National Conservatism, is a term that we will be shortly hearing more about. It describes an international movement that is forming out of our American MAGA movement and the populist uprisings we are seeing world wide.
In my opinion, it is hard not to see the proverbial pot boiling over as citizens of the world openly express their discontent with already failing globalist policies, the public outrage over the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is simply the tip of the much larger iceberg looming under the surface threatening to sink the globalist’s “Titanic” schemes.
Some would ask; “What is wrong with the conservative movement we have; why do we need to change directions?”
Simply put, there are those that believe the Western Conservative Movement has lost its way and must return to its roots, as Western Conservatism seems to be out of touch with it’s base constituents, the vast middle class. Case in point, consider this observation by George Hawley:
The traditional, mainstream conservative movement should not forget how little the Republican electorate cared about their misgivings with Donald Trump back in 2015 and 2016. These conservatives correctly pointed out that Trump did not care a whit about conservative principles, yet the Republican electorate happily voted for him – and may do so again.[1]
The significance of the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency and the unending support he still maintains as well as the number of populist candidates that won Republican primaries across the country, upsetting main stream Republicans; should be an indication to the conservative standard bearers that people are ready for a new direction.
They hoped “Trumpism” could shake the Republican Party and the conservative movement from their commitment to anachronistic policies and Cold War talking points. [1]
Ironically, National Conservatism, encompasses most, if not all, of the ideals of mid-century conservatism that took root following World War II.
In the 19th century, Edmund Burke was praised by both conservatives and liberals. Subsequently, in the 20th century, he became widely regarded, especially in the United States, as the philosophical founder of conservatism.[2]
In the post-World War II period, a number of exceptional thinkers sought to adapt a traditionalist, Burkean conservatism to American public life. They became known as the “new conservatives.” The most prominent of them was Russell Kirk, who authored in 1953 the best-seller The Conservative Mind.
A typical American “conservative” in the pre-World War II period was in fact a nineteenth-century liberal–a believer in laissez-faire, scientific improvements, and progress more generally. The Burke revival that Kirk helped spark in the 1950s lent to American conservatism a very different voice. No longer would it settle for being the party of “big business” or an apologist for bourgeois society.
With Burke as his touchstone, Kirk aimed at explaining to an American audience what it meant to be conservative and to think conservatively.
In its early years, the National Review was heavily influenced by traditionalist modes of thought, and for a while Kirk wrote a column for the magazine. The magazine’s opening statement of purpose, authored by William F. Buckley in 1955, was a neo-Burkean call-to-arms in which it was declared that the National Review “stands athwart history, yelling Stop.”
The desire to stop, reflect, reconsider, and perhaps go back remains alive within conservative circles. It can be seen in the conservative defense of the traditional family, and in its cultivation of the older virtues and a religious sensibility. Most practically it is evident in the traditionalist view that the federal government has usurped the prerogatives of localities. Such conservatives look back wistfully to an America of small towns and close-knit communities, and they have become increasingly critical of what they view as President Bush’s “big government conservatism.”[3]
This “Big Government Conservatism” is sometimes also referred to as Neo-Conservatism, an ideology that is difficult to define. It used to be a blend of liberal democracy and hawkish foreign policy. Today the term refers to idealistic hawkishness. The philosophy has been around since the middle of the 20th century, if not earlier. Some trace its origins to the liberals and social progressives who strongly backed the Second World War.
The effects of neo-conservatism have been enormous, and most would say, disastrous. The ousting of Saddam Hussein had been on the mind of Paul Wolfowitz, for one, since the early 1990s when he was a senior Pentagon official under the first President Bush. The decision to allow Saddam to stay in power after the 1991 Gulf War was a mistake, he believed. The “war on terror” gave Wolfowitz – now deputy Defence Secretary – and his fellow believers their chance. Neo-cons at the Pentagon and the Vice-President’s office twisted the intelligence to prove that Saddam had WMDs and imply he had a hand in 9/11. For neo-cons, Iraq was to be a test run for the reform of the entire Middle East and the spread of democracy in the region.
By any yardstick, the policy has been a failure. Iraq is in chaos, and the Middle East has become less rather than more stable. Around the world, anti-Americanism has increased hugely. Neo-conservatives in their turn have been “mugged by reality” – the reality being that even the sole superpower America is not omnipotent, and that ancient civilizations are not to be transformed by elections alone. [4]
As we approach the mid-term elections of 2022, it would appear that those Republicans not aligned with the so called MAGA movement are totally out of touch with a broad majority of voters. They fail to see the immense frustration of Republican and otherwise conservative voters swing voters that absolutely reject the continuing policies of both the Neo-conservatism movement as well as the Democrats of today and their increasingly socialist agenda.
This last Tuesday, 13 September 2022, the third annual National Conservatism Conference wrapped up its proceedings held in Miami Florida. The most popular current conservative elected official in America, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), gave a keynote address. It is reported that in addition to the three events in the United States there also have similar conferences held in Western Europe.[5]
Published on TownHall.com and other conservative forums, Josh Hammer gives a “Primer” on what National Conservatives hope to accomplish here in the United States and abroad.
