilities standard requiring "reasonable accommodation" of disability, what would be reasonable accommodation of antisocial or even delusional disorders?)
The short form is the difference between the pitch and the result. It's kind of like the difference between what they say and what they do. It's one thing to pretend the majority of Trump voters have reasons other than supremacism, tyranny, crackpottery, and authoritarianism, but compared to those other reasons, the track record clearly favors dangerous, solipsistic crackpottery. Approximately speaking, supremacist bullyism is the durable appeal of American conservatism. Compared to the shiny pitch intended to depict a "reasonable viewpoint",
e.g.—
Conservatism, in the sense that seems to get it right more often than not, to me, has to do with fiscal conservatism, largely being responsible for your own outcomes, keeping taxes low so that it is possible to take care of yourself without relying on the state excessively. It is also about having government where necessary and having it no larger than necessary.
—the actual result is belligerent government, fiscal irresponsibility, and a whole lot of complaining about who should be thrown out of society.
We're actually to the point that a
sitting Congressman↱ would call for the deportation of actual born Americans for the sake of enforcing conservative Christian politics.
It's like
that↗ line↗: "This is how you end up with fascism." Only, let's be a little more particular: If, in Reagan's America, those would have been fighting words, I cannot describe to you how strange it would have been to argue, "This is how you end up deporting natural born American citizens for being Christians."
But here we are. If we compare the pitch to what they brought to bear, history is pretty clear about the difference between what they say and what they do.
If, as such, it
should be easy enough to make the historical case, maybe it's actually kind of clear why it isn't.
____________________
Notes:
@RepMikeCollins. "The person giving this sermon should be added to the deportation list." X. 21 January 2025. X.com. 25 January 2025. status/1881765967338131546
