A (quite long) thread on the #TuckerHannityMoment and the future of American conservatism:

The Carlson/Hannity moment shows that the conservative movement needs a refreshed perspective and new ambitions beyond Cold War fusionism.

It won’t come from rejection of markets, nor will it arrive out of a revitalization of a movement that views “liberty” as a first principle.

Adam Smith and the like believed that a free market could not thrive w/ out anti-trust protections.

$AMZN controls 38% of the e-commerce market. No, we needn’t destroy it. But yes, antitrust litigation must be on the table.

Reagan, Goldwater, and the large bulk of that era’s conservatives also believed in antitrust protections.

In fact, Reagan’s Admin. was known for for championing robust but fair antitrust laws ( https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/389699-the-rebirth-of-the-reagan-antitrust-movement).

There can be no personal opportunity to start a business if the economy is dominated by enormous mega-corps that control stockpiles of endless capital.

We need certain economic protections, but we also need to do away w/ anti-worker regs/policies (ie regressive taxes).

This means that this isn’t a matter of being a small govt conservative or embracing big govt.

It’s a matter of govt working with or against its shareholders — the citizens of the USA.

Govt stunting private job growth through overly strict zoning laws or unnecessary red tape (fed filing form fees, high taxes on small biz, etc) is bad govt.

Govt intervening in the economy at every turn through strengthening monopolistic & unaccountable unions is bad govt.

We desperately need a govt that is efficient and promotes real enterprise. A govt that ensures that large corporations pay their fair share and that union bosses don’t bully hardworking Americans out of a job.

But our answers to the issues we face won’t be found in more of the same.

We can acknowledge the merit of int’l trade with our allies w/ few barriers while also recognizing that “unrestricted”*** market domination of all facets of life has atomized communities & hurt our nation.

**NOTE: Of course “unrestricted” is a hyperbole, but it’s also a fiction in its vision. America does not live in a bubble, and just bc/ we weaken barriers to trade doesn’t mean China, the EU, et al. will reciprocate.

There need not be a sharp division on this front. As conservatives, we promote the value of family and community.

These commitments seem hollow when we condescend to working families abt “leeching” off govt as we sit idly by while their communities collapse.

The collapse of communities across this nation isn’t random. The opioid epidemic isn’t random. Increasing doubt about the American Dream isn’t random.

Unregulated market capitalism isn’t god.

Tucker, of course, is a pundit. So is Hannity. I don’t see them as intellectuals or leaders. But this schism shows a fundamental divide in the conservative movement.

Ideologues ask us to pick a side. Rational folks should realize that we can move forward w/ out detachment.

In a nod to the old consensus, we must recognize that the real change in this country begins within the person.

It begins with community service, and community orgs, and strong communal safety nets.

But right now govt is not only neutral to these ends: it’s damaging to them.

Skirmishes fought yearly in courts across the country between religious orgs and career paper pushers put the free practice of religious beliefs at risk.

Govt policies which favor multinational corps over mom-and-pop shops in small towns hurts our ties to community.

Above all, we must recognize an integral precept: there is dignity in work.

A job at an Amazon packaging center may have better benefits than being an owner of the block’s favorite pizza joint.

But many more than the “experts” would assume would prefer the latter.

It’s a choice we’re making as a society through our elected officials and the countless feudal kingdoms it oversees (expansive federal agencies).

There’s more to life than economic efficiency.

And let’s play the economic game:

Imagine how small our burgeoning social safety net spending would be if communities were so strong that they mutually cared for one another monetarily?

If neighbors weren’t just “the people across the street”, but friends and loved ones?

Conservatives can imagine a better future. It will come not through simple old-consensus dichotomies of small vs large govt, but through a critical analysis of the new era we enter.

As you’ve seen here, I’ve advocated for antitrust regulation, reigning in monopolistic unions, promoting strong communities, and decreasing federal power in the domain of agencies.

These fit neither Tucker nor Hannity’s dogma. They don’t fit in a nice old-school box.

A new conservatism will require a new fusionism. It should be founded in a foundational belief in communities, self govt (including governance within the individual), markets abundant with opportunity, and lean efficient govt. That’s my rant for tonight — hope it was enjoyable!