The National Conservatism Conference (NatCon) took place in Washington D.C. earlier this month with many prominent Republican figures attending as featured speakers, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought, and Senators Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt. This openly anti-democratic and authoritarian event wouldn’t be complete without Steve Bannon present. I say openly anti-democratic and authoritarian because they fairly blatantly admit to that description.
Past speakers include then-Senator J.D. Vance, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, White House deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and Senator Ted Cruz.
National conservatism is notable for being a particularly illiberal ideology in many ways, one of which is the rejection of individualism.
As Yoram Hazony (one of the leaders of national conservatism in America) stated during a keynote speech at the 2019 NatCon, “We declare independence from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism, you can give it any name you want, but that set of ideas that sees the atomic individual, the free and equal individual [as highly important in politics].”
As I’ll explain, their rejection of individualism is motivated by their thinly veiled desire to craft a homogenous nation where national unity and social cohesion take institutional precedence over individual rights.
Once we make this observation and understand how the illiberalism of national conservatism has permeated the Republican party, we can put some context on the GOP’s reaction to intrusions into our personal liberties taking place today.
Instead of stating in unison that the rights of individuals to due process should be respected, even if they’re suspected of being in the country illegally, much of the right’s response to summary deportations is silence. Or, like is the case with Senator Ted Cruz, blind support: “Alien gang members aren’t entitled to due process,” says Cruz.
If you listened to some of the speeches given during the conference, you might be forgiven for believing that those in that room were gathered in order to profess their support for an ideology that essentially boils down to a means for achieving a homogenous Christian nation.
Taking a quick look at their “Statement of Principles” page, we find this: “Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private.”
It’s difficult to not interpret this as meaning that Christianity and its values should be imposed by the state on individuals and even private businesses. Politicians in our highest offices concur despite swearing an oath to protect the Constitution. The theocratic move would violate the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It would be no different than if Muslim politicians were to rise to power and impose Sharia Law.
I understand that in this current era, accusations of bigotry are more likely to cause eyerolls than concern but here is Senator Eric Schmitt at the recent NatCon, making it clear that America is for Americans, and only those that emigrated here long enough ago.
“The old conservative establishment may have opposed something like illegal immigration on procedural grounds—simply because it was illegal. But they took no issue with it in substance, and if […] achieved through ‘legal’ avenues, many of them would celebrate and support it. […] The fact that something is sanctioned by our government does not mean it’s good for our country. That much is obvious with various forms of legal immigration today. […] [Trump’s] movement is the revolt of the real American nation. It’s a pitchfork revolution driven by the millions of Americans who felt they were turning into strangers in their own country.”
You’d be forgiven for getting the impression that it’s not so much about immigration as it is about people dissimilar to them.
Schmitt goes on to talk in detail about how America isn’t a “universal nation” and that the only way this country survives is by uniting behind its original and unique culture.
He praised at length the valor and courage of the first American settlers who came to the New World and conquered a vast wilderness and whose descendants went on to do great things. That’s who Americans are, according to Schmitt. But for some reason, the slightly newer arrivals are disqualified from being American despite their own accomplishments. Why the difference? According to him, “We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith.”
Surely, Senator Schmitt couldn’t be lyricizing about a pure white Christian America. No, I’m sure they allowed at least a few off-white people into the conference. It must be my victim mentality imposing such vile notions on innocent words. Well, let’s think about it. If America should only be for Americans and Americans are “the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe,” this isn’t leaving much room for a charitable interpretation.
National conservatism is a rebellion against the natural course of human development as perpetuated by a growth in prosperity. As civilizations grow more prosperous economically, it tends to proceed hand-in-hand with liberalization – people gain more rights and autonomy. Liberties and wellbeing take on greater importance while the population demands more subservience from its government.
These kinds of conservatives don’t enjoy that great progression as much as most because freedom means that individuals will naturally choose to depart from what these conservatives believe to be the righteous life. By their own admission, this leads to a loss of a state religion and an exploration of different possible lifestyles unbecoming of a true American. Their Statement of Principles even allude to policing sexual behavior. Apparently, “ever more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation,” threatens democratic nations.
Their answer to having to tolerate difference is whatever means are necessary to stop liberalization, and lamentably, our Bill of Rights and governmental checks on the executive mean that taking a jack hammer to our nation’s foundation is a necessary means to a repugnant end.
These developments pose a dilemma for the common Republican. It seems that the reins of your Republican party have been handed over to a once fringe sect that openly advocates against that which you and I hold most dear: individual liberties, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Is it prudent to give these up in the service of the impossible goal of having a homogenous nation?
None of their goals are secret. They speak openly about them and they wrote them in a manifesto that they have been very systematically and deliberately implementing in our country. The common, reasonable Republican must ask themselves if that is what they signed up for.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group.You can reach him at rafaelperezocregister@gmail.com