Connect with us

Everything

Frathouse Conservatism Sucks

Published

on

I’m going to do a lot of offending in this column so viewer discretion advised if you are a snowflake on the left or right. The problem in the Conservative movement that needs addressing is the number of young Conservatives rising to prominence who lack any real depth or articulate principles. I dub thee “Frathouse Conservatism” because the problem largely stems from campus organizations. I am 22, so this isn’t some Gen Xer ranting about Millenials and Gen Z. In fact, I do not boast about how much better I am. Rather I point out the cause of the problem and point to the solution.

Rejection of Worldview

Western civilization is founded on the intersection of Athens and Jerusalem. The founding father’s took ideas of John Locke. Read this excerpt from the Second Treastie Chapter 2:

that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends;
and, on the other side, ill-nature, passion, and revenge will carry them
too far in punishing others, and hence nothing but confusion and disorder
will follow, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government
to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant that
civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the
state of Nature, which must certainly be great where men may be judges
in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined that he who was so
unjust as to do his brother an injury will scarce be so just as to condemn
himself for it. But I shall desire those who make this objection to remember
that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be 

the remedy of those evils which necessarily follow from men being judges
in their own cases, and the state of Nature is therefore not to be endured,
I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better
it is than the state of Nature, where one man commanding a multitude
has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects
whatever he pleases without the least question or control of those who
execute his pleasure? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason,
mistake, or passion, must be submitted to? which men in the state of
Nature are not bound to do one to another. And if he that judges, judges
amiss in his own or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of
mankind.

The Conservative worldview is largely pieced together by John Locke. Mankind in fallen. Government can’t correct mankind’s fallen nature, because government is made up of fallen men. Fallen men, if given arbitrary uncheckable authority, will commit injustices. Therefore it is most ideal that government be limited in its purpose. It’s purpose is to protect inalienable rights and to navigate violations of said rights.

Conservative worldview hinges on accepting the premise that mankind is fallen. One need not be religious to accept this premise. Many Conservatives unknowingly accept fallen nature to be true while others fully embrace this premise. The Frathouse Conservative supplements this premise if not outright rejects the notion altogether. Instead of mankind being intrinsically flawed, the state is intrinsically flawed. This substituted premise often results in the same conclusions as far as policy goes, but rejecting a fundamental pillar of the Conservative worldview is the root of Frathouse Conservatism’s inferiority.

Rejection of Mission

Frathouse Conservatism confides Conservatism to simply small governance. This directly stems from the rejection of the fallen nature. Conservatism, in accepting mankind’s state, necessitates the pursuit of living to a higher standard. All of the founding fathers believed in living high moral standards, despite their diverse religious beliefs. The founding fathers wanted no part in debauchery. Frathouse Conservatism may instead celebrate immoral behavior under the guise of limited government. More distinctly, Frathouse Conservatism is ready to lampoon deviant moral behavior.

Frathouse Conservatism is not as purposeless as it may seem. The movement does contain a mission, however vein it may be. The best way to phrase it is in their own words “owning the libs!” In accomplishing this, there are no boundaries or lines not to be crossed. The use of personal attacks is often substituted for substantive argument. A classic example of this is Tomi Lahren who believes that social issues are a waste of time. Her column on social issues showed a very misinformed understanding of the last three presidential elections and a concern for only illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is an issue where conservatism favors one side. There are many worldviews that could come to the same conclusion that America needs to curb illegal immigration. Some people are concerned about security, others cost. There’s also a principled belief in rule of law. And of course nativism exists. Not all of these are necessarily conservative. But the mission of Conservatism isn’t to win elections as Lahren suggests it should be. The perpetuity of Republicans in office has shown to be a detriment to Conservatism. Rather Conservatism seeks to better society, largely through small governance. Jesse Kelly understands the mission in how he responded. Ben Shapiro’s response was also worth noting

One Trick Ponies

If were ranking top issues for the Conservative cause, opposing abortion is one of them. But not everyone on the side of life is a Conservative. In my experience arguing abortion with the pro-abortion, there arguments shift from logical fallacies to denial of moral personhood for all of the unborn.

