Is the conservative movement collapsing?

[Beet]

It took roughly 16 years for small government conservatism to take over the Republican party, from 1964 to 1980. Now after 36 years of nominal control, is it all crashing down after one season? Are the fruits of slouching from the heights of William F. Buckley to the lows of Glenn Beck finally hitting critical mass? Is the American right finally shedding its last coat of intellectual obfuscation and embracing its identity politics-based id?

Just look at the line up of big names the National Review lined up against Trump. They have not had anything truly meaningful to say in a long time. They have lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 national elections, and the one they did win largely due to the rally-around effect in the wake of terrorism. Now they may lose their own party. It's the screeching of a movement in fear of the floor falling out from beneath them.

[Mike Thick]

It's a possibility. I don't know what us conservatives will do if the party completely reshapes itself in the mold of Trump.

[This account no longer in use.]

Of course not. No matter what the issues of the time are, there will always be liberals and conservatives.

[RaphaelDLG]

Probably, but let's wait until democrats stop getting murdered in state houses and congressional districts before coming to any conclusions

[RaphaelDLG]

Of course not. No matter what the issues of the time are, there will always be liberals and conservatives.

True but I think the OP means neoliberalism, which has been the dominant economic policy in America for 30 years due to the work of movement cons

[Beet]

Probably, but let's wait until democrats stop getting murdered in state houses and congressional districts before coming to any conclusions

True, but the Democrats dominated those positions in the 1970s and 1980s, when liberalism was collapsing. A lot of it is just gerrymandering and geographical favoritism (e.g., more widely spread voters).

[Mehmentum]

Probably, but let's wait until democrats stop getting murdered in state houses and congressional districts before coming to any conclusions

The Republican Party doesn't equal conservatism.  Embracing Donald Trump may mean the death of conservatism as we know it even if he wins.

[Virginiá]

True, but the Democrats dominated those positions in the 1970s and 1980s, when liberalism was collapsing. A lot of it is just gerrymandering and geographical favoritism (e.g., more widely spread voters).

Well it is interesting because if you subscribe to political trends based on generational replacement and the views of that generation, the Republican party is about to hit a wall of losses across the board in the coming decade or two as a natural result of losing the youth vote by large margins year after year (and what appears to be another cycle of large, expected 60%+ democratic youth/Millennial vote). I think it's by 2020 that the Millennial generation is supposed to comprise 40% - 45% of the actual voter electorate, and this generation has been voting Democratic in large majorities for a long time now.

So as for as the party, they are likely to be on the decline under its current platform (just like what eventually happened to New Deal Democrats) As for the ideas itself - Millennials are out of step with the older generations on a lot things, as polls have been showing for a long time now.

So I think it's more accurate to say that the movement is running out of voters.

[bagelman]

Some possible signs are here but it's too early to tell. Maybe it's about to collapse.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The problem is there's been absolutely no unified idea of what the Conservative movement in America even is since Bush left office. Absolutely none. The Republicans have been a completely disorganized mess ever since then and have been united by nothing more than hating the Democrats, but when it comes to policy, beyond "repeal ____" they can't agree on any policy agenda. The Conservative movement such as we knew it collapsed years ago and the last several years have just been different factions warring over the wreckage.

What makes all of this sad is that they somehow win elections as opposed to being relegated to the electoral wilderness for a decade to regroup and rebrand as would happen in basically any other democracy. So we get to see these people eat their own while simultaneously trying, and failing, to govern. There's a reason this and the previous GOP primaries have been such clusters. It's really only due to the Democratic Party's incompetence they've retained as much relevance as they have.

It's kind of a depressing picture of American politics, honestly. One side doesn't know what in the world they're doing, and the other side does know what they want to do, but bumbles around doing so at almost every opportunity.

[SillyAmerican]

The problem is there's been absolutely no unified idea of what the Conservative movement in America even is since Bush left office. Absolutely none.

Not sure about this; at the ABC News debate, Marco Rubio supplied a pretty clear definition of conservatism (https://marcorubio.com/news/marco-rubio-defines-conservatism/):

1. Conservatism is about limited government, especially at the federal level. If it’s not in the Constitution, it doesn’t belong in the federal government.

