Over at The Federalist, Rachel Lu has written an article called “We Need a New Fusionism”:
“From the pages of The New Criterion, George Nash gives us the ten-thousand-foot view of conservatism since William Buckley. It’s a useful refresher as we consider the possibility of a new conservative coalition. Can Buckley’s intellectual descendants find a way to make peace with the new nationalists? Is there light at the end of this tunnel?”
It is riff on a much longer article by George Nash in The New Criterion called “Populism, I: American conservatism and the problem of populism”:
“For more than a decade the air has been filled with assertions that American conservatism is in terminal disarray—exhausted, fractured, and no longer capable of governing. The spectacular populist insurgency of 2015–16 appears to many observers to mark the demise of an intellectual and political establishment that has outlived its time.
Is this true? Before we can properly assess conservatism’s present predicament, we first need to understand how the present came to be. I propose to do this through the lens of the intellectual history of American conservatism after the Second World War, when the conservative community as we know it took form. …”
The subject of discussion: is there anyway to accommodate Trumpism and restore Cold War-era harmony on the American Right?
There is such a way, but it is inconceivable that “conservatives” would accept this solution:
1.) It would require treating White Americans the exact same way that conservatives now treat the Jews and Israel. That means accepting that race exists, accepting that race, culture and ethnicity matters, accepting that White identity matters, proudly acknowledging that America is a White European nation and aggressively challenging anti-White sentiment in the same way that anti-Semitism is now a taboo.
2.) Conservatives are proud “classical liberals,” but their precious abstract principles stop at the Israeli border. Israel is a Jewish ethnostate. Judaism reigns supreme in Israel. Conservatives will go to the mat to condemn anti-Semitism and defend Israel’s nature as a Jewish state. Conservatives are unapologetic about championing Jewish interests, but consider it outrageous when we do the same for White Americans.
3.) The conservative prescription is White guilt and the universal abstract principles of liberalism for Whites, but Jewish chauvinism and the pursuit of Jewish interests for Jews. In such a way, mass deportation in the United States is an affront to Enlightenment liberalism, but talk of “ethnic transfer” in Israel is not something to get upset about.
4.) Conservatives have no objection to Organized Jewry aggressively defending and advancing Jewish interests in the United States. It is outrageous, however, to think that Whites should ever be able do the same. It doesn’t matter that the White population is already a minority in our two largest states and rapidly approaching minority status in the nation at large. There can be no change in the status quo.
5.) Conservatives have no objection to Israel acting to secure its existence and a future for Jewish children. Israel can build a massive border wall. Israel can refuse refugees. Israel can engage in mass deportation and ethnic transfer. Israel can be proudly Jewish and ban Muslims. Above all else, Israel is never faulted by conservatives for waiting to remain Jewish indefinitely, but it is extremely controversial for America to want to remain White or Europe to want to remain European.
How do we explain this?
Why do conservatives come at us with all this talk about “freedom” and “equality” and the evils of “identity politics,” but none of it seems to apply to Jews and Israel? Why is there a big fat clause in conservatism which essentially states “none of our philosophical bullshit applies to the Jews,” or more to the point, “identity politics is an affront to universal liberalism, but the Jews shall not be criticized”?
Just looking at the conservative magazines and donors, one might guess that the sheer number of Jews involved in it has something to do with the big fat exception that they have carved out for themselves. Goldberg & Co. can carry forth about everything conservatives drone on about – freedom, abortion, markets, tax cuts, etc. – but there is an understanding of where the line is drawn and who it all applies to.
Donald Trump is a horrible racist and nationalist and affront to our most cherished values, but Bibi Netanyahu ought to be president of the United States!
So yes, there can be a truce.
In theory, if conservatives were as much champions of their overwhelmingly White American base as they are paladins of Jewish interests and Israel, there wouldn’t be a problem. The Trump Wall would have been built a long time ago. Multiculturalism would have been killed off a long time ago. Political correctness would have been arrested a long time ago. Muslims would have been banned a long time ago, and so on.
Ultimately, Jews are too powerful within Conservatism, Inc. for there to be any truce with the aggrieved White base. They can’t let go of The Standard. They can’t accept a Jared Taylor alongside a Jonah Goldberg. As America’s racial and cultural demographics descend further into Third World status, the pressure will only continue to build.
Sooner or later, it will end catastrophically for conservatism. I can’t say whether it will happen in 2016. I can say that if something can’t go on forever, it will stop. Nationalism can’t be “good for the Jews,” but “bad for the Whites” indefinitely.
Note: All things considered, Trumpian civic nationalism would be the ideal place for it to stop from a Jewish perspective. He’s very friendly to Israel. He has Jewish grandchildren. He’s a nationalist for everyone. He is the “soft landing.”
If these people weren’t such idiots, they would recognize that Trump has already solved the problem. He accommodated them down the line on taxes, healthcare, energy, abortion, guns, Israel, religious liberty, and all but a few topics.