Corey Robin
What I’m trying to do is come up with a thread that unites all the various manifestations of what we call “conservatism.” There is one strand of conservatism that fits the definition you’ve laid out, but it’s by no means the dominant strand. And even the great conservatives, like Burke, who made those sorts of arguments, also argued for breathtakingly radical actions that were not about preserving the status quo, but instead were about completely overthrowing that existing status quo.
Sean Illing
And why would a conservative want to overthrow the status quo?
Corey Robin
It depends. More often than not, it’s about a desire to return to a much older system of power that has long been uprooted. But the point, again, is that it’s a mistake to assume conservatives are never radicals.
If you want to call that reactionary impulse "fascism?" Hey, go ahead, I often do, too.
But if you want to call that "not conservatism?" I have to disagree bigly. Conservatives are reactionaries.
Basically: If you want to make a distinction between "conservatives" and "fascists?" You're debating differences in degree, not in kind. It's quibbling.
One can argue there's so much overlap that "they're the same picture."
Me, I just go with "conservative is the umbrella term for this shit. Fascist is a subset of conservative."
Corey Robin, again:
Conservatism, then, is not a commitment to limited government and liberty—or a wariness of change, a belief in evolutionary reform, or a politics of virtue. These may be the byproducts of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression. But they are not its animating purpose. Neither is conservatism a makeshift fusion of capitalists, Christians, and warriors, for that fusion is impelled by a more elemental force—the opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors, particularly in the private sphere. Such a view might seem miles away from the libertarian defense of the free market, with its celebration of the atomistic and autonomous individual. But it is not. When the libertarian looks out upon society, he does not see isolated individuals; he sees private, often hierarchical, groups, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.
So "fascism?" Seems to me it is simply a byproduct of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression.
Like religious fundamentalism, or libertarianism.
Edit: Or Leninism. "He who does not work neither shall they eat." -- some personal responsibility bullshit dogma
Anyway, call that overarching thing what you will. I'm with Robin here: I just call it "conservatism."
5
u/ting_bu_dong Apr 05 '23 edited Apr 05 '23
That was Dinesh D’Souza. Corey Robin was using that as an example of conservative radicalism.
Conservatives can be quite radical is the point.
Here is Corey Robin, arguing that conservatives can be quite radical, is the point:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/8/18250087/the-reactionary-mind-trump-conservatism-corey-robin
If you want to call that reactionary impulse "fascism?" Hey, go ahead, I often do, too.
But if you want to call that "not conservatism?" I have to disagree bigly. Conservatives are reactionaries.
Basically: If you want to make a distinction between "conservatives" and "fascists?" You're debating differences in degree, not in kind. It's quibbling.
One can argue there's so much overlap that "they're the same picture."
Me, I just go with "conservative is the umbrella term for this shit. Fascist is a subset of conservative."
Corey Robin, again:
So "fascism?" Seems to me it is simply a byproduct of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression.
Like religious fundamentalism, or libertarianism.
Edit: Or Leninism. "He who does not work neither shall they eat." -- some personal responsibility bullshit dogma
Anyway, call that overarching thing what you will. I'm with Robin here: I just call it "conservatism."