The populist faction in the conservative movement today is best characterized by an openness to relational power (something that the left understands very well). They are willing to indiscriminately use power when they attain it. Rather than sacrifice American values in the name of ‘playing fair’—something that the left only abides by in rhetoric when they hold little power—conservatives now recognize party principles, such as “limited government,” to be incompatible with the preservation of their values when the former is treated as a puritan creed of no compromise.
This is a laudable quality of populists. The days of bowing to the left’s alter of political correctness, wokeness, and baseless accusations and insults must be put behind us. The perception of the left must mean to the conservative very little if he’s to accomplish anything of productive value to his agenda.
The age and propriety of some populists, however, must be addressed.
In their pursuit of taking back the culture—or at least preserving whatever is left—the populists have developed the mindless rhetoric of the left when they’re met with those within their party who disagree with them. For followers of the Vince Dao type, or other America First 17 year olds, the common name attributed to their dissenters are “neo-con,” “Rino,” or “coomer.”
This new reaction to disagreement is not surprising. After tactless name-calling from the left, the populist right has inoculated themselves by adopting the tactics from perceived threats. One the one hand, this isn’t entirely unreasonable. Rino senators like Ben Sasse (NE), Bill Cassidy (LA), Liz Cheney (WY), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Adam Kinzinger (IL), Mitt Romney (UT), Pat Toomey (PA), Mitch McConnell (KY) and Lindsey Graham (SC), and others are appropriately termed “Rinos” who are stuck in 2003. They’re perfect politicians that have upheld the “establishment” either through their infantile support for Trump’s impeachment, or by their blind eye to the issues to election fraud, Democrat collusion with Ukrainians and China, or their self-important ‘bipartisanship’ on the porked up infrastructure bill. They are not conservatives—they are servants to power itself.
On the other hand, however, when the populists come after one who doesn’t tow the line on every political or legislative position, real or imagined, their premature ejaculatory disposition to shout ill-conceived names demonstrates more their inability, incompetence, or unwillingness, to engage with dissent from within.
There may be many answers to the question of ‘why’ this is. Perhaps it’s the age of the populists, too immature and egoistically caught up in the popularity they have attained; it could be easier to grift when feeding off of outrage and tribal politics; or they too believe, as does the left, that dissent is sin and should be dismissed and drowned in a sea of childish tantrums.
Without some of these characteristics, however, they may cease to be populists—one with the mob. For whatever their good qualities, the populists mustn’t make our conservative people mobbish idiots.
The grift must end.