In a recent piece for the Corner, Dan McLaughlin accuses me of seeking to provoke a “schism” between nationalists and more traditional, individual liberty–oriented conservatives. For several reasons, his argument makes no sense.
Who is fomenting schism on the right: those who think conservatism should limit government’s power, or those who want to use government to “reward friends and punish enemies”?
Are schismatics the members of Bill Buckley’s three-legged stool of libertarians, social conservatives, and anti-communists; or are the schismatics those who lambast Buckley-Reagan conservatism as a “dead consensus” advanced by “treacherous scum?”
Dan goes on to say that I have “an unfortunate tendency to speak on behalf of the signatories” of the Freedom Conservatism Statement of Principles, a group that seeks to revitalize the Buckley coalition that has defined the conservative movement since the 1950s.
This is easy to clear up. Though I helped to organize the FreeCon project, I speak only for myself. No other FreeCon signatory should be blamed or credited for things I say and write.
Since Dan agrees that any attempt by me to speak for others would be “unfortunate,” it’s strange that his article goes on to castigate the entire FreeCon project because I personally have a dim view of the nationalists’ association with white-identity politics. Again, Dan is free to criticize me for having that view, but I don’t speak for anyone else in expressing it.
One thing that Dan’s article makes clear is that the lack of a clear terminology can make this conversation confusing. When I talk about nationalism, I’m talking about the broader ecosystem of the post-liberal Right, not merely a single individual or organization or manifesto. I have previously explained why I could never sign the National Conservatism Statement of Principles. My problems with the broader post-liberal movement, however, go well beyond my disagreements with the carefully sanitized statement produced by one subgroup of that movement. As Stephanie Slade has pointed out, it’s important to look at the nationalist ecosystem more holistically to understand its toxic side.
I agree entirely with Dan that “our goal as conservatives should be to find the common ground, maximize the people united around it, and marginalize only those whose ideas and behavior really can’t be reconciled with the rest.” Precisely in light of that goal, we can’t paper over fundamental philosophical disagreements between movement conservatives and post-liberals.
As I have said many times, there are good and decent and honorable people who are involved in nationalist endeavors. There is a common misconception that “nationalism” is simply a synonym for “patriotism.” In the Law & Liberty interview that prompted Dan’s piece, I note that this subgroup of “nationalists” – patriots who believe in the American creed, and want Americans of all races and religions to succeed – is highly aligned with Freedom Conservatism. I believe that FreeCons will happily welcome them back into the fold.
But when leading post-liberal activists tell us that they wish to leave the traditional-conservative coalition behind, because only nationalists “know what time it is,” we should take them at their word. If Dan is truly concerned about schisms, he should direct his keyboard at them.