The Two "Far-Rights" (and why they oppose each other)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Fights within the conservative community over the last few weeks made me think about what is the ultimate conservative, and it occurred to me that there are actually two different groups that make a claim to being the "right-wing"- and that they will naturally oppose each other.

Right Wing #1- The Conservative Purists- Represented by (most of) the House Freedom Caucus (and some of the Republican Study Committee), the Heritage Foundation, Vice President Pence, and many religious groups: This group is most focused on the "culture wars", particularly as it relates to abortion.  But, they are very traditionally conservative on all issues and don't like President Trump's rhetoric on trade, but love his judicial appointments.  Abortion is probably the #1 issue that this right-wing is unwilling to compromise on, but they largely go with the traditional conservative orthodoxy and still view Reagan as their hero.  They voted for Cruz or Rubio in the primary and begrudgingly supported Trump in the general to stop Hillary and get SCOTUS appointments who might overturn Roe v. Wade and protect traditional values.  Despite the focus on social issues, they are also strong believers in the free market and low taxes, owing to the largely suburban and exurban nature of this type of conservatism.  They are mostly happy with Trump, but feel that he sometimes spends too much capital on issues that aren't as important, rather than saving it for the big fights.  Their dream president would be Jim DeMint or Matt Bevin.

Right Wing #2- The "America First" Crowd- Represented by Stephen Bannon, Ann Coulter, Breitbart, the "Alt-Light" (the not explicitly racist parts of the alt-right), and very popular on the internet: Unlike the other right-wing, these people do not see abortion and gay marriage/religious freedom as top concerns.  In fact, some of them silently or publicly support abortion for population control reasons.  They are more concerned with immigration and keeping the culture of America as they desire (a very different sort of culture war).  Additionally, they differ from the other right on foreign and  national security policy as well, being much more skeptical of surveillance (on American citizens) and much less pro-Israel.  They prefer a closed-borders "we control our own destiny and don't need to worry about other countries" approach and are both more libertarian and more authoritarian at the same time, compared to the other group and also don't care about Reagan.  They supported Trump from day one, but some wish that he was a bit more singularly focused so far.  As a whole, though, they are extremely happy with his presidency.  Their dream president would be Stephen Bannon.

The two places of pure overlap seem to be repealing Obamacare (though maybe there is some sort of difference in how to go about it) and opposing transgenderism, although it is possible that different concerns lead them both to the same position there.  They are not actively at each others' throats, as long as both the traditional so-cons and the nationalists pay lip-service to being pro-life/pro-border control.  But, they are fighting and will continue to fight with each other for control of the Republican Party (accusing each other of not being sufficiently conservative)- especially when it comes to which issues are prominent in the agenda.  But, when something happens like Tomi Lahren's comments a couple weeks ago, it brings this fight more to the forefront.

Thoughts?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think the differences between the two are vastly overstated. When push comes to shove, they'll always band together to screw over regular Americans.

[Del Tachi]

I think the differences between the two are vastly overstated. When push comes to shove, they'll always band together to screw over regular Americans.

[dead0man]

I find both wings totally distasteful and unacceptable.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

"opposimg transgenderism"

[Classic Conservative]

They are directly tied together, with each group having different issues that they prioritize.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think the two factions you've outlined can be further hair-split.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I think the two factions you've outlined can be further hair-split.

Can you elaborate on how you would split them?

[Vosem]

There's definitely a faction that's concerned first and foremost with markets (hardcore economic conservatives) that you've left out, which historically, especially since 1980 or so, have probably been the most influential "far-right" movement in the United States. The House Freedom Caucus is definitely not a collection of the most socially conservative members of Congress, nor does it concern itself chiefly with social issues.

It occurs to me that, based on your description (which I think is off the mark), I would agree with virtually nothing that the first group espouses, when in fact I am inclined to support them over the second.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

There's definitely a faction that's concerned first and foremost with markets (hardcore economic conservatives) that you've left out, which historically, especially since 1980 or so, have probably been the most influential "far-right" movement in the United States. The House Freedom Caucus is definitely not a collection of the most socially conservative members of Congress, nor does it concern itself chiefly with social issues.

It occurs to me that, based on your description (which I think is off the mark), I would agree with virtually nothing that the first group espouses, when in fact I am inclined to support them over the second.

I actually think that economic conservatism is highly correlated with the first group (I did note trade, for example).

[RaphaelDLG]

This isn't totally far off the map, I think the major difference though is that the first far-right group is much more concerned with slashing government, cutting spending, as their number one issue above all cultural issues (this group is also the one bankrolled heavily by the koch network, no surprise)...

...while the second group is obsessed with immigration and nationalist issues like trade above all else, not cuts.  Also, Trump aside, there aren't very many elected officials from the second group, probably because there isn't as much money behind the second set of causes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

There's definitely a faction that's concerned first and foremost with markets (hardcore economic conservatives) that you've left out, which historically, especially since 1980 or so, have probably been the most influential "far-right" movement in the United States. The House Freedom Caucus is definitely not a collection of the most socially conservative members of Congress, nor does it concern itself chiefly with social issues.

It occurs to me that, based on your description (which I think is off the mark), I would agree with virtually nothing that the first group espouses, when in fact I am inclined to support them over the second.

