Why the right in America is basically hippies all the way down.

The right in America is countercultural because it’s people who were unhappy with managerialism (rule by midcentury technocrats and proto-Ifreakinglovescience/VOX.com types). This turned out to be flower children and fundamentalists. During the 1960s and 70s, they literally got together and had babies and those babies are mostly what we call “conservatives” or “the right” or “right-wing” in America. We also use phrases like “Evangelical Christian” as well. So it’s not that righties have no principles, it’s that the two big righty principles are anti-managerialism and a hankering for pastoral living. When you look at the last few stereotypical secular/nonChristian hippie types remaining, you see that there’s not a lot of sunlight between them and your organic chicken raising, homeschooling Christian mom of 2-4 kids.

Righties need to accept the historical transition they underwent and acknowledge who and what they properly are, so they can stop being led around by Ayn Rand acolytes into the very managerialism and hyper-urban life they loathe and fear (mostly rightly, pun very intended). Righties are less formally social than lefties, and this is to be expected since one can only arrive at fandom for managerialism by being overly formally socialized. Note that I’m not saying rightie levels of socialization are necessarily too low or poor (sometimes yes, sometimes no), merely that the left embraces levels that are unnaturally ordered in their formality.

This is, incidentally, why the “homeschool or die” thing is so dumb. It’s exit, done in a way that…forces you into overly formal settings for socializing! It’s worse than public school for locking you in with a very narrow, insular group of people. The righties who are doin’ it rong, who are truly UNDERsocialized, they’re the tail wagging the rest into less socialization, less civic participation, and ultimately less ability to be ORGANICALLY social in the semi-formal, not very managerial environments they so greatly prefer. We don’t have to choose from only social distancing life or the overly regimented daycare to grad school pipeline (pre-pre-k to MA, increasingly). It’s a false binary.

Right wing activism vs left wing activism (PIRGs): Milking the base vs milking the crowd

I have more things I want to write about than time to write about them, and some of those things I posted as comments long ago over at Steve Sailer’s blog.  Here are some comments I made about the difference between right wing and left wing activism, including the PIRGs (public interest research groups) as an example.

“There’s also a professional activist culture for Republicans, it’s just not as effective [as professional left-wing activism] because it’s oriented towards milking the base. HSLDA is a case in point. Doesn’t always start that way, but the right-wing activist stuff always seems to end up there, mysteriously.”

“…the left funds professional activists opaquely, with small fees that hit thousands or millions of people, where they skim off a portion (the PIRG system is a great case in point). It tries to not directly milk its base. The right, conversely, does nothing but overtly milk its base and avoids opaque funding mechanisms, favoring direct appeals, even if they have a con-artist sheen.”

“The PIRG money for student PIRGs, the main ones Americans hear about comes from the students, not the government. They also don’t tell students they can claw it back and the few students who figure it out have a major struggle to get a few hundred bucks back out of thousands spent per year. So it’s opaque funding, but not so much that people have a strong incentive to try to eliminate it. That structure is typical of liberal activist stuff. There’s other examples like obscure state level taxes that cost a few bucks a year per person, but in a state of millions, that’s real money.

The hijacking foundations is also a liberal special. Conservatives are fairly bad at working that angle, too. The Birchers in their prime were a good conservative activist alternative approach, but they relied on historical conditions that are unlikely to be replicable by conservatives these days.”

The context was something that is currently on alt-right, dissident right and other conservative-ish minds, effective activism techniques.  Some people were doing the whole “Republicans HAVE JOBS LOL” thing that is standard when this comes up, but Democrats have jobs too, and not just activist-ing.

But mostly they dismiss the successful right wing organizing that does exist (pro-life activism, homeschool activism, 2nd amendment activism) and are unaware that right-wing women were the mainstays of previous successful right-wing activism pushes before the degeneration into base-milking in the wake of the 1960s.

I’ll come back to the right-wing women thing over and over again, because smart right wing women were the backbone of pre-1960s conservative and Republican organization.  Then that energy mostly got diverted into homeschooling and other acceptable fringes.

Ultimately right wing activism is crippled by its inheritance of individualism into believing that getting a dollar from ten million people is “socialism”.  In the post-Trump age this is somewhat less true and the sooner the right moves towards the left’s most common funding model (aka “Let’s get a penny from everyone ten times!”), the sooner they can provide real alternatives to the toxic insanity of the left instead of even more toxic and unworkable alternatives that quietly shift people further leftward.

Bundling works.  Learning to milk the crowd works.  As the left has learned, people will pay a tiny amount of money for something that sounds totally neutral and harmless and they’ll do so for decades on end.  There are so many things that would work as alternatives waiting to be proposed and funded.  But the will must be there, of course.  Is it on the right, dissident or plain-vanilla?  Well?

 

 

Introducing five precepts of civic natalism

In no particular order.

  1. Your time is not fungible. With the corollary that DIY is anti-community.
  2. Aim for mother-friendly, not child-friendly because child-friendly really means “no siblings allowed”.
  3. Busy is selfish.
  4. Leisure isn’t lazy. It’s how people get the fun social and civilizational goods they claim to (often “traditionally”) support, after all.
  5. Service isn’t servile. Having (usually unrelated) people do things for you and giving them money to do so is not imposing servility on them.  It was a staple of even the very poor in pre-modern times.  The modern era is defined most sharply as the point where paying people to do things for you was utterly deprecated.  In America, this was actually the postwar era, but in the rest of the West, it was early Vietnam-era.

These precepts are just a beginning, a tiny seed of a bigger idea, and working the implications out is a longer term goal.

The sick system of conservative home life hurts men too.

A selfish man is going to create a sick system on an individual level, but it’s the SYSTEM that’s the problem because the husband needs to be earning a living and multiple closely spaced children can sink an isolated nuclear family no matter how nice the guy is.

The above sentence has been sitting for a couple of years because I thought I would add more, but I think there’s not much to add except that it’s why I’m totally fine with, say, postpartum doulas being covered on health insurance despite my generally ex-libertarian, small-government leanings.  Private retreat creates fragile, isolated nuclear families, but accepting that part of community is functional, civic-minded government helps nuclear families stay strong enough to build the web of external relationships that lead to a high-trust community where random childless people can babysit a night a month.