Steve Sailer has an interesting post titled “Time to Pivot from Individualistic Conservatism to Solidaristic Conservatism for Awhile”:
Individualistic Reagan-Kemp conservatism had a good run in its day, but then it hit diminishing marginal returns. So, it’s time for solidaristic conservatism for awhile. Do the low-hanging fruit that have been neglected, like build a border fence, implement E-verify, fire the SJWs from Executive branch sinecures, eliminate the most plutocratic tax loopholes like carried interest for hedge fund guys, encourage the most desirable global manufacturers to set up factories in America (as Reagan reluctantly did with Japanese car companies), etc.
Then when solidaristic conservatism starts to run out of ideas and gas, individualistic conservatism can have another shot, after they’ve been away in the wilderness for awhile and have had time and incentive to come up with some better ideas. First, though, let the solidaristic conservatives have a time to fix the biggest weaknesses in the individualistic model, such as not defending the nation’s borders in an age of ever increasing smartphone-enabled Third World migrations.
I think the underlying binding element to the ‘solidaristic conservatism’ we are witnessing, expressed vis-à-vis the Trump phenomenon, is the desire to pop the bubble of P.C.’s overreach. At the nexus of Trump’s appeal is the unifying role of P.C., that festering cancer stifling debate on a series of important issues. Because of P.C., over half of the country is not allowed to articulate non-liberal positions on hot button issues like: illegal immigration; H1-B visas; Muslim refugees; BLM; generalized anti-white violence; generalized anti-white, anti-male, and anti-Western sentiment; etc. I think the recent YouGov poll establishes this quite firmly:
What separates Trump voters from those supporting other candidates is the importance of the issue of immigration. While Republican voters generally think the economy is the country’s most important issue, no matter whether they are for or against Trump, Trump’s supporters are nearly five times as likely as supporters of other candidates to say immigration is the issue that matters most to them. But Trump’s brashness may be more important than his issue positions. The most important reason people support Trump, chosen by both Trump supporters and opponents in the party, is that he is not politically correct.
Once ‘solidaristic conservatism’ pops that bubble (one hopes), and once it becomes largely acceptable for conservative whites to articulate un-P.C. opinions without fear of H.R. dept retribution, and once Trump’s #1 issue (border wall) is enacted to slow down the Latino Demographic Wave, then individualistic conservatism will resurface.
It’s a Hegelian dialectic, of sorts.
Sailer adds:
The Tea Party struck me as an implicit solidaristic conservative movement organized around an individualist ideology of libertarianism, but less for reasons of ideology than of patriotic history: America was founded by liberty lovers, so this history was seen (murkily, I admit) as offering a potentially unifying national theme in an increasingly diverse and fractious country. Of course, these citizenist stirrings were contemptuously rejected by the left as the racist twitchings of dying white men etc.
The incipient Tea Party was something of an implicitly white, unformed mass struggling to leave the womb. Once again, the Left has often been ahead of the curve with their radar signaling the coelescing of white consciousness, labeling of course such sociological contours (e.g., the overwhelming whiteness of Tea Party rallies) as ‘racism’, ‘white supremacy’, and the like. The Tea Party crowd’s continued denial of Constitutionalism’s deep cultural roots in a white America of yesteryear leads, naturally, to Glenn Beck’s current Trump Meltdown. Beck’s entire philosophy begins with the bizarre notion that the Constitution was “created by God” (and seemingly appeared out of a vacuum), rather than the idea that the Constitution emerged from a particular social milieu, itself borne from centuries of Anglo British common law tradition, civil struggles, and slowly acculturated cultural norms.
When you refuse to make the implicit whiteness of the Tea Party an explicit whiteness, you are left with the likes of Beck, Mark Levin, and many others in seeing Trump as a force for evil rather than a force for good.
Similarly, the Left is ahead of the curve with their clarion call warnings of Trump ‘fascism’. This is not to say Trump is a fascist, nor that a fascist could make substantial headway within the U.S.’s ‘checks and balances’ political system. It is to say, however, that when a collective sense of anomie saturates the indigenous people of a nation, a sense that the entire political system is failing, corrupt, or completely dysfunctional, there is a natural longing among this indigenous people for a more authoritarian leader, someone who will repudiate the creeping relativism, socialism, and (in our current situation) multiculturalism. They look for a forceful correction involving moral assertions long suppressed.
If you look at the post-WWI preconditions of fascism in places like Italy, Germany, Spain, and France, you see striking patterns: general senses of foreigners immigrating into the host nation fundamentally transforming the nation, sapping jobs, leading to indigenous dispossession, etc. There is a sense that one’s nation (aka ‘culture’) is under foreign occupation.
To say that such collective sentiments necessarily leads to fascism is, of course, an ad hominem fallacy (something we are contending with now in the case of Trump), but this again shows how the Left’s alarmism is a useful ‘canary in the coalmine’.