I actually think that economic conservatism is highly correlated with the first group (I did note trade, for example).

     Yeah, but the true economic right is motivated by very different factors than the Religious Right. These groups are reconciled to a degree that they are not with the nationalist right, but they are not the same thing.

[Mr. Morden]

Also, Trump aside, there aren't very many elected officials from the second group, probably because there isn't as much money behind the second set of causes.

I think much of that is that is simply a consequence of the demographics of people who tend to go into politics.  "Conventional" Republican orthodoxy of the "Type 1" variety described in the OP is held by a group of people who tend to have higher incomes and higher education levels.  "Trump-ism" is more popular among those who are lower on the socioeconomic ladder.  Hence, "Type 1" is more common among the class of people who actually run for office.

So yeah, there "isn't as much money" in the second group, but that's not just the money of donors, but also the money of the politicians themselves.

[Mr. Morden]

Peter Beinart has written some great pieces in the past year and a half or so on the split between traditional Republican orthodoxy and “Trump-ism”.  His latest one is probably the best, and it’s about how white rural voters have become more secular over the last few decades, but that rather than this causing the culture wars to diminish, they’re now simply fought over different issues:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But Beinart has some other good pieces on Trump-ism and “American exceptionalism”, and how Trump’s Jacksonian wing of the GOP has a much dimmer view of the Muslim world than the “neocon” foreign policy wing, and how that connects Trump’s views on foreign policy to his views on immigration, etc.:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/donald-trumps-formula-for-success-in-foreign-policy/417456/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/do-republicans-still-think-america-is-exceptional/492356/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/how-trump-wants-to-make-america-exceptional-again/515406/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/for-trump-we-have-a-lot-of-killers-isnt-a-criticism/515748/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Person Man]

They call each other "low energy" and "Hitler" during the primaries...but come August and especially by February, Pepe the Frog and Stan Smith are in the same boat.

[SNJ1985]

I'm in the middle of the two camps. I am a conservative Christian who largely shares the ''America First'' camp's views on immigration, trade, and foreign policy.

[Classic Conservative]

I'm in the middle of the two camps. I am a conservative Christian who largely shares the ''America First'' camp's views on immigration, trade, and foreign policy.

[RFayette]

I'm in the middle of the two camps. I am a conservative Christian who largely shares the ''America First'' camp's views on immigration, trade, and foreign policy.

[heatcharger]

I think the differences between the two are vastly overstated. When push comes to shove, they'll always band together to screw over regular Americans.

[Person Man]

I think the differences between the two are vastly overstated. When push comes to shove, they'll always band together to screw over regular Americans.

I am beginning to think that the war between the Alt-Right and Neocons was at least put on ceasefire with Trump's raid unless it turns out that it was just Trump trying to do PUA stuff on the public.

There was always confusion about how much of each group is not in "the base", or voters that are both anti-abortion, anti-dictator, anti-tax Neocons and anti-immigrant, anti-trade and, anti-Muslim Alt-Rights. It appears that 90% of those who vote Republican are at least 5 of things and 75-80% of the 46% who voted for Trump are all of those things. Thats 34-42% of the electorate and I would say 45-47% will never vote D.

[tik 🪀✨]

i think that even though they both oppose transgenderism that they do so in different important ways

for instance one is more interested in practicalities (do you use toilet paper every time you pee or only sometimes and how can we psychically regulate this in order to prevent Islam) while the other is interested mainly in aesthetics (what if I'm not gay but I'm unwittingly attracted to someone with a fancier crotch than mine, which my mother has repeatedly assured me is very fancy indeed? am I an affront to god in a way I'm ashamed to admit to while even cloaked in online anonymity?)

discuss with dick pics

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i think that even though they both oppose transgenderism that they do so in different important ways

for instance one is more interested in practicalities (do you use toilet paper every time you pee or only sometimes and how can we psychically regulate this in order to prevent Islam) while the other is interested mainly in aesthetics (what if I'm not gay but I'm unwittingly attracted to someone with a fancier crotch than mine, which my mother has repeatedly assured me is very fancy indeed? am I an affront to god in a way I'm ashamed to admit to while even cloaked in online anonymity?)

discuss with dick pics

[TJ in Oregon]

Neither is the true conservatism.

Both accept the classical liberalism of the American Revolution, Locke, Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc. as foundational principles. Both stress autonomy and the self beyond that which the traditional conservatism of the West would. Both hide behind freedom as I-do-what-I-want to shirk the question of what is good.

In some ways the Trumpish variety is closer because it stresses community over the self to a greater degree. In other ways the standard Republicanism is closer because it, or at least parts of it, attempts to make some argument about what good is. But neither is really conservative.

[Goldwater]

In some ways the Trumpish variety is closer because it stresses community over the self to a greater degree. In other ways the standard Republicanism is closer because it, or at least parts of it, attempts to make some argument about what good is. But neither is really conservative.

Even if it isn't necessarily more conservative, I would argue that the Trumpist/nationalist variety is far more illiberal. 

[Kingpoleon]

I think the differences between the two are vastly overstated. When push comes to shove, they'll always band together to screw over regular Americans.

Yeah, this. The Christofascist and Strasserite wings of the GOP are firmly united when it all comes down to it.

Strasserites were basically Stalinists whom Hitler eventually killed off.