Frankly Existential

Contemporary Conservatism

Conservatism as we see in today’s political sphere is not what it used to be. Contemporary conservatism claims to promote the ideas of freedom, rights, free markets, and the rule of law. On the surface, these ideas are not so bad. They once were the founding ideas of the United States. [Contemporary] conservatives claim to believe that rights are inalienable, that they are unable to be stripped from citizens. They claim that freedom is at the core of these rights, that people should be allowed to live as they please. Rule of law has long been a core point of contemporary conservatism expanding largely from the Reagan and Nixon administrations in retaliation to the democratic party’s criticism of being “too soft on crime”. We see a large resurgence of this idea under Bush and Trump arguing that law and order lead to a peaceful society. I wish to make a counterclaim, contemporary conservatives do not truly hold these values, they actively act against them and their implementations have been disastrous.

My arguments

Before I lay out my arguments, I want to make clear this writing is in no way a case in favor of progressivism, nor is it a manifesto of some kind, and I will gladly write extensively against many progressive ideals to follow this up.

Social Controls

Let us begin with the contemporary conservative supposed value of freedom and rights. Freedom is the ability for an individual to behave as they wish so long as they are not harming others or infringing on their rights; more often than not, contemporary conservatives will claim to support this idea, though their behaviors do not reflect this whatsoever. Conservatives today love restrictions in social and economic domains, and call them freedom. Let’s focus on social aspects and save the economics for later (though almost all social restrictions are market restrictions).

Social control in itself is the only way a government can survive; when you can gain control of a population and what they do then they have no choice to abide and fear consequences.

One of the most prominent social controls that has been in place and still has detrimental affects on society today is the infamous war on drugs campaign. Beginning under Richard Nixon, the war on drugs was said to be declared in the interest of public health leading to the prohibition and criminalization of drug possession, distribution, and use. Before this, substance use was a matter of public health safety being handled by the Surgeon General and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Nixon instead expanded his own governmental authority not to protect, but to punish the public for engaging in drug use behavior. Incarceration rates skyrocketed as a result of punishing victimless and nonviolent crimes. Incarceration rates between 1970 and 1989 soared in numbers after the enactment of the war (Austin & McVey, 1989) .Low income and minority groups faced the worst of it. Non-white drug incarcerations from 1970-1990 had nearly doubled while incarcerations of whites remained almost the same (Tonry, 1994), making this war hard to believe race was not a factor in its passing. This social control is also called a behavioral control, by definition being a form of control that limits an individual’s right to act freely. Surely conservatives have come to realize this hypocrisy right? Clearly not as this issue, while slowly improving, is still in place resulting in the same effects.

Let us not forget also about the Patriot Act of 2001. The Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 attacks and combative effort against global terrorism, or so they claimed. The Patriot Act has been the greatest attack on American citizens’ civil liberties and subjected then to invasive investigations done by organizations such as the FBI and CIA. The Patriot Act allowed massive expansions in government surveillance and increased funding for the agencies that engage in surveillance against “suspected terrorists”. The big problem with this is that the US government could theoretically pin any individual, both in and outside of the US, as suspected terrorists. There need be no evidence of terrorism to be listed as a suspected terrorist. While the government claims that the information is to be relevant to investigation, they have a habit of bending their own rules as seen frequently by performing searches and seizures without warrants. An example of this is in Section 505 of the Patriot Act extending the powers of phone surveillance in Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code. This section states:

(a) Duty to provide.–A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

The US government can request and access this information at will. Even if they are using it for investigation, That needs not, and likely will not, be disclosed to the provider. Contemporary conservatives, while they champion free speech, empower the officials that engage in these heinous crimes. While this may have sounded like a critique of government practices in a general sense, my main focus is that this was conservative-proposed legislation.

Market Controls

Contemporary conservatives also claim to support free markets and capitalism, though from what I have seen and personal encounters I have had, I doubt they know exactly what free market capitalism even means. Markets and economics, policy-wise, are of greater interest to me than social policy, though social policy always interferes with the market.

Let’s revisit the war on drugs. As mentioned earlier the war on drugs prohibited the use, possession, and distribution of drugs. The distribution factor is its market factor. The war on drugs attempted to eradicate a market, but we know that this never works. Coincidentally, conservatives are against market regulations on things like firearms, claiming that prospective consumers will simply find another way to purchase them. This is true, when the state cuts off a market, a new, unregulated one, emerges making the legal effort practically ineffective.

