Cold War political divides have tended to place liberals as a hammer working towards certain goals and conservatives as a defensive anvil that resists the change, slowing it but never reversing.
And wealthy donors, corporations have tended to fund both parties. Most Americans support some of what each party officially aims for, and big business supports some of what each party officially aims for. The two parties conflict, and miraculously moneyed special interests, big business get everything they want. Free trade, mass immigration, war: the wealthy-that-be triumph.
And while liberals proclaim to believe in some ideology or other, it’s really conservatives who are fiercely ideological. No matter the situation, a conservative has the same answers, no need to think. Liberals on the other hand have tended to be more flexible, goal-oriented. If the environment changes, liberals have been readier to adapt.
This is all vague in concept, and I’ve found that most conservatives *do not* like my questioning the wisdom of their ideological loyalty. Conservatives have always lost politics a certain way, and they intend to keep losing the same way. It’s tradition.
I propose conservatives aim to become hammers, which is to say goal-oriented. Forget ideology. Become flexible, willing to adapt to a situation. Democrats, though less ideological, are similarly stuck in an ideology. If we helped give them some of what they think they want, we might find the US affords fewer wars, more strongly resists immigration (if immigrants compete for benefits or are less rewarding to employers), and demands transnational “American” corporations be brought back to the US, via trade trade protections. For a change, poor populists might win some victories over the moneyed powers-that-be. We are *not* going to achieve a libertarian wonderland. Such is anathema to Mexican culture, and voting in good faith that a miracle will pass is foolish.
If such political maneuvering is not possible, then it seems American politics can only be bought due to a design flaw in the system. And the solution then would be to pursue power, ie. pursue great wealth… or to give up on politics and focus on cultural influence, which is another sort of power.
In the Ukraine, we see West Ukrainians glorifying WWII Germany, and we see East Ukrainians glorifying WWII Russia. Each side seems to believe it has been sent back in time to fight evil.
Similarly in the US we have conservative capitalists refighting the Cold War against “Marxists”, unaware they’ve already lost it. Many incredible attacks were achieved under the banner of Marxism and its derivatives, but historically we have slave revolts, revolts of the poor, empires that forcibly relocated and intermarried groups until they were one, new religions, struggles against atheism, the worship of “reason”, demagogues who came to power on false promises, tyrants, oligarchies.
What I mean to say is, historically we have all of the tactics which today we see as “Marxist”. It is not a new thing. Capitalism is not a real identity. A people have a faith, genetics, land, language, ethos, literature, cuisine, and so forth. These are what matter, and it’s necessary to adapt to a changing environment to survive. Politics is most about survival. We learn from past political traditions, but we also must adapt when proven necessary.
Freedom is a wonderful thing, but a people cannot be free if ruled by foreigners or if extinct. So, survival and self-rule are more important than are British and American libertarian ideals of freedom. Put another way, if freedom (libertarianism) leads to slavery, it is not very free.
It might not be the best example, but a lion must learn from its mother how to hunt. It is not born knowing how to hunt. As a result, a young lion is able to more readily adapt to a changing environment. We too should become able to adapt. If we pretend we’re genetically encoded to always vote for libertarian or Republican Party positions, we’re not going to survive.
Buchanan might say that “prudence is the mark of a conservative”, might herald Senator Taft as a model flip-flopper. However, American conservatives are not all that conservative. They rarely pivot, rarely adapt.
Finally, American conservatives have tended to target only a handful of target audiences. The moneyed-powers-that-be target all audiences, attempt to buy everyone. We would do well to work with all who share some or another common interest. Example: Trade unions oppose free trade and historically oppose mass immigration (I assume today they are corrupted). Nevertheless, we place trade unions on the “liberal” side. Environmentalists have historically opposed immigration, though again they’re viewed as “liberal”. And so forth. Similarly, we’ve always had non-whites unite against whites. It would be ideal to split the Rainbow Coalition.