The strategy of imposing minority rule has no more ultimate chance of success than working via democratic means. Because even if the author's vision of an autocratic takeover of the country comes to fruition, there is no reason to believe an eventual autocrat won't impose differing laws he or she wants when it is to his or her benefit to do so. Autocrats put their own interests above those of the country, the majority and the people in general. Their only loyalty is to themselves, using whatever means most expedient to grab the power they want. Once they have power, those they used to get it will be stepped on as harshly as those who opposed them.
Maybe I am the dumb one, but it does seem to be saying "Let us reject the difficult task of converting the majority for the even more difficult task of taking over the government via a minority, and somehow the hostile majority will bend to our will even thought not actually converted to our side."
Without expressly saying it, it seems that this article is saying the only way to turn the US into pro-life nation is to have conservative movement one-party rule in the US, which could only be achieved by extra-constitutional means.
Non-democratic governments still need popular legitimacy. A one-party state would be making unnecessary enemies of 60% of the population by banning abortion. Also one-party state doesn't just mean one "political" party, it means large civil society organizations outside the party's control are not permitted to exist. This is why the Nazis, USSR, and PRC all banned labor unions (except for the party controlled labor union) and all sought to bring religious organizations under party control. A one-party conservative US would co-opt the Catholic hierarchy in the US and all the evangelical denominations and turn them into arms of the party. Conservative Christianity would be become permanently associated in the minds of normal Americans with a tyrannical political regime. The country wouldn't be "social engineered" into a Christian republic, it would swiftly become atheistic.
I couldn't agree more. It's the 'downstream of culture' argument. A rich, deep, layered all-embracing Christianity would do it - or a renewal of what Andrew Willard Jones calls 'a complete act'. Europe had it in the 12th and 13th century. Perhaps we could achieve it again. But it's the antithesis of liberalism. I have explored the implications of the 'complete act' here https://oswald67.substack.com/p/a-complete-act-conservatism-distributism
This reminds me of an argument from YouTuber Jordan B Cooper about how cultural change always occurs through disaffected elites...Americans always want to think that everything runs from the grassroots up, but the truth is all levels of society are involved in social change. Any movement that wants to accomplish anything has to be able to work with everybody, not only one segment of society.
Excellent piece!
Thank you, Professor Vermeule.
The Elite Theorists were always right. Good job recognizing such, Shri.
The logic is impenetrable. The thinking is excellent and the advice is actionable. Very nicely done, Shri.
Valid critique of some pro-life rhetorical strategies, but once he turns to his own. alas, there's no there there.
George McKenna
The strategy of imposing minority rule has no more ultimate chance of success than working via democratic means. Because even if the author's vision of an autocratic takeover of the country comes to fruition, there is no reason to believe an eventual autocrat won't impose differing laws he or she wants when it is to his or her benefit to do so. Autocrats put their own interests above those of the country, the majority and the people in general. Their only loyalty is to themselves, using whatever means most expedient to grab the power they want. Once they have power, those they used to get it will be stepped on as harshly as those who opposed them.
Maybe I am the dumb one, but it does seem to be saying "Let us reject the difficult task of converting the majority for the even more difficult task of taking over the government via a minority, and somehow the hostile majority will bend to our will even thought not actually converted to our side."
Without expressly saying it, it seems that this article is saying the only way to turn the US into pro-life nation is to have conservative movement one-party rule in the US, which could only be achieved by extra-constitutional means.
Non-democratic governments still need popular legitimacy. A one-party state would be making unnecessary enemies of 60% of the population by banning abortion. Also one-party state doesn't just mean one "political" party, it means large civil society organizations outside the party's control are not permitted to exist. This is why the Nazis, USSR, and PRC all banned labor unions (except for the party controlled labor union) and all sought to bring religious organizations under party control. A one-party conservative US would co-opt the Catholic hierarchy in the US and all the evangelical denominations and turn them into arms of the party. Conservative Christianity would be become permanently associated in the minds of normal Americans with a tyrannical political regime. The country wouldn't be "social engineered" into a Christian republic, it would swiftly become atheistic.
I couldn't agree more. It's the 'downstream of culture' argument. A rich, deep, layered all-embracing Christianity would do it - or a renewal of what Andrew Willard Jones calls 'a complete act'. Europe had it in the 12th and 13th century. Perhaps we could achieve it again. But it's the antithesis of liberalism. I have explored the implications of the 'complete act' here https://oswald67.substack.com/p/a-complete-act-conservatism-distributism
The war is cultural, not political.
This reminds me of an argument from YouTuber Jordan B Cooper about how cultural change always occurs through disaffected elites...Americans always want to think that everything runs from the grassroots up, but the truth is all levels of society are involved in social change. Any movement that wants to accomplish anything has to be able to work with everybody, not only one segment of society.