Since many people seem to believe I’m confused for simultaneously supporting both neoliberalism and paleoconservatism, I’ll use this thread to clarify my position.

Liberalism (and neoliberalism to a certain extent) can be essentially defined as free international trade and open markets (economic liberalism) couple with open borders and the upholding of individual rights by the state (social liberalism).

This is system designed to allow individuals to thrive and develop their own identities. Both in the economy and in the society as a whole, it prioritizes individual agency and independence - and that’s a good thing. Neoliberalism allows individuals to thrive.

Paleoconservatism, on the other hand, opposes neoliberalism on most if not all aspects. Although most paleocons have ambiguous positions on free markets, in general they tend to be socially conservative and skeptical of open borders both for trade and immigration.

I don’t believe paleoconservatism needs (or even should) be accompanied by right populism. Populism is in many ways about dismantling established authority in favor of “the people”, while Paleocons recognize that people are flawed and instead look for traditional authorities

That’s why Paleocons emphasize the importance of traditional religion, nation-state and family values more broadly. Paleocons believe that authority must be centered in communities, rather than split among all individuals.

Essentially, Paleocons believe in communal union as the major organizing force in society, while Neolibs believe in the individual. The catch, as Josh Hawley put in his peech at the 6th Annual American Principles Project Gala, is that neoliberalism erodes the community

This is the critique against liberalism made by leftist ideologues such as Richard Sennet and Zygmunt Baumann. The free flow of people and capital disestablishes people’s roots in community. It’s becoming rarer for people to stay in their hometowns, keep lifelong friends etc

As a result, many people either resort to identity politics (the opportunity to be part of a “community” of some sort) or become disengaged with life, which has resulted in the rise of depression, drug abuse, divorce and suicide. Truth is not all individuals can thrive alone

On the other hand I’m not blind to the problems of authoritative traditional institutions. In may occasions throughout history, they’ve also put down and marginalized individuals and even entire communities.

In short, neoliberalism allows the individual to thrive at the expense of the community (and therefore of some individuals), while paleoconservatism allows the community to thrive at the expense of the individual (and therefore of some communities).

Neither ideology is perfect in itself, but a great fusionism can perhaps incorporate the best aspects of each. That’s why I support the coalition between Josh Hawley and Mitt Romney, their biggest proponents in the GOP.