In his book A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes a case for contemporary conservatives being effectively socialists in their economic endeavors. I believe he is absolutely correct. Conservatives don’t like to admit this because they either, (a) have no idea what socialism really is or (b) know full well what they are doing and admitting to it ruins their platform. Conservatives adore socialized programs. They champion our publicly funded police force, our publicly funded military, our publicly funded education system, the list goes on. They have no interest in freeing up the domestic market.

Likewise, they have no interest in freeing up the international market as well. Trump running rampant with threats of tariffs is a prime example. Since this topic is one that is up for debate I will give a rough timeline as to how tariffs influence the international and domestic market.

• Tariff, a tax on imports, is introduced

• Foreign companies are required to pay increased prices to allow the US to buy their goods

• To account for this, those foreign companies begin charging US companies higher prices to purchase their goods

• For US companies to account for this price increase, the increased costs are then placed on the consumer to deal with

Since nearly all products we purchase are made using materials from foreign countries we have three options:
1. US companies purchase less foreign goods, decreasing supply and increasing demand, indirectly driving up prices and causing increased inflation rates.
2. US companies purchase the same and directly increase prices of goods, also increasing rates of inflation.
3. US companies begin producing their own materials in the US.

Trump’s goal is the third option, though it is the least likely. The upfront cost for domestic companies to add a whole new division of labor to produce their goods is itself a dissuasion from doing so. Conservatives instead should become proponents of a true free market where competition is the driving factor of market regulation. As we have seen proven time and time again, competition lowers consumer costs, production costs, and with these savings we see increased wages.

On top of these economic takes, there is also the issue surrounding foreign aid packages. If any aid is to be sent at all, it should be the citizens of one’s country, not to everyone else. A clean your own house before taking care of your neighbor type of approach. Trump has has authorized the printing and sending of billions of dollars in aid to foreign nations for various reasons, while our nation remains a mess trillions of dollars in debt (Cohen, 2020) continuing to devalue the US dollar and increase inflation rates.

Concluding Statements

From this albeit oversimplified analysis, we clearly see the conservative movement’s blatant internal flaws. Not only are they consequentially poor, but they do not reflect their own supposed values. Many would argue that it is the Republican conservative elected officials that promote these issues, not the American people, but to that I ask, how did those officials get there in the first place? The conservative movement is caving in on itself though it seems that they are now more unified than ever in the MAGA sect. There is a simple reason to this though, that being their lack of their own traditions and values they were built upon. It’s no secret that progressives and Democrats in the US have seemingly forgot how to run a strong campaign. Younger generations don’t like the moderate Democrat contenders, they are more progressive than they were generations prior. Their issue is that progressives don’t win elections. This is also simply explained: progressivism has gone too far. The progressives of today are unreasonably idealistic though their ideals have a weak, if any, philosophical foundation. Idealism itself is not an issue, I say this as a staunch Libertarian and we never win either. My take is that libertarianism is founded in actual principles unlike the progressives, and that is their downfall. From this, I can only imagine that moving forward we will likely see a conservative takeover for at least another term after Trump. The aftermath of this term is yet to be known, but I am not optimistic. In the future I will write a similar critique on progressivism in practice and theory. Thank you for reading.

Be well.

References

Austin, J., & McVey, A. D. (1989, December). The 1989 NCCD Prison Population Forecast: The Impact of the ar on Drugs. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Cohen, A., Vakharia, S. P., Netherland, J., & Frederique, K. (2022). How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system. Annals of Medicine, 54(1), 2024–2038. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2100926

Cohen, R. S. (2020). Why we “send them money.” https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2020/12/why-we-send-them-money.html

FindLaw.com – 18 U.S.C. § 2709 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records – last updated January 01, 2024 | https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2709/

Rackow, S. H. (2001). How the USA Patriot Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement upon the Privacy of Americans in the Name of Intelligence Investigations. U. Pa. L. Rev., 150, 1651.

Tonry, Michael () “Race and the War on Drugs,” University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1994: Iss. 1, Article 4.
Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1994/iss1/4

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, H.R. 3162, 107th Cong. (2001). https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3162