These types of arguments do not have substantial logical backing, especially when placed in perspective with cultural practices and norms. The pro-abortion side is simply not the logical side of the debate. One doesn’t have to be a Conservative to come to this conclusion. Many people can articulate well thoughtout pro-life arguments. This doesn’t make them a great Conservative. A great Conservative can articulate Conservative positions on various issues with intellectual consistency. The Frathouse Conservative cannot.

Abortion is not the only trick these ponies may know. It’s similar to libertarians who are libertarian because of marijuana. There’s also immigration (back to Tomi Lahren) and race (Candace Owens). And then there are the snowflakes whose mission is to trigger the snowflakes. And upon being challenged, they hit that block button on twitter. And of course there’s the everyday Trump bandwagoners like CJ Pearson who wants to line his own Paypal account.

Tactics of the Left

Candace Owens is a classic example of a Frathouse Conservative. She is very capable of explaining why she walked away from the Left. There is nothing wrong with that. What I have issue with is two things:

  1. Her reliance and profiting from Identity Politics
  2. Smear on those who think differently

We get it, you’re black. Ted Cruz is hispanic. You don’t see him using his race to pander to “his” group. Conservatives should not be seeking attention for their race, rather, they should be seeking attention for their ideas and merits. Candace Owens has little of either. She can explain her life story. That’s fine, but she’s wrong to assume black people can’t freely be Democrats. Further more, her tactics are of the Left.

The Left has successfully employed identity based labels to attack those they disagree with. Owens employs the same. Conservatives should stay away from these tactics.

Solution

Frathouse Conservatism aims to own the libs. The libs do a good job at owning themselves and eating their own. The Frathouse Conservative places too much uniqueness in themselves. Demographically speaking, the coming generations of voters are likely to be more Conservative because Republicans are having more kids. The baby gap has been written about for over a decade now. After all, the Left supports abortion, gay marriage, and free birth control. These three things are not conducive to bearing children. Mathematically speaking, it is likelier for a child now to be raised in a Republican household. This doesn’t mean, they will grow up Conservative. However this does mean a young Conservative, like myself, is nothing special or surprising. Sorry to disappoint.

The solution begins by first realizing that a young Conservative is nothing unique, therefore not seeking attention for it. Don’t go to colleges that suppress free speech(yes this is something you can research), and don’t treat college like a summer camp. Work during school, and if you’re not working during school, you better be more articulate than Amanda Kemp and half the writers at Lone Conservative. You have the time.

With that said, everyone wants to be Ben Shapiro, but no one wants to put in the same work that Ben Shapiro put in. Shapiro is a hardcore writer and reader. The Frathouse conservatives on Twitter are typically neither. And through reading and writing, education and practice, the Frathouse Conservative can graduate to being an actual Conservative.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Immigration

Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall?

Published

on

Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall

What do martial law, illegal immigration, and using the military as a national police force have in common with Barack Obama and Donald Trump? Possibly more than you realize.

After years of failing to fix the illegal immigration problem and Obama’s abuse of executive orders, there were conspiracy theories being spread by people like Alex Jones at InfoWars.com that Obama was laying the groundwork to declare martial law and cancel the 2016 election.

Of course, that never happened, although I sometimes wish it had (just kidding, no letters please). But with the obvious assault on our Constitutionally protected, God-given rights increasing with every passing day, and with Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution, we need to ask ourselves if something like that could still happen.

Trump convinced America to vote for him in 2016 based on his promise to build a “big beautiful wall” on our southern border and have Mexico pay for it. Yet, after two years, no such wall exists, and Mexico has let Trump know in no uncertain terms they have no intention of financing one.

As a result, all of the problems associated with illegal immigration not only still exist, but they’ve gotten worse. On top of that, Trump is busy gearing up for another four years as president … or more.

Trump has often joked about being president beyond the Constitutionally allowed eight years, but recent comments about his border wall would seem to indicate that he’s not all that concerned about any limitations placed on him by the Constitution he once called “archaic.”

On Tuesday, Trump bragged about the success he was having with the wall even though it doesn’t exist while issuing this threat. “If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country, the Military will build … the Wall.”

In essence, Trump is saying that he will play the role of dictator by ignoring Congress and using the military to force his will, a threat he also made earlier this year.

