I’ve long used a general rule of thumb for anytime someone uses an “-ism” (woke-ism, Marxism, conservatism, fascist, racism, etc.) during an argument, I first ask myself: “Is that word smuggling in more than what it should?” Or I ask myself: “how would the point being advanced change if they couldn’t rely on this phrase.”
Sometimes my rule of thumb isn’t really necessary. So consider someone saying: “I believe in communism and you should as well.” The conversation that follows normally leads to the speaker having to define what they mean by communism. That’s easy enough.
Consider “I am anti-fascist and you should be as well.” From what I can tell, usually that speaker is looking to stop the conversation there. You’re suppose to just get it. Know what it means to be anti-fascist and get with the program.
Phrases filled with flexible terms that are supposed to be stand-ins for arguments usually do the same:
“Taxation is theft.”
“We must be actively antiracist.”
“Make America great again.”
There’s a lot being smuggled under those claims…
One such phrase that’s rising in prominence among a certain right leaning cohort was coined by commentator Michael Malice.
“Conservatism is just Progressivism driving the speed limit.”
The claim being advanced is that Conservatives “lose” all the time, because they end up advocating for policies that they once opposed. They once were against the Department of Education, but ended up doubling its size. They were once against government spending, but recent Republican administrations are the largest spenders to ever hold office. Once against NATO, but became Neo-cons. The list can go on and on.
Malice’s phrase is a sort of rallying cry for those disaffected with the establishment American “Right”. So those partial to the phrase use it to persuade. (They would call it red-pilling.) It appeals to the anti-establishment right-of-center, targeting their unhappiness with various culture changes and general sense of loss.
I would ask you to slow down and examine if something is being smuggled or unaddressed here. Is progressive conservatism a thing? What does progressivism driving the speed limit really mean?
Consider the following series of questions:
Should homosexuality be met with ostracism and shame?
Should rap music be widely embrace and cherished as an American art form?
Should football players be allowed to kneel for the national anthem?
Should interracial marriage be legal?
Should women sacrifice their childbearing years in pursuit of an all consuming work career?
Should children be exposed to sexuality in pop music? At cultural events? At schools?
Should the Patriot Act be repealed?
Should military conscription be opposed?
Is it wrong to compel children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance?
Should marijuana be legalized?
Years ago, the answer you would to get from the dominant American culture (and certainly from the Right) was an emphatic No!
Today the answer you’d get from popular American culture (and even much of the Right) is either an emphatic yes, or at the very least a shoulder shrug.
Is this change bad?
…Not inherently so, certainly not in ALL the above cases.
But therein lies the problem with Malice’s point. It smuggles the idea that anytime a conservative changes their mind, that means progressivism has won. There’s no room for genuine self-examination and reevaluation.
So much of populism is dependent on you not checking the particulars.
Notice how easily this outlook can lead to parochialism. Everyone can see the problem with the other side’s myopia but never their own. Rigid uninformed ideologues of other political stripes feel like they must be uncompromising fighters for their causes.
Question: What stops the “let’s-oppose-Leftism-as-a-First-Principle” branch of libertarianism from becoming pig-headed, cultish, ideologues as well?
Answer: Maybe they already are.
Great article. I’ve had similar thoughts regarding Malice’s phrase, “conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.” If I recall correctly, two specific articles he mentions in an interview are from an old 1990’s National Review article against gay marriage and some recent National Review article making “the conservative case for gay marriage”. To him, this is an example of National Review being hypocrites. This example always bothered me though in part because the articles were written by two completely different authors. Additionally, as an occasional National Review reader myself, I know that they often allow authors to present opposing ideas. So this doesn’t even work as conservatism being lagging progressivism since they still present conservative writers who are against gay marriage