The more readily a group tries to restrict some behaviours, the more it implicitly endorses behaviours it doesn’t attempt to restrict.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Frank Wilhoit (in a 2018 blog response)

A witticism that falls flat when it is pointed out that conservatives are the ones in favor of rule of law and universal constitutional law.

Leftists also support rule of law and universal constitutional law.

The distinction is is in the derivative: progressives ("leftist" is less well defined) support the expansion of universal constitution law (which, right or wrong, is a change to the existing law), whereas conservatives except in the case of compelling evidence default to making no changes. Hence, being "conservative" about making changes.

This reasoning implies the current President and his party are not conservative, which is an interesting conclusion.

Little is left of what (real) Conservatives were trying to conserve. Now they have to become radicals to shift things back.

Depends on what your "real' conservatives are keen on preserving. Taking the torch to things one professes to love - things like liberty, human decency and the core tenets of Christianity, that is the opposite of conserving these things.

People can delude themselves that defending their own narrow interpretation of what these concepts are supposed to mean is the noble end that justifies a lot. But in the end, it's very simple: what we are and what we bring into the world, is a result of what we do, and not of what we intend. Sowing hate and chaos is just that, and which radical end of the spectrum your justification comes from just does not matter very much.

If they're going backwards, and a conservative is someone who wants things to stay the same, then they are not conservatives.

Yes, that's correct. Why is that an interesting conclusion? Trump is a neo-nationalist (with or without the appended socialist, take your pick), not a conservative. It's notable that the only remaining resistance against Trump in the Republican Party (represented by, e.g. Nikki Haley) are a coalition of conservatives.

Nikki Haley strongly endorsed Trump at the RNC in 2024.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/16/politics/nikki-haley-trump-rn...

So we can agree that there is no remaining resistance to Trump in the Republican Party and that conservatives are indeed Trumpers.

Did we forget the vicious campaign she waged in the primaries?

Right right.

This feels laughable in the face of the the last few weeks in the US.

Trump is not a conservative… you are mistaking “conservative” for “republican.”

Unfortunately, whatever ideal you hold of conservative doesn't exist. Trumpism is conservatism's current expression in America and Trump is its thought leader. If conservatives were ok tying their cart to a populist demagogue, then they're going to have to go along for the authoritarian ride.

The Republican Party has been the conservative party in name only since at least Reagan, if not Nixon. I'm making a distinction about political schools of thought and ideologies, not current vernacular or American politics.

No true Scotsman, really?

Conservatism is a movement dating back to the French Revolution, arguably further back, didn't originate in America, and isn't defined by or limited to the Democratic Party / Republican Party divide. Trumpism is not conservatism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Language evolves. Saying that today’s conservatives are not true conservatives is the literal definition of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

It's like the distinction between "liberal" and "liberalism." The former being a dirty slur word in American politics, and the latter being an entire field of economic and political philosophy dating back to the enlightenment. The latter definition is still in use among the educated. So too, with "conservative," at least outside of your American news bubble.

I don’t view American news, but thanks for the condescension.

Arguing for an academic definition as somehow true and absolute, in contradiction to common usage, is a lost cause. Language prescriptivists always lose in the long run.

In the US, classical liberalism is largely despised by the same people who despise political liberalism. Funnily enough, those people are conservatives by either definition.

It’s unfortunate that academic conservatism keeps turning into real world populism (and certainly classical liberalism has seen that as well). But language evolves, and it’s n order to be able to communicate, terminology must as well.

It’s just a word. Words change. There’s no reason to defend an archaic meaning when it’s just going to cause confusion in almost every context.

Okay then, did the average conservative vote for him?

Conservatism barely exists in the US today.

I mean it’s sort of a no true Scotsmen thing, but I’ll say it anyway: Trump is not a conservative.

Yes, but conservatives are Trumpers.

Some are. Some aren't. Some are pragmatic about a choice with only two real options.

Strongest argument in favor of libertarianism that I have considered.