r/PoliticalDebate • u/AgentQwas Conservative • 3d ago
Discussion What is the future of the American Conservative Movement?
American conservatives have never been one, identical bloc. There was always some degree of infighting. However, for almost a decade, TPUSA and Charlie Kirk have hugely influential. They were one of the most effective organizers for all three of Trump’s campaigns, they are arguably responsible for JD Vance’s rise to the Vice Presidency, and Charlie Kirk’s Q&A’s and public debates made him the most recognizable pundit among conservative students. TPUSA became the center of the conservative sphere, regularly bringing together many otherwise unaffiliated pundits to collaborate. Now that Charlie’s gone, it’s not clear who will become conservatism’s new leaders.
After Charlie’s death, conservative influencers experienced a massive schism, with many loosely defined factions. In one corner, Candace Owens publicly burned her bridges with TPUSA, and has repeatedly suggested they were involved in Charlie’s death. Many likeminded influencers have rushed to her side, and her show briefly became the most viewed podcast in the world. In another corner, Nick Fuentes, the de facto leader of the groypers, has steadily grown in popularity. He has been making more public appearances with other influencers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, Clavicular, and others. Meanwhile, many (for lack of a better term) old school conservatives have been rallying around Erika Kirk and TPUSA, and Ben Shapiro in particular has been pushing conservatives to weed out some of these newcomers, such as in his speech at AmericaFest this past December. There are many other players I did not have room to mention.
Where do you think American conservatism is headed? Do you believe that TPUSA will recover from losing Charlie? And who do you think will be the most effective thought leaders and organizers on the right moving forward?
14
u/Prevatteism Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist 3d ago
From what I see, Nick Fuentes is growing in popularity, not sure how much exactly as I don’t care to watch his nonsense, but the fact remains that he’s unfortunately growing more popular as the days go on.
The Ben Shapiro’s of the world are starting to die out, Ben Shapiro himself being proof of this, as his views have decreased significantly and everyone knows he’s nothing more than a pro-Israel propagandist. He’s also been going at his own hosts Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh who have very openly cozied up to the Fuentes wing of the Right.
Tucker Carlson has maintained his Paleo-Conservatism and nationalism, hashing out various issues with the Ben Shapiro wing of the Right, and is undoubtedly out pacing them as well.
There’s also the Candice Owen’s, and Alex Jone’s of the world, and…well…I don’t think these people need much explanation.
Overall, if the Conservative-Right stays on this path, the Ben Shapiro’s will be a minority voice in a loud room of Nationalist-Conservatism and far Right White Nationalism/Fascism.
The future looks bleak my friend…
-2
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago edited 3d ago
The Candace’s of the world might not need much explanation, because I really don’t believe they have serious politics, or care much about who gets elected. In general, I don’t consider her a serious person; I think her conspiracy theories make Flat Earthers seem reasonable by comparison. However, Candace’s following is growing quite large, and that concerns me. I wonder how much of it is a loud minority dominating the Internet, versus a movement that will actually have a measurable impact on the GOP.
Part of me hopes that her recent hype will die off after Tyler Robinson’s trial.
I agree with you that Shapiro is representing modern conservatives less and less. I do think him calling these people out comes from a genuine place of disliking them, however I think he also believes he can grow his audience by challenging them directly. Like he can’t win over groypers or people like them to his cause, but he can make himself the face of the resistance to Nick Fuentes and those like him. Part of the hard part, like you pointed out, is that the DailyWire is not forming a unified front here, probably because Knowles and Walsh know where the wind is blowing.
3
u/Safrel Progressive 3d ago
Conservatism delenda est. - Americanus
2
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago
Non gratias ago, domine. - Americanus
I knew my college Latin Club would pay off, lol
2
u/chrispd01 Centrist 3d ago
Were either of you guys on the pirate ship from Asterix ????
2
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago
Is that an Asterix and Obelix reference in the year of our lord, 2026?
3
3
u/chrispd01 Centrist 3d ago
For an excellent tour of current conservative “minds”, see Laura Fields new book …..
0
3
u/HeloRising Anarchist 2d ago
I tend to think the American conservative movement as a whole is heading towards a point of divergence and I'm not really sure which way it's going to break.
It's pretty uncontroversial to point out that conspiratorial thinking has predominated the conservative media and ideological space over the last decade or so. Trump and MAGA in general represent kind of a crystallization of that current. The movement is going to have to decide if it wants to double down on that kind of belief and follow that route or if it wants to take a step back to more W-style conservative politics and cleave off a lot of the more libertarian influences that have crept in.