2. Conservatism is about free enterprise. It’s the only economic model that can make poor people richer without making rich people poorer.

3. Conservatism is about a strong national defense. The world is safest when America is the strongest nation in the world.

I didn't hear anyone disagree with him.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Well It's not growing.

[Torie]

Autopsying the "conservative movement" is not really worth my time. I have enough to do thinking about how to approach the real public policy choices out there. And I don't give a damn what label somebody wants to put on it. The movement has a problem because most voters, and rightly so, understand that there needs to be a social safety net. So, given that, where are we? Where are they? One aspect of traditional conservatism, the doctrine of subsidiarity, that the government that is closest to the people, is the best, states' rights, and all of that, I decided was intellectually bankrupt and of no use in governance, back in college, which was a few years ago.

[komodozer]

No.

"Small government" has absolutely nothing to do with the conservative movement, or why people have voted Republican for the past 50 years.

[pbrower2a]

Suggestions for the next conservative movement:

Stop crony capitalism.

Promote savings, thrift, and self-reliance.

Have a tax system that promotes small business instead of vertically-integrated giants.

Scale back defense spending.

Push traditional liberal-arts education for its own sake.

[wolfsblood07]

The conservative movement has fractured.  We have Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump in one faction.  We have the libertarians.  We have the John McCain deficit hawks and neocons. And we have the traditional big business faction, the paleocons, the evangelicals.  We need to bring these factions back together like Nixon and Reagan did.
The movement fractured when Bush 41 embraced the New World Order and all hell broke loose with Saddam Hussein.  That was when Pat Buchanan started the revolt.

[RaphaelDLG]

No.

"Small government" has absolutely nothing to do with the conservative movement, or why people have voted Republican for the past 50 years.

I mean you're right that Republicans would not have won without racism, religious wedge issues, and militaristic fearmongering, but there ARE millions of people, many of which that I know personally and in fact I actually used to be, that believe/are convinced that government is inherently inefficient and should therefore be small. 

That number is not inconsequential and is the result of remarkable evangelization by intellectuals like Friedman, Reagan, etc.

[wolfsblood07]

No.

"Small government" has absolutely nothing to do with the conservative movement, or why people have voted Republican for the past 50 years.

I mean you're right that Republicans would not have won without racism, religious wedge issues, and militaristic fearmongering, but there ARE millions of people, many of which that I know personally and in fact I actually used to be, that believe/are convinced that government is inherently inefficient and should therefore be small. 

That number is not inconsequential and is the result of remarkable evangelization by intellectuals like Friedman, Reagan, etc.

But doesn't it make sense that less government = more freedom and more incentive to achieve?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It really depends on the next few years.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Conservatism is a gut feeling. It's a culture. It's a way of being. Policy and specifics don't matter.

And that is why conservatism will never die or collapse. It hasn't been about anything substantive for quite a while. Trumps knows this and has been exploiting and exposing it for the last half a year.

[Asian Nazi]

Conservatism by definition can never die.  Every human society to ever exist has had its conservatives. Man, this forum is full of idiots lol

[hopper]

Is Conservatism dieing? Maybe. I have seen in Gallup Polls that Moderates are gaining ground in the Republican Party and the Republican Party is losing its Conservative ID'ers if you will. Social Moderates are gaining ground in the Party while Social Conservatives are losing ground according to Gallup in a survey I saw last year.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Every human society to ever exist has had its conservatives.

Uh not really. Conservatism didn't exist until the French Revolution.

[Asian Nazi]

Uh not really. Conservatism didn't exist until the French Revolution.

Uh yes really.  There have always been people who have sought to preserve the status quo.  Just because some fancy European didn't give it a name until the 18th century doesn't mean it hasn't been a thing.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Uh not really. Conservatism didn't exist until the French Revolution.

Uh yes really.  There have always been people who have sought to preserve the status quo.  Just because some fancy European didn't give it a name until the 18th century doesn't mean it hasn't been a thing.

"Preserving the status quo" is not conservatism. Reagan and Thatcher effected fundamental transformations of their societies.

Regardless, the point "there have always been temperamentally conservative individuals" is irrelevant to the question "is the conservative movement collapsing?".