National Conservatism: A Statement of Principles

You can’t keep the Struassians down. In fact, they want to define what it means to be a “conservative,” and they might just be successful, unfortunately.

This doesn’t mean I don’t agree with them on several issues.

But their insistence on “national conservatism” presents major problems, not the least of which is their entire “nationalist” worldview.

Calhoun said he was a “conservative” because he was a “State’s Rights” man. That is the essence of American conservatism.

Everything else–political, economic, cultural–flows from there.

You see, Calhoun called the American political system “beautiful.” And he did so because of its peculiarities, meaning its uniqueness.

No system like it had been developed in the Western world.

The Straussians want to supplant this beautiful peculiar system for the European “nation state.” They call that “conservative.”

They insist they favor a federal system, but insist upon using force to ensure that renegade States comply with their “national” agenda.

Calhoun would not agree, and there was a time that Calhoun was considered to be one of the most important conservative voices in American history.

The culture war can be won (and better waged) at the State level. Ron DeSantis proves that.

You don’t need some Puritanical “city upon a hill” “conservative nationalism” to ensure the left goes down in flames.

But you also have to accept that California will be California. So long as we don’t California Alabama I’m fine with that.

You should be, too.

We can’t win in Washington D.C., but we can win in Tallahassee or Montgomery or even Sacramento if people get enough of leftist lunacy.

I discuss this latest conservative manifesto on episode 652 of The Brion McClanahan Show.