Such an action would turn the military into a national police force, but it would also require some manipulation of the Constitution. Trump can’t simply shift Border Security funds from the Department of Homeland Security to the military without Congress, unless he declares a national emergency.

Such a declaration would suspend the limits placed on the president by the Constitution and allow him to use the military as he sees fit without Congressional approval such as he did when he sent thousands of troops to the border to deal with the migrant caravan in October.

In a survey released in the summer of 2017, a majority (52%) of respondents supported the idea of postponing the 2020 election if Trump needed to declare a national emergency to deal with the immigration problem.

It looks like Trump might just take them up on the offer.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

News

Shooting near West Bank settlement kills at least 2 Israelis

Published

on

Shooting near West Bank settlement kills at least 2 Israelis

JERUSALEM (AP) — A shooting attack near a West Bank settlement on Thursday killed at least two Israelis and critically wounded another two, Israel’s rescue service said.

The deaths extend a violent week that began with a shooting outside a West Bank settlement on Sunday, resulting in the death of a baby who was delivered prematurely following the weekend attack, and continued with the killing of two Palestinians wanted in that and another attack on Israelis in the West Bank.

Eli Bin, the head of Israel’s Magen David Adom service, told Israeli Army Radio that two people were killed in the shooting, which occurred at a location about a ten-minute drive south from the place of Sunday’s attack. Their identities were not immediately known.

A later statement from the service said paramedics arrived at a bus stop to find four “youngsters” with gunshot wounds.

Israeli media reported that a passing car opened fire outside the settlement, but it was not clear if the gunmen had fled the scene or were stopped. The Israeli military had no additional information.

While the West Bank experiences occasional deadly violence, often between Israeli troops and Palestinian protesters, much of the Israeli-Palestinian violence in recent months has been limited to the Gaza Strip, where some 175 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire in border protests.

“In recent days, we definitely feel like the situation (in the West Bank) is getting worse,” Shalom Galil, a paramedic who assisted at the scene of the shooting, told Israeli Army Radio.

The shooting comes hours after Israeli security forces tracked down and killed a Palestinian accused of killing two Israelis.

Israeli police said Ashraf Naalweh was found armed near the West Bank city of Nablus and was killed during an arrest raid.

Israel accuses Naalweh of shooting to death two Israelis and wounding another at an attack on a West Bank industrial zone in October. He fled the scene and Israeli forces have been searching for him since.

“Israel’s long arm will reach anyone who harms Israeli citizens,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

Police said it had made a number of arrests in its attempt to hunt down Naalweh and suspected he was planning on carrying out another attack.

On Wednesday, Israeli forces killed Salah Barghouti, a Palestinian suspect wanted in the drive-by shooting earlier this week at a West Bank bus stop.

In Sunday night’s attack, assailants in a Palestinian vehicle opened fire at a bus stop outside a West Bank settlement, wounding seven people, including a 21-year-old pregnant woman, before speeding away.

The militant Hamas group that rules the Gaza Strip said that both Barghouti and Naalweh were its members but stopped short of claiming responsibility for the attacks the two carried out.

“The flame of resistance in the (West) Bank will remain alive until the occupation is defeated on all our land,” Hamas said.

Also Thursday, police said an assailant stabbed two officers in Jerusalem’s Old City, wounding them lightly. The officers opened fire on the attacker and he was killed, spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

Police identified the man as a 26-year-old Palestinian from the West Bank. It released security camera footage that shows the man lunging toward the officers and appearing to stab them.

Continue Reading

Politics

The administrative state is far too powerful

Published

on

The administrative state is far too powerful

The administrative state is essentially a loophole in government that gives citizens no recourse. We don’t elect them. We can’t expect Congress to do its job. What are we supposed to do?

Philip Hamburger took to PragerU to deliver one of the most important talks the channel has had in a while. The dangers inherent to unelected bureaucrats and their fiefdoms is real and must be addressed now.

We can’t vote them out. Capitol Hill has abdicated. The founding fathers would be ashamed of the administrative state that holds too much control. Philip Hamburger and PragerU have made a must-watch video. The question is, how do we fix this?

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report