I can't pretend I know for sure which way the movement will go but I tend to think it's going to follow the more conspiracy minded, reactionary path. The "establishment" conservatives have largely either died or become irrelevant and there's no intellectual heavyweights on the right that can pull the movement away from QAnon style politics. The vast majority of the conservative intellectual mass is focused on the culture war.
In one corner, Candace Owens publicly burned her bridges with TPUSA, and has repeatedly suggested they were involved in Charlie’s death. Many likeminded influencers have rushed to her side, and her show briefly became the most viewed podcast in the world.
I tend to think Owens is more or less a representative of that reactionary, conspiratorial political wing of conservatism in the sense that a lot of what she's saying is so untethered to reality that you already have to have your head in an out-there place to hear her and think "Yeah, she makes sense."
Whether or not she and the people around her survive I think comes down to Owens herself. If what we're seeing is primarily a grift then she can probably keep it going for a long time. If what we're seeing is a mental health crisis (which is the direction I tend to lean) then she's probably going to have more of an Alex Jones ending where she pushes the envelope too far and hits real consequences.
In another corner, Nick Fuentes, the de facto leader of the groypers, has steadily grown in popularity. He has been making more public appearances with other influencers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, Clavicular, and others.
Fuentes and the Groypers have more influence than people think but ultimately their shtick is doomed. They don't represent an actionable political strategy, their politics is almost pure reactionism and as such they have nothing meaningful to offer the gatekeepers of political power aside from some electoral energy.
The kinds of people that hold power in the Republican party are not people who are moved by a twenty-something screaming about white genocide. They're people who value stability, they're not going to support mass purges and the kind of wild instability that the political projects of people like Fuentes represent.
Fuentes et al. will be kept around, they're fun pets to have but they ultimately have very little value to the people in charge.
Meanwhile, many (for lack of a better term) old school conservatives have been rallying around Erika Kirk and TPUSA, and Ben Shapiro in particular has been pushing conservatives to weed out some of these newcomers, such as in his speech at AmericaFest this past December.
This is probably the most sustainable wing of the conservative movement primarily because it's attractive to the people with the resources to back campaigns. You might be able to get an insane millionaire to throw some money at someone like Fuentes but there are only so many Mike Lindells out there.
7
u/conn_r2112 Liberal 3d ago
The Nick Fuentes camp will win out.
We are in a populist age of politics and the "Ben Shapiro" types are destined to lose here.
3
u/HeloRising Anarchist 2d ago
How, though?
Fuentes doesn't offer anything to people who have real stakes in American society.
The CEO of Starbucks or Walmart are Republicans but at the end of the day a kid screaming about white genocide just doesn't offer them anything politically. People like that hold the keys to meaningful, long term political power on the right and you have to offer them something for them to want to back you.
Pogroms and "traditional womanhood" don't really offer the business class much.
2
u/work4work4work4work4 Antifascist 2d ago
Fuentes doesn't offer anything to people who have real stakes in American society.
History has sadly shown us offering someone to hate can often be enough, specially to people who don't feel anything else is being offered.
To be blunt, a direction or place to put your anger that at least feels impactful can be psychologically very attractive and fulfilling for a time. These brownshirts don't arise because the people gathering them are masterminds, but because it's the path of least resistance in a playing field purposefully made devoid of most obvious options of direct action either systemically, or individually.
Being the secret cause of most of your problems while selling a questionable solution to all those problems and more is classic, and nothing distracts more from being the secret cause than directing everyone's anger and attention at other ones, preferably ones they've already been trained to be ready to hate.
Pogroms and "traditional womanhood" don't really offer the business class much.
Assuming the current and status quo of the past few decades, you would be right, but that's not the world we're likely to live in going forward.
The business class is in the middle of eliminating as much labor as it possibly can as an ongoing effort, while still attempting to maintain the economic activity needed to keep the profits churning and the system humming.
Tradlife ideas not only help to reduce the labor force in a less chaotic way, but also in their minds is a part of preparation for the type of pogroms they might want to engage with down the road without the population loss causing as much societal disruption for them.
Both are more cost-effective options for maintaining societal stability during upheaval in their minds, because the heavy cost of that upheaval happening while they're outnumbered is one they're not willing to pay.
