How much overlap is there between the Pro-Putin types and American Conservatism? I’m sure it’s a mix, but what are the main differences and similarities?
Quite a bit. Russia, as I understand it, is also more socially conservative than America (as is most Eastern European nations.) More anti-LGBT, anti-feminism, etc.
Putin wants to “make Russia great again” - pretty much what Trumpers want. IIRC, he once bemoaned the fall of the Soviet bloc as one of the biggest calamities in history. He’d love to have a military as strong or better than America’s, it’s just that he can’t.
Pretty much so. Both seem to be about supporting the oligarchy at the expense of the common people, restricting individual rights and freedoms, and gaslighting their supporters into thinking that they are actually the party of the people.
The bag is so mixed that it’s almost impossible to give a clear answer.
American Conservatism is chiefly focused on individual rights, rule of law, small government, and personal freedom. Russia wants nothing to do with any of that noise. They do match up with certain traditional beliefs that are common amongst American Conservatives, but the expression of those beliefs and solutions to problems that those with those beliefs believe plague society are totally different.
So, things like healthcare are interesting because the Russian system is both better and waaaay worse than the US System. It’s state funded, which is anti-conservative, but completely corrupt and poorly regulated, which is in line with what conservatives want (whether they are willing to admit that it necessarily follows the incentive structure they advocate or not).
And socially, they’re all about traditional values American conservatives could get behind. There’s a constitutional ban on gay marriage, for instance. Russian Orthodoxy is the state religion.
But they’re overtly authoritarian, big government, and oligarchical. You pilloried in the US for a disagreeable political statement. You get defenestrated like so or so in Russia. While Conservatives (which excludes radical Reactionaries) are often extremely hypocritical about pilloring when it comes to their opposition, they aren’t generally down with straight up murdering people for speaking up. Free speech is a core value of theirs. Government has a hand in everything and is neither small nor beholden to the rule of law. You can’t realistically start a business without the blessing of your local oligarchs and/or the state. You are free, but only so long as you are inconsequential - the blade of grass that stands too tall will be cut off at the head.
To say that “American Conservatism” is about rule of law is more than a little bit… something.
Putin and Trumpism are all about scapegoating, lining their pockets and appealing to some idealized glorious past. (in the DSM of politics they both score pretty high on the fascism spectrum)
The main difference is competence.
“American Conservatism” is a rarely-practiced ideal. “Trumpism”, which a disturbingly large percentage of American conservatives currently follow, is all about control and denial of individual rights and personal freedoms (for anyone outside their tribe and especially women and minorities), big government (except with regard to regulation of business) and a two-tiered “rule of law” that involves a light-touch approach (to the point of no accountability whatsoever) for in-group members and heavy-handed approach (to the point of violent authoritarianism) for out-group members.
In this, it bears a very strong resemblance to Putin’s Russia.
Based on what they actually do, I’d say that, yes, making Russia great again is exactly what Trump and his followers want.
The “People’s Democratic Republic” of North Korea is not generally governed for the people, as a democracy or as a republic. The National “Socialist” Party of Germany was nationalistic, but had no attributes of socialism (and adopted a philosophy that specifically and overtly despised the idea of socialism). The “War on Terror” attacked countries with no links whatsoever to terrorism. The name of things and what people call themselves has almost nothing to do with the definition of things and what things actually are.
It’s critically important to never confuse the two. The question was about American Conservatism - not “American right wing politics” or “the Republican Party.” American Conservatism is a very well defined, well established philosophy. Trump and his cronies call themselves conservatives but adopt none of the traits of conservatism.
Wait, American Conservatism <> GOP??
I’m not playing this game.
American Conservatism is defined as how conservatism is practiced in America. Just as North Korean Democracy would be how democracy is practiced in North Korea.
Conservatism may have an established philosophy, but American Conservatives adopt none of the traits of conservatism.
American Conservatives may claim to have some sort of philosophy or ideals, but they have not practiced those in over 40 years.
If what your claim is is that American Conservatism is some sort of ideal philosophy that doesn’t actually exist in the real world, then that’s an entirely useless definition for any discussion.
No, they are not conservative.
Political parties change ideologies over time. This is a surprise to you? The Democratic Party advocated for slavery back in the day. Are you going to assume that AOC is pro slavery now?
American Conservatives are now “RINOs” within the Republican Party. John McCain is repudiated; the Bush family are considered pariahs; former Governor Schwarzenegger, former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and a slew of other well established conservatives are now considered hated fringes of the party. The Republican Party is not conservative now, they’re textbook cases of Reactionaries.
The word has been hijacked by obvious reactionaries, but that always happens in political discourse. The actual definition does not change, people are simply using the name as a political expedience (in exactly the same way that Hitler, who had abandoned and despised socialism, named his party National Socialist so that it would be attractive to those who called themselves socialists).
