Many American conservatives, arguably the bulk of the mainstream conservative party, have elevated globalism above national independence by embracing libertarian ideas about the role of national governments with respect to international commerce. At one time, conservatives favored reducing unnecessary burdens on international trade, such as tariffs, as a means to the end of greater national prosperity. Today, they quite often deny the very legitimacy of the national government exercising its sovereign powers to manage or limit trade to maximize national prosperity. This represents a fundamental change in thinking with tremendous implications in light of the continued growth of international corporations.
American conservatives are not a monolithic bloc. The initial post-New Deal conservative movement was made by welding together three different groups: traditionalists (social conservatives), libertarians, and anti-communists (national security hawks). This was done mostly in the pages of The National Review, and the ideological bricolage was performed not by Buckley but by another editor, Frank S. Meyer. Check out the book: Kevin J. Smant, Principles and Heresies: Frank S. Meyer and the Shaping of the American Conservative Movement (2002).
Today, business conservatives are differentiable from national security hawks who are differentiable from the Christian right who are in turn differentiable from the Tea Party. National security hawks concerned about China don't always win over business conservatives, and vice versa. But it's a mistake to think of "American conservatives" as a group lacking in internal political diversity.
I didn't say conservatives were a monolithic bloc, which is why I started my post with: "Many American conservatives..." That said, your description suggests brighter lines than exist in practice. I'd say the mainstream of American conservatives are both pro-business but also very concerned with maintaining American power, prosperity, influence, and culture. Heck, a lot of those people are quite religious, too. And that amalgam certainly defines the rhetoric of conservatives in the mainstream, especially as you drill down from national to state-level. The question for those people is: what happens when the interests of trans-national corporations are not aligned with the interests of maintaining American power, prosperity, influence, and culture? Historically, they haven't had to grapple with this question, because within the theory of their worldview, what was good for say IBM was good for America. A bigger, stronger IBM only meant more jobs for Americans and more returns for American shareholders. Trans-national corporations overturn these established assumptions.
No they don't, they simply don't believe it's useful in this particular case. American conservatives are happy to support tariffs when it protects their constituents - mostly agricultural and other assorted small business interests.
I really do wish they took the humanist view you describe rather than the tribalist one you promote, but they don't.
Those are the exception, rather than the rule (as a result of the peculiar political power of farming interests, not just in the U.S. but everyone where in the world). Conservatives have embraced business practices that lead to de-industrialization and outsourcing. This has been the result of confusing the means with the ends. Historically, pro-business policies have been a means to the end of greater internal prosperity. But as businesses cross national boundaries, those means are no longer consistent with the stated ends. Policies that favor transnational corporations, even if they might lead to more prosperity at the global level, aren't necessarily those that will maximize prosperity within America.
What world are you living in? There has been no deindustrialization - the US manufactures more than it ever did in the past.
The primary opponents of free trade in labor are conservatives (the laborers likely to be imported are likely to vote against them). Republicans don't generally favor protectionism for industries full of unionized Democrats who vote and mobilize against them. That's not the same thing as opposing protectionism.
Bush was a protectionist, as was Romney, according to both their supporters and detractors.
Today, they quite often deny the very legitimacy of the national government exercising its sovereign powers to manage or limit trade to maximize national prosperity. This represents a fundamental change in thinking with tremendous implications in light of the continued growth of international corporations.
And that's a good thing. We don't need governments mucking about, artificially distorting markets with their heavy-handed intervention. Look at where that's gotten us in the past.
National independence? Who cares, "nations" are an outdated idea anyway. I don't want "national prosperity", I want "everybody prosperity" with no regards for where in the world you live and work.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a distinctly radical rather than conservative one. And that was the point of my post: to point out the inconsistency in purporting to believe in national independence while embracing radical libertarian and globalist ideas about international markets. Conservatives don't purport to believe that "nations are outdated" and that "everybody prosperity" is more important than "American prosperity."
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a distinctly radical rather than conservative one.
Yeah, I have no use for conservatives personally.
And that was the point of my post: to point out the inconsistency in purporting to believe in national independence while embracing radical libertarian and globalist ideas about international markets.
Fair enough. I thought you were saying something else.