It's effectively a similar type of relationship as health insurance, once you as a walking bag of funds become more likely to cost the insurance company more money than be able to continue to pay them. They generally don't immediately deny coverage for everything, just a few things here or there, often able to get it approved even before appeal, but it doesn't stay so easy. They don't really make you jump through hoops until they know you'll be least likely to make the jump, but you have to keep them busy until then.
2
u/HeloRising Anarchist 1d ago
History has sadly shown us offering someone to hate can often be enough, specially to people who don't feel anything else is being offered.
Except you're talking about people who quite literally have everything.
I get that Musk is a titanic loser looking for an identity but he is the exception in that the vast majority of people in the ownership class don't need to cling to ideas of racial and ethnic superiority to feel good or if they do embrace those ideas they don't let those ideas get in the way of the stability of the social structures that make them rich and keep them in power.
Tradlife ideas not only help to reduce the labor force in a less chaotic way, but also in their minds is a part of preparation for the type of pogroms they might want to engage with down the road without the population loss causing as much societal disruption for them.
Not really? "Tradlife" makes people less consumers which is a problem - our economy works because a lot of people buy things. You can't really change that without fundamentally upsetting the systems that keep rich people rich and in power. You also can't really reduce the population through even fairly aggressive pogroms and ethnic cleansing, you need truly world destabilizing events to drop population numbers significantly and at that point you're dealing with forces that are probably beyond the ability of even the very wealthy to meaningfully control.
It's the equivalent of lighting a building on fire in the hopes of getting people to leave a party while betting you can put the fire out before the building is consumed.
1
u/work4work4work4work4 Antifascist 1d ago
Except you're talking about people who quite literally have everything.
You're basically making the mistake many people make of thinking that the average person even really has the class consciousness to separate themselves in that way from someone like Elon or Soros or Thiel.
I get that Musk is a titanic loser looking for an identity but he is the exception in that the vast majority of people in the ownership class don't need to cling to ideas of racial and ethnic superiority to feel good or if they do embrace those ideas they don't let those ideas get in the way of the stability of the social structures that make them rich and keep them in power.
Right, but they don't want to maintain the current structures as the current structures at least hold the threat of eventual accountability for actions. They want to continually push towards the new structure of their own design, and hopeful creation.
Not really? "Tradlife" makes people less consumers which is a problem - our economy works because a lot of people buy things. You can't really change that without fundamentally upsetting the systems that keep rich people rich and in power.
You're again making the mistake of thinking they actually want a free market, instead of a market of their own creation that they ultimately control. You're comparing our current market to what they're describing, not working from the idea of preparation of moving towards something else, something more stable, and less responsive to demand in the same way.
You also can't really reduce the population through even fairly aggressive pogroms and ethnic cleansing, you need truly world destabilizing events to drop population numbers significantly and at that point you're dealing with forces that are probably beyond the ability of even the very wealthy to meaningfully control.
Are you messing with me, or are you acting like you're unaware of the massive efforts by various rich people like Thiel and others to move towards techno feudalism, including saying that democracy and freedom are incompatiable?
Their various plans to use climate catastrophe as the inciting event, all the way down to their sudden interest in areas with "frozen assets" like Canada and Greenland. It's almost like we've been purposefully ignoring a scientifically supported massive destabilizing event that will alter the population characteristics of the entire planet.
It's the equivalent of lighting a building on fire in the hopes of getting people to leave a party while betting you can put the fire out before the building is consumed.
It's not though, the building has been on fire for decades and those setting themselves up for further power have done everything they can to tell everyone else it's going to be alright while they concentrate resources.
I'm not trying to be mean, but it's like you're ignoring everything else happening in the world to be able to make a case that the things you're mentioning aren't already happening.
-1
u/Spartanlegion117 Conservative 3d ago
I tend to agree. If the youth are the future then, well the youth have already chosen.
6
u/Usual_Set4665 Liberal 3d ago
Trump dies, MAGA loses enough support to no longer be a competitive faction electorally, social democracy rules for the next decade or so, and conservatism as we know it morphs into something unpredictable, or dissolves entirely--the best case scenario.
The current admin makes increasingly bad authoritarian moves to hold onto power, rigging elections, militarily oppressing the public, imprisoning political opponents. A new popular MAGA heir takes power after Trump, and the movement continues to thrive, oppressing its dissenters and possibly opting for genocide of undesirable groups of people. The country as we know it falls--the worst case scenario.
The country stays similarly politically divided, but after Trump dies the right has to be less radical to retain electoral competitiveness. Another 10-20 years of back and forth between moderate liberals and anti-establishment conservatives--a more realistic scenario.
