Anti-Conservatism

The prejudice that I perceive

I am going to suggest that anti-conservatism is like antisemitism, only worse.

This is one of those posts that is going to generate a lot of unsubscribes. Let me say at the outset that I disapprove of what I have called the revanchist (revenge-seeking) element of the right. The Trump Administration is steeped in revanchism. And I see Mr. Trump as displaying the characteristics of the Dark Triad. Threatening ABC over Jimmy Kimmel was harmful for conservatism (and helpful for Kimmel). Firing the BLS statistics commissioner was indefensible.

Conservatives are supposed to stand for order. Not chaos.

Interestingly, Mr. Trump is such a polarizing figure that while his supporters accuse me of Trump Derangement Syndrome, his opponents think I am his lackey.

Noticing anti-conservatism

Thinking along the lines that I will articulate here, The new neo writes,

we’ve seen cries of “racist,” “transphobe,” “hater,” “Nazi,” and “Fascist” increasingly weaponized against the right in general and Kirk in particular, both before and after his killing. This is the way that groups are dehumanized in order to prepare a population for their destruction, and to cheer it on.

Charlie Kirk and Chabad

I am one of those people who knew nothing about Charlie Kirk when he lived. Reading what conservatives say about him now, I am reminded of the way that many Jews feel about Chabad. Chabad is a Hasidic sect, Lubavitch, that is unusual in the way that it reaches out to and welcomes non-Orthodox Jews. I think of Chabad members as upbeat, enthusiastic, and having youthful vitality. But its brand of Judaism is too traditional and “hard core” for most of us.

Interestingly, the Lubavitch rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, reportedly said,

If you see what needs to be repaired and how to repair it, then you have found a piece of the world that God has left for you to complete. But if you only see what is wrong and what is ugly in the world, then it is you yourself that needs repair.

I read the second sentence as a powerful rebuke to both the extreme left and the extreme right.

10/07/23 and 9/10/25

For Jews who are Zionists (and many Jews are not), the worst thing about the Hamas attack was what happened afterward. Immediately, we were confronted by ardent supporters of the attack.

Similarly, although the assassination of Charlie Kirk was traumatic, it was the aftermath that was truly frightening. Too many people, including some politicians (and Jimmy Kimmel), proceeded to justify the killing or try to blame it on the extreme right.

Anti-conservatism and Antisemitism

How to define anti-conservatism? I want to compare it to antisemitism, which is notoriously difficult to define. Let me try these definitions:

Antisemitism (AS): the belief that Jews cause such harm that society would be better off if they did not exist.

Anti-conservatism (AC): the belief that conservatives cause such harm that society would be better off if they did not exist.

Defined in this way, AS seems really extreme and relatively rare these days. Perhaps if we limit the context to Jews in the Middle East, we would find many people (“from the river to the sea”) who are AS. I think only a few nut cases have that view of Jews in general.

To put this another way, a lot of prejudice against Jews stops short of AS. There are people whose negative views of Jews would by some definitions make them antisemitic (these days, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens come to mind), and yet they do not go so far as to claim that society would be better off if Jews did not exist.

But among my friends and acquaintances on the left, AC is quite normal. Not universal—there are liberals I know who appreciate what conservatives have to offer society. But the belief that conservatives do not have anything useful to offer is widespread.

In short, anti-conservatism is worse than antisemitism. It is both harsher and more prevalent.

Surveys show that conservatives on college campuses are reluctant to speak up. And this is rational, because other surveys show that progressives are unwilling to have conservatives as friends. Such is the level of AC.

What about anti-liberalism or anti-progressivism? What about symmetry?

If there is symmetry, I do not see it. Conservatives do see progressives as causing harm when they have power in institutions, such as universities or media. But we do not have the sort of fear and loathing of the existence of liberals the way that liberals fear and loathe what Hillary Clinton once called “the basket of deplorables.” You can advocate for a progressive policy in the company of conservatives without fear of being regarded as sub-human.

The way that other people put this is that conservatives think that their opponents are wrong, but not evil. Many on the left think that their opponents are evil.

Typically, no one is punished for being openly AC. Nobody left of center ever said, “It was uncivil of Krugman to impugn the motives of Milton Friedman. It was completely out of bounds.”¹

And AC’s can still get away with outrageous statements. Nate Silver writes,

As Gabe Fleisher pointed out, Heather Cox Richardson, the author of the #1 U.S. politics newsletter Letters from an American, wrote this weekend that Robinson “appears to have embraced the far right, disliking Kirk for being insufficiently radical.” Richardson presented no evidence for this; it’s wishful thinking at best. But really, it's just a falsehood; like Fleisher, I’ll be polite and not use the term “lie” just because I don’t know what’s in Richardson’s head.

As of Silver’s writing, Richardson had not taken back her accusation. And she remains a professor in good standing at Boston College. She still has over 2-1/2 million subscribers.

Kimmel was briefly taken off the air for following Kirk’s assassination with character assassination. I think that Kimmel should be free to speak his mind, although he violated norms of decency². But you know the list of conservatives who were fired or not allowed to speak on campus. And that was for things like complaining about an ideological echo chamber or criticizing Islamic fundamentalism.

Again, I want to make it clear that I oppose revanchist conservatism. I believe that different points of view have merit. But anti-conservatism is not a policy position. It is a prejudice.

People on the left should ask themselves if they genuinely believe that conservatives cause such harm that society would be better off without them. If that is what you believe, then I do not know what to do for you.

On the other hand, suppose you believe that conservatives sometimes have good ideas and play a constructive role. Then I think you should speak up and try to tamp down anti-conservatism.

substacks referenced above:

@

The political mood feels like 9/11 again

1. Libertarian Walter Block complained about one of Krugman’s essays,

Here is another gem: “… it’s hard to avoid the sense that Friedman viewed his professional research, excellent though some of it was, as a sort of loss leader for his political advocacy — a way to establish his academic bona fides and hence add credibility to his free-market crusade.” It’s hard? Try harder. This is the sort of motive-mongering that Friedman opposed all throughout his career. Krugman offers not a shred of evidence in support of this wild-eyed contention.

Motive-mongering. That describes Krugman’s approach to talking about conservatives.

2. In my view, the Trump Administration was wrong both morally and tactically to go after Mr. Kimmel. I am not a communications lawyer, or a lawyer of any kind. I have no idea about the legal implications relative to ABC’s broadcasting license. My guess is that the laws governing TV licenses are anachronistic. In fact, the whole idea of granting spectrum to TV stations is out of date. But that is another story.