…here are some prototypical “national conservative” ideas likely to find a receptive audience among many, perhaps most, of those who would self-describe as “NatCons.”
On foreign affairs, the U.S. should severely curtail its involvement with, or outright exit from, the sprawling edifice of postwar liberal, transnational institutions — such as the UN, NATO, the WTO and the WHO — that now reign supreme on the world stage, at the expense of American sovereignty. At a bare minimum, refusing to further extend America’s foreign commitments beyond its already high baseline is now almost always prudent; here, Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) courageous recent solo dissenting vote against admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO spoke for many of us.
More generally, the correct foreign policy approach is certainly far from the neoconservative creed encapsulated by former President George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, but it is not the doctrinaire isolationism of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), either. Rather, a national conservative approach to foreign policy is realist and skeptical of further foreign entanglements, but willing to engage in limited fashion to defend concrete, tangible U.S. Interests,
On immigration, the long-standing Republican dichotomy of “illegal bad, legal good” must be retired as outmoded pablum. America, which is as fractious and balkanized as it has been in a century-plus, has not seen any meaningful changes to its legal immigration regime since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a harebrained Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) brainchild. Yes, we should build a border wall, mandate universal E-Verify and treat the cartels operating in northern Mexico as the enemy combatants they are, but we must also drastically reduce legal immigration from its current levels. A temporary full immigration moratorium would help to reconsolidate a deeply divided nation.
On political economy, our lodestar should not be the laissez-faire fanaticism of the libertarian think tanks or the chamber of commerce’s supply-side zealots, but the “Two Cheers for Capitalism” of Irving Kristol. As such, firm guardrails must be placed to realign the free market’s natural maximization of economic efficiency and the free trade regime’s natural minimization of consumer prices with productive capacity, the national development of certain critical industries such as manufacturing and high tech, and the national interest more generally. NatCons would generally support, for instance, the prudential application of strategic tariffs, a national industrial policy and the reshoring — or at least “near-shoring” — of critical supply chains.
Industries that have accumulated seismic power over the basic, day-to-day welfare of the American people and functioning of the American republic, and especially those industries whose largest corporations disproportionately wield that power in a gatekeeping and censorious manner to benefit the ruling class and “other”-ize the “deplorable” silent majority, must be reined in by the state. After all, corporations were traditionally granted their corporate charters upon the condition that their activities would redound to the national interest and the common good. The menace of de-platforming and the scourge of de-banking have already gone way too far; it is time for vigorous antitrust enforcement against, and common carrier regulation for, Big Tech and, as is increasingly clear, Big Banking, too.
Perhaps most fundamentally, illusory “values-neutrality” must be rejected as the lie that it is. It is impossible for any political regime, or any political or constitutional actor, to be truly, unequivocally “neutral.” This is particularly true in our partisan age, but it is generally true as well; every legislative decision on what to tax and what to subsidize entails the making of value judgments, no less so than does the act of judging. Constitutional interpretation should, within the bounds of prudence, reflect that inescapable reality about mankind’s moralistic nature. And the American public square should overtly reflect God and the teachings of the Bible and Scripture, both in the forms of morally imbued statesmanship and rich public symbolism.[5]
Writing for the Federalist, David Brog outlines Four Myths About National Conservatism You Should Stop Believing.
Myth #1: NatCons Are Isolationists
After Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the country — both right and left — is far more reluctant to send our troops to fight foreign wars. Don’t blame the NatCons for this; blame neocon overreach.
The new consensus is to engage abroad only when we identify clear threats to our national security. But this still leaves enormous room for debate about what constitutes such a threat and how to respond to such threats.
As opposed to the stereotype, the NatCon movement is home to a broad spectrum of opinions on these issues. There are those like Fox News host Tucker Carlson who urge us to concentrate on the most dangerous looming threat — China — rather than being distracted by what they view as lesser challenges. That’s not isolation; that’s focus.
Myth #2: NatCons Oppose Free Markets
I have yet to meet a NatCon who doesn’t revere the free market as the engine of our prosperity. But we see the free market as the best means to an end and not an end in itself. We’re therefore willing to depart from orthodox laissez faire when the national interest requires it.
Market intervention becomes especially important when supposedly free trade isn’t free at all. Many of the Founders, for example, recognized that Great Britain was manipulating free markets by subsidizing its domestic industries and then protecting them through tariffs. They understood that Great Britain would employ these tools to crush American manufacturing in the cradle, condemning us to be a supplier of raw materials for British factories.
Many NatCons see a parallel between British abuse of free trade in prior centuries and Chinese practices today. Thus we too call for a wise industrial policy and protective tariffs to level the playing field. This may betray the views of some Austrian economists. But it fulfills the free market vision of our most commerce-oriented Founders.
Myth #3: ‘NatCon’ Is Just Another Word for Trumpist
We’re focused on policy, not personalities. You’ll find no hero worship or life-size cut-outs at our events.
Many of us supported President Donald Trump and voted for him twice. We give him credit for moving our nationalist agenda from the conservative fringes to its vital center. I and many of my colleagues were conservative pariahs until Trump mainstreamed our policy preferences.