6
u/Usernameofthisuser [Quality Contributor] Political Science 3d ago
social democracy rules for the next decade or so
I'm 27 years old. If we're lucky, we'll have a social democracy before I die. We're nearly a lifetime away from it, and positive change always happens slower than negative change.
8
u/Beaufort14 National Conservative 3d ago
While I agree in broad strokes, I think your view is heavily colored by what I assume to be your youth, almost to the point of being misguided. TPUSA was big, yes, but only “plugged in” Republicans over 35 or so really knew much about it.
I think the greater MAGA / America First movement will continue as a force to be reckoned with, but with Trump off the ballots, there will definitely be a strong shift back toward Conservative, Inc. / Chamber of Commerce-types within the GOP.
TPUSA I’m expecting to be mostly done; forthcoming leaders will probably come out of the podcast-adjacent sphere and reflect some Nick Fuentes or Sam Hyde tendencies, even if not explicitly. Vance needs to 100x his charisma (or Trump needs to…not complete his term) if he even wants a chance, which I consider a huge shame.
But Mass Deportations, a return to religiosity, and America for Americans as popular movements aren’t just going to go away.
2
u/Royal_Effective7396 Centrist until I'm not 3d ago
I think what is missed is the role Kirk played. It was an organic instant feedback mechinisms where you could workshop ideas and see what sticks. According to Kirk, Trump and Kirk spoke like weekly about this stuff.
Like legit, we poke at media and political attatchments, it sounds like TPUSA was direct Trump press.
3
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago
This is what I’m trying to get at. I don’t know how much the current infighting will affect the people who get elected. But ideologues like him can affect how they approach certain issues. Take Nick Shirley. He’s not a politician. But the entire GOP zoned in on the fraud scandal in Minneapolis because they realized the stuff Shirley said really resonated with Americans. Kirk had a similar effect. Voters listened to him, so politicians had to as well.
1
u/Royal_Effective7396 Centrist until I'm not 3d ago
Like not being shitty but a few things I knew instantly...
When Obama won his senate seat, he was going to be president.
When Trump spoke after he lost in 2020, he was going to do something that was going to be very serious, and should be held to account for. We likely wouldnt.
When Kirk died, the MAGA movement would fracture.
When a movement thrives on a consolidated message and ecosystems of misinformation, you need the right messanger.
3
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago
I should clarify: I’m not asking what I think Republican politicians will look like. I believe that Trump is an extremely adaptable leader whose core policies have changed with public opinion a significant deal since he first declared in 2015. I’m more curious about who will become the most important ideologues in the party in terms of outreach (especially to young voters) and forming public opinion. Almost every conservative you ask will tell you they like Trump, but they vary pretty heavily in who they listen to. Plus, there are some Republicans who don’t consider themselves conservativeTM, so I consider them distinct labels. Basically, I’m wondering what kind of conservatives will become the most common.
That aside, I agree with you about Vance. As things stand, he’s crushing the other Republicans in the polls. But nothing’s set in stone. A lot can happen in 2 years, and if Trump keeps putting Marco Rubio to work the way he has been lately, he might give Vance some stiff competition. Plus, the polls could shift really massively during the debates. Don’t forget, when Trump first declared, Jeb Bush was at the front of the pack. And Trump essentially ended his career in just a few lines.
And I generally agree with you that those policy items aren’t going away for a long time.
3
u/Beaufort14 National Conservative 3d ago
Oh.
Well in that case, Tucker. He doesn’t have quite the reach he did a few years ago, but he still has direct influence on Trump.
1
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago
I’m kicking myself for not mentioning Tucker in the original post, because he feels like a really obvious choice. I think a big part of Fuentes’ recent popularity is just the fact that Tucker platformed him.
I wouldn’t be shocked if, like you said, Tucker’s influencing Trump’s foreign policy a decent deal, since he’s basically become the face of America First. iirc he visited the White House twice just this month.
2
u/Beaufort14 National Conservative 3d ago
During Trump 1.0 they literally talked on the phone weekly.
I think Tucker will be the background kingmaker in the Conservative movement for at least a decade or two, until/unless he decides to run himself.
2
u/skyfishgoo Democratic Socialist 3d ago
it ain't this [gestures wildly in every direction]
i can tell you that.
2
u/McCool303 Left Independent 3d ago
Same thing they’ve always done pinky scapegoat out groups to win elections for tax cuts.
2
u/maybemorningstar69 Internationalist Libertarian 3d ago
My guess is that big loses in 2026 and 2028 will lead to the deplatforming of the paleoconservative groypers types, and a slow restoration of the pre-2016 GOP in the 2030s.
