Press-Telegram (Long Beach)

Conservati­ves and ‘American Nationalis­ts’ are not the same

- By Matt Fleming

Labels matter.

A news story in the Orange County Register this week titled “Police break up fracas at Orange County Republican meeting” got a lot of attention.

It was reported that a group of “conservati­ves” wearing “orange shirts that said ‘RINO hunters,’ with crosshairs making a target of the O,’ tried to storm a Republican Party of Orange County meeting in Costa Mesa on Monday night.”

I disagree with the term “conservati­ve” being used interchang­eably with “American Nationalis­t,” which is what the group’s leader called himself in the next paragraph.

Those words are not synonyms. Had the story simply referred to the group as “American Nationalis­ts,” or far-right agitators or populists, there would be no issue.

In covering politics, labels are often used incorrectl­y and it’s often only when reporters and pundits use broad terms like “right” and “left” or “Republican” or “Democrat” do we really know what they mean.

The group’s leader called himself an “American Nationalis­t” and I’m inclined to think he’s right, based on what he said and did.

And I told the well-respected reporter as much on Twitter.

The reporter replied that the group was: “Pretty textbook for ‘faith and flag’ conservati­ves. Pro-America first, pro-policies that favor Christiani­ty, pro-small government, anti-abortion, anti-immigratio­n, progun, pro-Trump ... They had a sign mocking the OCGOP for having ‘conserved nothing.’”

Since “‘faith and flag’ conservati­ve” is a term I can only find referenced by Pew Research Center (a fine organizati­on, but not an authority on conservati­sm), I’m going to assume the “textbook” is not yet finished.

Most of the positions described above are consistent with what many modern Republican­s believe. It would be correct to say the party has

changed. It might also be correct to say that many so-called conservati­ves are actually not conservati­ves or have since abandoned their principles.

But conservati­sm is a distinctiv­e philosophy that doesn’t really change and based on the descriptio­n provided by the reporter, the group at hand wasn’t motivated by conservati­sm.

“America first” is basically a slogan combining isolationi­sm and nationalis­m. Conservati­ves believe in the opposite, which is that there is something inherently unique about the American experiment that ought to compel us to promote American values internatio­nally. As just one example, proponents of “America first” policies support tariffs, while conservati­ves support free trade.

Conservati­sm also can’t be reduced to “pro-policies that favor Christiani­ty.” Conservati­ves believe in the First Amendment, which the founders went out of their way to ensure did not promote any one religion.

There’s a group sometimes referred to as Christian conservati­ves, but that’s more appropriat­ely called the Christian right. These folks may be conservati­ve in many ways, but pushing a religious agenda through the government is not conservati­sm — it’s statist, if anything.

I’m Christian, and it guides my beliefs. But the conservati­ve movement has many non-Christian leaders, because conservati­sm is centered on the principles written by our Founding Fathers, specifical­ly, that humans are created equal and are blessed with inalienabl­e, Godgiven rights.

And if most of the traits of the group identified by the reporter aren’t consistent with conservati­sm, some are not even compatible with each other. For example being “proTrump” is at odds with being “pro-small government.”

Trump did nothing meaningful to slow the growth and spending of the government, because that’s not what he cared about. Conservati­ves care about debt and deficits.

This is by no means a comprehens­ive list of conservati­ve values, but it’s enough to highlight my point. And within these values are sometimes contradict­ions and tensions, which can lead to difference­s of opinion.

All of this might seem like a pointless semantic argument, but it’s not. The reporter said I needed to recognize that the “vast majority of Americans have a different definition of conservati­sm.”

First, conservati­ve values haven’t really changed much since the days of Edmund Burke. Even so, if most people have a mistaken understand­ing of something, it doesn’t somehow make them right. There are real difference­s between those who would describe themselves as conservati­ves and those who would describe themselves as American nationalis­ts.

Second, even if it were true that the definition of conservati­sm had changed, which it hasn’t, then what would you call people like me (nice names only!), who until this week thought we were still conservati­ves?

Hopefully, everyone commenting on American politics sees a difference in philosophy between Jonah Goldberg and Steve Bannon.

Third, even if many Americans have a mistaken understand­ing of conservati­sm, where do you think they got it from?

Again, labels matter.

 ?? LOU KRASKY — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? William F. Buckley Jr. left, talks with then-former California Gov. Ronald Reagan at the South Carolina Governor’s Mansion in Columbia S.C., on Jan. 13, 1978, after the two debated the Panama Canal Treaty.
LOU KRASKY — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS William F. Buckley Jr. left, talks with then-former California Gov. Ronald Reagan at the South Carolina Governor’s Mansion in Columbia S.C., on Jan. 13, 1978, after the two debated the Panama Canal Treaty.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States