Every political philosophy ever to exist - every one of them being, you know, a philosophy - is by definition an ideal, and by definition “does not exist in reality.” There is no “Socialist” particle, nor does any individual who proports to be a Socialist do anything more than loosely fit a definition at best. Philosophies of all sorts exist only by definition.
A philosophy gets defined and then things are measured against those definitions. This should not be a hard concept.
The definition of American Conservatism has been steadfast for more than half a century (I’d go so far as to say a full century and more). That Trump and his Reactionaries have co-opted the Republican party does not magically change the definition of American Conservatism, and to argue that it does is absurd to the point of being offensive.
“Trump and his Reactionaries” are not the avatars of a new phenomenon; they’re the apotheosis of a strain of the America right-wing that’s been in the ascendency since at least the Reagan years, if not from the Nixon administration onward. Republicans have continued to repeat the narratives of “American Conservativism” (as you have defined it) but they certainly haven’t practiced it in the last half century in any meaningful way.
No true Scotsman.
Your idea of conservatism do not match observations of real conservatives in the wild.
I’m not interested in debating a political movement that exists only in your head.
You clearly have no idea how this fallacy works. I’m not redefining “American Conservatism” post hoc, as would be a necessary condition for this fallacy to be in play. Nice try, but you fail pretty hard here.
You are redefining “conservative” and trying to press that redefinition onto others. That doesn’t work. Republicans (now and recently) aren’t a conservative party. But most Conservatives are Republicans (the Democratic party isn’t a socialist party, but most socialists are Democrats).
This should be obvious.
The Bush Family, Reagan, Schwarzenegger, the McCains and Mitt Romney only exist in my head, huh. All of whom are considered “not part of” the Republican Party.
Those will be the Bushes and Reagan that oversaw great expansions in government, significant reductions in individual liberties, and a large number of investigations and indictments for members of their administrations? I refer you to my description of what Republicans are as opposed to the narratives they promote.
Let me work it out for you:
you: A Scotsman respects the rule of law.
me: What about Trump?
you: He is no True Scotsman.
He is the leader of what is commonly known as the Conservative Party, He is the epitome of Scotsmen. This is exactly how this fallacy works.
Dude, this is just plain wrong. Even 10 seconds on wikipedia shows how insanely wrong you are:
In the United States there has never been a national political party called the Conservative Party.[77] Since 1962, there has been a small Conservative Party of New York State. During Reconstruction in several states in the South in the late 1860s, the former Whigs formed a Conservative Party. They soon merged into the state Democratic parties.[78]
You can’t seem to grasp that most conservatives being in the Republican party (like most socialists being in the Democratic party) doesn’t make the (current) Republican party a conservative one (like the Democratic party is not a Socialist one).
We have a silly electoral system that forces a wide range of political ideologies into one of two parties. Trump is the undisputed leader of the Republican Party. But that does not make him a conservative, as he does not match the definition of conservatism that has existed for over one hundred years.
Branding and ideology are different things. Trump has seized the branding of American Conservatism but does not in any way shape or form even pay lip service to it through any of his policies or professed beliefs.
Words either have meaning or they do not.
Since you have chosen to bring up Hitler in your comparison to American Conservatism, I would agree that both of them have defined what the words that they use mean. National Socialists is defined as the party of Hitler and the Nazis, just as American Conservatism is defined by the practices of Conservatives in America, and so name it so that it would be attractive to those who call themselves conservatives.
It’s not a hard concept at all. Why don’t you define, specifically, what you think that the ideal philosophy of American Conservatism stands for? Then we can see how it measures up.
I would agree that Modern American Conservatism has been pretty steadfast for about a half a century, as defined by Nixon and those who support him.
I wouldn’t say that Trump and his Reactionaries have co-opted anything, American Conservatism is exactly the breeding ground for populous demagogues like himself. He simply followed the path that had been laid out by the American Conservatives that had paved the way for him.
Ah, and there’s the American Conservatism persecution complex, also something that has been steadfast for more than half a century.
I’ll agree with your cite though, as it says in your linky there:
Opposing progress is certainly one thing that American Conservatism has been consistent on.
Also, in your link, I find it amusing that " the 1924 election marked the “high tide of American conservatism,” which is what set the stage for the conditions causing the Great Depression.
So yes, American Conservatism has always been about opposing progress, about being short sighted and supporting the oligarchy at the expense of the common people, and restricting individual rights and freedoms. You are correct that that is the ideal and the philosophy that has been around for, as you argue, a century or more, and that this is not a recent change or innovation in the philosophy.
It is interesting that your cite doesn’t address in the least the actual claim that you are attempting to refute, in that he is indeed the leader of what is commonly known as the Conservative Party.
That that is not the official name of the Republican party does not address, much less refute what you attempted to respond to.
If you’re hung up on the semantics of “Conservative Party”, try the “party of conservatives”, which is what the GOP most decidedly are.