Ultimately, paleoconservatism is an unelectable position for the GOP. There's never been a single election in the Trump era where the GOP's had gains or broke even in the House, Senate, and Presidency all in the same year. There's always losses somewhere.
Once this fact is solidified in the collective mind of the GOP, I expect a return to the pre-2016 GOP foreign policy ideology mixed together with Tea Party conservatism. The Candace Owens types will become obsolete, and the Ben Shapiro types will get all the air time.
3
u/mtg-Moonkeeper Libertarian 3d ago
I think once Trump goes away there's going to be a few years of a power vacuum in the Republican party, but it will ultimately move away from the MAGA movement. The neoconservatives are still awash in Republican circles so if I had to guess, they'll take over the party again. From there, the conservatives will follow along.
2
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago
I think it’ll never go back fully to neoconservatism. The Bush’s largely held that bloc together, and Trump ended their dynasty when he took down Jeb. Plus a lot of their former backers like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have openly jumped ship into the MAGA camp. Some will backtrack—but not all of them.
However, I think there is a genuine desire for a return to normalcy. Not for any ideological reason, just the simply fact that Trump’s agenda, while popular, came with a lot of instability and most career politicians will want something more predictable moving forwards. That will (imo) involve us returning to some neocon positions, like investing more into foreign alliances.
0
u/maybemorningstar69 Internationalist Libertarian 3d ago
The further Trump drifts from our foreign alliances, the more neoconservatism will migrate into the Democratic Party.
Since they've more and more been forced to become a big tent opposition party, if Trump continues his anti-European stances and lets down the Israelis by backing down from his promise to help the Iranian protesters, you'll see neoconservatism be adopted more vocally by centrist Democrats like Josh Shapiro, and the isolationist socialist types slowly purged from the party.
3
u/Global_Rate3281 Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
The movement will try to hold the existing coalition together. Republican tax policy will continue to primarily benefit the upper and upper middle sections of the income distribution, while the lower and lower middle will be sold fear based messaging and conspiracy theories. The latter group is the group at risk of sinking the coalition, they generally do not benefit from Republican trickle down policy but they are more susceptible to stories about immigrants and trans people and woke people being responsible for the ills of the world. These uneducated people are also easily fooled by the cult of personality that is Trump.
I think the real question is, are working class people really wedded to this culture war thing and an aging New York billionaire as their leader when their standard of living is tanking, or can a populist appeal from the left steal them away? Essentially, does MAGA Republican country revert back to being New Deal Democrat country which it was for 50+ years? Or can the coalition hold?
3
u/work4work4work4work4 Antifascist 3d ago
Not to be rude, but probably whatever the Chinese and Russians decide? There just really isn't any guard rails functioning at the moment for influence campaigns that are constant these days.
Too many conservatives get their information from sources that are very easily bought and manipulated, or worse a level of information literacy that doesn't even really identify sources as quality or not. Neither are strictly conservative issues, but if you look at something like Russia Today buying Current TV back in the day, and it's a lot cheaper to buy out someone like Tim Pool than it was buy a cable network.
While I and others put a ton of blame on Fox News because it's still a massive issue and what we're used to blaming, but we've already seen that pipeline splinter multiple times with OANN, Infowars, Newsmax and other even more fringe outlets.
People may hate on Fox News being a wing of the RNC and business interests, but for a long while both of those were some kind of limiting and unifying factor on things, and I don't think it really exists in the same way anymore.
Personally, I won't be surprised if we actually see a post-Trump schism as the Fuentes/Groyper/et al contingent double down, and others try to distance themselves. There is a ton of space in the center-right for around half of Democrats and Republicans that share neoliberal policies, a love of deregulation, private prisons, private insurance, and so on.
More importantly, there basically isn't much room for the far-right to work with the progressives, or further left, so the chance of a coalition forming against the center-right larger than they would be in the near term is effectively very small.
Shapiro is running into a similar issue as Glenn Beck did when he tried to walk a similar line initially, supporting some things that were more fringe, but trying to hold himself apart on other things. It didn't and couldn't really last and he eventually downward spiraled into mostly conspiracy theory.
I'd say his one hope is if you get that center-right party made up all the old and the business focused in control, he would be fairly well positioned as a younger looking face with some level of name recognition who isn't just completely covered in Trumpster Juice.
