Some interesting piece from The American Conservative, albeit I have to disagree with opening phrase--OAC has very little to do with real politics let alone knows about what "socialism" other than the welfare state, which has nothing to do with socialism, is. But it is good and healthy that TAC brought up this issue. It couldn't be better framed than with Tucker's, and Pat's, brilliant quotes:
“Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster,” Carlson said. “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn’t worth having.” Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve. “To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people,” Buchanan said in a 1998 speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. “I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man—and not the other way around.”
Good, very good, that such a message comes from, however debatable, important source of remaining American sanity. It is symptomatic that they used this:
There is more of a willingness to contest the idea that what’s good for General Motors is good for conservatives—or America.
Finally, the heart of the issue. If America remains a corporate state--she dies, possibly with catastrophic consequences for everyone. If she, in the end, finds own definition as a nation--she has a chance. For that to happen new elites must emerge. Is there a time for those to grow and enter politics? I don't know, but Trump, who betrayed his main pool of supporters--mostly white (there are few Black and Latino voters too) working and middle class people, without who there is no United States of America, is not representative anymore (he never was, Stephen Miller, however is) of those people. I would start with American universities and colleges--which are primarily hot seats of both radical "leftism" or religious exceptionalism, depending on particular school--and this could be done. There is no other, namely relatively peaceful way, than evolution, but it has to be stated that American so called "conservatism" as it was framed by late Buckely and headless war hawks is not about neo-liberal economics, war-mongering and jingoism--it is, in the end, about nation and what's good for it. And it is to the credit of TAC that they close off with this:
The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question: what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime.
In related news, Trump is slowly learning (is he?) that global economy and geopolitics require a better set of skills than that of NYC real estate hustler.
Trump is really running US into the ground, but then again, having teenage (most likely Mossad asset) husband of his rather not too smart daughter as main advisers, or the cabal of aggressive neocon morons in national (in)security apparatus, is not conducive to required American transition to a normal country. Well...