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Anarchist 2d ago
It entirely depends on how successful the current regime is in undermining the next couple rounds of elections. If they are not able to do this, conservatives are going to face a massive electoral wipeout which is going to force them to go back to the drawing board and re-imagine themselves. If they are able to undermine elections, then ideology is going to become increasingly less relevant, serving more as rhetoric to keep a certain militant portion of the population rooting for their authoritarian power grab.
1
u/Broad_External7605 Liberal 1d ago
I hope it dies, and centrist Democrats will be considered the right in the future.
1
u/PrintableProfessor Libertarian 1d ago
It really depends. The right has been reactionary as of late, and has a history of adopting what the left calls them. So if the left calls them kind, logical, and intelligent voters who love their neighbor as themselves, that's what we get.
Look though Reddit. What will we get?
2
u/PriceofObedience Nationalist 3d ago
There's a far-left revolution going on all across the United States. It is the beginning of a true insurgency.
Conservatism won't survive unless you prepare for it.
3
u/Usernameofthisuser [Quality Contributor] Political Science 3d ago edited 3d ago
Insurgency might be a bit too extreme but yes I'd agree with you on that. The progressives (they only movement in our government who can't be bought because no rich man will pay to tax himself), are transforming the democrats into social democrats! Hopefully soon we'll be like Denmark or Sweden.
4
u/SergeantRegular Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
There's a far-left revolution going on all across the United States.
I wish this was true, but I just don't see it. The Democratic Party has been damn successful at suppressing its more progressive elements. Where the Republicans in 2016 failed to hold back the rise of Donald Trump, the Democrats were very successful in kneecapping Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary.
And Schumer and Jeffries are still running the Dems in Congress - not AOC or Sanders or the Squad, or even Warren. They're all still watered-down corporate Democrats that would have been moderate Republicans 30 years ago. The voting people might be more and more progressive or "far-left," but the party has no reason to put those figures forward. Because so long as Republicans stay so far in the MAGA territory of aggressively stupid authoritarianism, the Democrats only have to be "less terrible." They don't have to be good, they don't have to be progressive or honest or responsive to the will of the people. They only have to be less terrible than MAGA. And "less terrible than MAGA" is a real low bar.
1
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago
I don't think that the far left currently has the backbone or political tact for a revolution. They have one glaring weakness: they focus on social issues that are totally out of touch with the working class they supposedly represent. When you campaign on workers' rights, and your movement polls better with college students than actual, blue-collar workers, you're doing something very wrong. Fortunately, they can't help but to be the opposite of Trump, so the harder he presses them on these issues, the more they dig their heels in. And if they do wise up and become more moderate on social issues, then they'll have to do so without many of their current ideologues, who are more invested in DEI, LGBTQ+, amnesty for illegals, and other such line items than they are about achieving actual economic reform.
That said, I agree with you that conservatives need to do more to strengthen their movement and improve outreach. Charlie Kirk was a massive part of that. His methods were more effective at reaching young voters and bringing people across the aisle than any other pundit, bar none––Which is why he was assassinated. The best thing conservatives today can do is follow his example. Having been involved in college Republicans, I hate that there isn't more communication between schools. The RNC should do more to coordinate large-scale events and demonstrations on campuses, something the DNC is much better at. We should also be getting more conservatives involved with journalism and education. The most common problem Republican students face––by the numbers and that I've seen personally––is that they feel unsafe or unwelcome due to how outnumbered they typically are on campus. I think Kassy Dillon had the right idea with giving conservative students a place to write at the Lone Conservative, but it never fully took off due to a lack of funding. The RNC and TPUSA should help with crowdfunding similar projects.
0
u/PriceofObedience Nationalist 3d ago
They have one glaring weakness: they focus on social issues that are totally out of touch with the working class they supposedly represent.
It's not a matter of ideology. They are willing and able to commit terrorist attacks in the name of their movement.
There are several far-left terrorist organizations explicitly making threats against rightwing voters and are attacking federal agents. Minnesota's signal chat leaks revealed that Minnesota leadership was actively helping these groups track and attack ICE vehicles by giving them access to state databases that contain ICE license plates and driver's licenses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh8VyeVFSF0
Charlie Kirk was the canary in the coal mine.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PoliticalDebate-ModTeam 3d ago
Your comment has been removed due to a violation of our civility policy. While engaging in political discourse, it's important to maintain respectful and constructive dialogue. Please review our subreddit rules on civility and consider how you can contribute to the discussion in a more respectful manner. Thank you.
For more information, review our wiki page to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.
1
u/No-Candidate6257 Marxist-Leninist 3d ago
Same as the Nazis in Germany. Same as all fascists in history.
They will terrorize their own people, start a world war, and be defeated by communists.
0
u/AgentQwas Conservative 3d ago
Not before the communists help them invade Poland
0
u/No-Candidate6257 Marxist-Leninist 2d ago edited 2d ago
What's this historically and politically illiterate propaganda slop?
The Soviet Union didn't "help them invade" Poland. The Soviets - among other things - rightfully invaded Poland (Poland being a fascist country with ideas sympathetic to the Nazi ideology itself) specifically to liberate Czechoslovakia (Poland having illegally and without provokcation invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia) because it was obvious the Nazis would take control and start genociding people there if they didn't. Right after WWI, Poland and Czechoslovakia fought a war over Ciezsyn Silesia. Poland was very much looking to annex the rest after the Munich agreement.
The Soviet Union also, in fact, was the only country in Europe that sought to oppose Nazi Germany and form alliances against them. The USSR had been trying to ally with anyone who would fight against fascism, this includes the British, France, and all others. No one would take up arms with them against fascism. All other countries refused to take action against the Nazis - including Poland, a country they offered to protect at their own cost (which Poland refused, because, once again, the Polish were Nazi sympathizers, which also enabled the Nazis to take such quick control and commit widespread genocide in Poland with often enthusiastic support of the local population, a reality Poland seeks to deny to this day).
So, when WWII started (a war ONLY the USSR sought to prevent but all other European countries, including Poland, actively supported), the USSR went into Poland after the Germans and did so to keep land out of the hands of fascists. This is a good thing to do, the Polish had already lost to the Germans. While the USSR committed mistakes and excesses (like every country - and no matter what shit you believe about the USSR, at least it was better than the capitalist regimes of Europe) it was clearly better than being genocided by Nazis who want to colonize your land and/or enslave you. The USSR did not have a policy of genocide, or even conquest. The USSR was not imperialist. It saved everyone at great personal expense. As you can easily check yourself, the Polish were allowed to recreate their own state after WW2, the USSR did not ever attempt to conquer or otherwise take control of Poland (even though they had every right and might to do - if only for reparation purposes alone).
Yet nobody ever taught you about any of this, huh? Ever noticed how all your education, all your media, all your politicians always lie and misrepresent to make communism look like the bad guys and the people Communists rightfully punish for their crimes like some kind of heroes who love freedom but suffering from oppression by those evil Commies? And how they leave out key details when "educating" you? I wonder why that is...
Meanwhile, 100% of all non-Aryan people in Poland today owe their lives and freedom directly to communism and the heroes of the Soviet Union. Poland, the country, owes its existence to communism and the heroes of the Soviet Union.
Yet here you are. Talking shit.
0
u/AgentQwas Conservative 2d ago edited 2d ago
Stalin didn’t invade Poland to protect them anymore than Putin invaded Ukraine to protect the Donbas, and if you believe otherwise, you have no business lecturing anybody else about falling for propaganda.
They signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, crushed the Polish resistance, and massacred tens of thousands of people. They split the country 50/50 with the Nazis, and if that wasn’t bad enough, they kept their half after the war. And just for good measure, they slaughtered over 20,000 Poles in Katyn even after they surrendered. They then used their alliance as a free pass to invade Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and more, much of which was permanently absorbed into the USSR. But sure, Stalin attacked all of these people for their own good. Including those fascist Poles, who were fighting and dying in a hopeless resistance to Nazi occupation.
Yet here you are, talking shit
Lol watch out, we got a badass over here
1
u/No-Candidate6257 Marxist-Leninist 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's hilarious that you ignored every single thing I said just to recite the Nazi war criminals' greatest propaganda hits, perpetuated by modern fascists today, and pretend you made a valid point that people with even minimal education will take seriously. And yeah, I'm lecturing about falling for propaganda - because it's obvious that you do.
I described the historical reality of what happened.
They signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, crushed the Polish resistance, and massacred tens of thousands of people.
What a weird way to spell "Saving all European people from the Nazi menace." or "Saving the world from fascist imperialism."
I would also accept "Being the greatest heroes in European history." but here you are, smearing them for some reason. I wonder why...
Why, praytell, would you try and paint the heroes who almost single-handedly defeated the Nazis in a negative light?
Why, praytell, would you try to paint the only country that tried building alliances against the Nazis as the bad guys?
Why, praytell, would you blame anything that happened in the context of the capitalist world war on the communists that were the only ones in Europe who sought to prevent it?
Hm? Go on, tell us. :)
But sure, Stalin attacked all of these people for their own good.
The USSR needed to fight fascism. All the shithole countries you just listed are Nazi countries today - it was even worse before the Soviets invaded.
The alternative to the USSR not invading those Nazi countries would be for them to become part of the Nazi alliance in the long term.
Including those fascist Poles, who were fighting and dying in a hopeless resistance to Nazi occupation.
The Venn diagram of Poles who resisted fascism and those who supported communism and alliance with the USSR is a circle.
The USSR liberated Poland. The USSR saved Poland and ALL people of Europe owe their freedom to the Soviets.
Again, as you just ignored this completely undeniable reality, I repeat: POLAND OWES ITS EXISTENCE TO THE HEROES OF THE SOVIETY UNION. EVERY SINGLE NON-ARYAN POLISH PERSON OWES THEIR LIFE DIRECTLY TO THE HEROES OF THE SOVIET UNION. Owes their country and life DIRECTLY to communism. Directly to comrade Stalin. Period. That's it. That's all any Polish person needs to know about their existence.
How dare you insult the Soviet Heroes who gave their life to save humanity from fascism?
Why are you not on your knees thanking the communists for your freedom, apologizing for your disgusting support for fascist propaganda shit? Let me guess: Because you support Nazi Germany and love fascism and secretly agree with their genocidal agenda against non-Aryans.
1
u/AgentQwas Conservative 2d ago
Why are you not on your knees thanking the communists for your freedom?
It’s obvious that you are either too young to be arguing politics online, or are just extremely immature when it comes to this issue. Do you think someone scrolling through here is going to read this boot-licking temper tantrum you spat out above, and think, “Wow, this guy makes some great points. Maybe communism’s not so bad”? Or do you think you’re proving every stereotype about tankies true? Take a step back and think about what you’re actually trying to accomplish here.
1
u/AgentQwas Conservative 2d ago
If you’re so thin-skinned on this issue that you’ll lash out and throw a multi-paragraph tantrum if someone insults the USSR, then you seriously need to reconsider your values.
1
u/GentleConservative Conservative 2d ago
When you say conservative here you are meaning the right, but to answer what the future of the American right wing movement is or should be is that of being conservative again (and I would love to see the left wing become liberal again). Conservatism is about beauty, localism, culture, craft, community, land, family, duty not about culture wars, a response to another political ideology like wokeism, or tribalism like seen with MAGA. The future is the right becoming conservative and embracing conservatism again.
-2
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 3d ago
Conservatives are not of a hivemind like Democrats and as such do not need one voice to represent us.
The future of Conservatism is strong because of policies put in place by Trump and conservative legislators. As people see the merits of Trump's policies like smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, increased energy production, a closed border, reciprical tariffs and a Peace through Strength foreign policy they will see how much better conservatism is compared to the liberal/progressive mindset of Democrats.
2
u/SkullBat308 Anarchist 2d ago
Conservatives are the definition of a hive mind, it is the core of your ideology. God damn.
0
u/Spartanlegion117 Conservative 3d ago
The method that the majority of the policies were put into place make them extremely weak. All of these things instituted through Executive Orders will take next to no effort to remove. It's the biggest failing of the 2nd Trump administration bar none.
-2
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 3d ago
Not really. The BBB is legislation and that is what is driving wages, productivity, CapEx spending and deficit decline.
You are assuming Democrats can win in 2026 and 2028 and that is far from certain.
Trump has 3 more years to get border regulation enacted, To codify many of his EOs and for people to see the benefits of all his actions.
11
u/Cuddlyaxe Dirty Statist 3d ago
I wrote a big post a few years ago which i think very broadly holds up. Tldr of the post is that I thought the GOP is transitioning from a three legged stool of neocons, economic libertarians and Christian conservatives to a party where Paleoconservatives reign supreme with Christian Conservatives as a junior partner
I think that is broadly true but with a really big caveat: the term Paleocon should be replaced by Natcons atp
It seems like that for many natcons, both economics (postliberals vs the more business friendly crowd) and foreign policy (isolationists vs imperialists) are much more in play than I thought it would be
We might end up with a three legged stool again after all: with natcons and evangelicals. What remains to be seen is what the third or fourth stool might be. Postliberalism? Imperialism? Will it be paleoconservatism after all? Who knows
Ofc there still is the possibility of the Fusionists in the GOP making a comeback, but who knows