That being said, we welcome any politician who champions all or even part of our agenda. Among the speakers featured prominently at our conferences are Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sens. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Josh Hawley. If you held a presidential straw poll at NatCon, I have no idea who would win it. That’s exactly the way it should be.
Myth #4: NatCons Are White Nationalists with Better PR
We both have the word “nationalist” in our name, but that’s where the similarity ends.
From our very first days, we’ve told white nationalists not to attend our events. I publicized the ban during the first plenary session of our first conference by declaring, “We are nationalists, not white nationalists. If anyone here tonight believes that being an American has anything to do with the color of someone’s skin, please leave. There’s the door. Your ideas are not welcome here.” No flirting with white nationalism here.
We’re used to the left shouting “racist” to shut down dissent. It’s disappointing — and telling — when our critics on the right stoop to the same tactic.
Another writer at the Federalist, Rachel Bovard had this to say at the NatCon conference on 12 September:
But like it or not, the National Conservative critique of both right and left, of foreign and national affairs, of social and economic policy, of elitism and populism are quickly becoming the lingua franca of American politics. The elite, decadent, uniparty consensus of Clinton-Bush-Obamaism has vanished from the debate.
Amnesty. Free trade. Engagement with China. Market self-regulation of Big Tech and Big Banks. Foreign adventurism.
Few elected officials or candidates in either party publicly advocate any of these things anymore. They may still believe in them and privately scheme on their behalf with lobbyists, corporate-funded think tanks, and donors. But the ideas themselves lack any real purchase outside of elite echo chambers.
And that’s just it. National Conservatism does not have to persuade the uniparty elite in Washington. We just have to beat them. And any reading of American politics since 2015 says, we are.
We’re winning the argument. The next step is winning the fight. That’s not the same thing as winning elections. NatCons have already won elections.
Over the last several years, National Conservatism has risen to prominence as the brittle, self-serving policies of Washington’s permanent class have begun to collapse under their own weight.
On the right, DC’s institutional conservative movement has grown fat and lazy, replacing the pragmatic wisdom of old truths with dogmatic sloganeering and poll-tested pablum – increasingly divorced from day-to-day realities.
Meanwhile, the world has changed. New problems demand a new vision. As I said last year at this conference, Ronald Reagan’s agenda was successful because it fit the specific needs of his time.
We don’t need to – and we shouldn’t – throw out all our old ideas. But we do need to reprioritize them now —- when our most basic government and economic institutions are ideologically weaponized against the public.
The priorities of Federal Reserve economists, Wall Street hedge fund managers, board members of Raytheon, and globalists at the World Trade Organization have been discredited and should be discounted.
Instead, the day-to-day needs of the family must be the beating heart of this movement. That will involve economic policy. It will involve choices about national defense, technology, higher education, and health care. Because the revelation of our movement is that every policy choice is a family policy choice.
What separates our vision from that of Washington’s permanent class is that the family sits on top of our policy hierarchy. And every policy choice we make is subservient to the family. Not the other way around.
And let’s be very clear: our next opportunity may be the last one America gets. There is a lot of debate about what the term National Conservatism even means. To me, National Conservatism has to be the recognition that in this moment, the thing conservatives must fight to conserve is the nation itself.
The woke ideology, the universities that teach it, and the cultural and corporate elites who enforce it are fundamentally anti-American, totalitarian, and absolutely convicted about the justice of punishing dissent and destroying any check on their power.
The Left’s long “march through the institutions” was a world-changing success. Every institution – public or private – that woke elites run is being wielded, right now, as a weapon against every man, woman, child, and family in the United States.
This is what I mean about The Moment. The institutional Left does not intend to leave anything of the old republic behind for us to salvage.
Constitutionalism, scientific inquiry, individual liberty, civil society voluntarism, patriotism, parental authority, free expression and free enterprise, religious pluralism, cultural diversity.
They are coming for everything. So National Conservatism must come for them.
We must forge a comprehensive policy agenda – for Congress, the presidency, and the states – to break apart the Left’s every source of funding and center of power. Not as an act of partisan retaliation, but of national survival.
The federal law enforcement, intelligence, and national security apparatus have all demonstrated their contempt for democratic accountability. These agencies must be brought to heel. Investigate them. Dismantle, rebuild, and reform them. And for crying out loud, the next time an FBI lawyer flagrantly breaks the law to spy on a presidential campaign, PUT HIM IN JAIL.
The supposedly nonpartisan civil service is nothing of the sort. It is 2 million woke jihadists with a Biden-directed mission to target, harass, and discriminate against un-woke heretics. Congress must defund the ideological initiatives and re-orient these agencies toward service, not domination.
Break up the university price-fixing cartel. Tax the endowments. Get serious about challenging the concentrated corporate power that distorts key facets of the economy: from banking, to book publishing, to baby formula.
Rout the social and economic influence of China. Treat their companies, their US purchases, and their donations to nonprofits like what they are – state-owned actors, and arms of the Chinese Communist party.
Promote bilateral trade that puts American workers at the center, instead of favoring economic models or the balance sheets of giant multinationals. The border wall and long overdue legal immigration reform must be made law of the land, not just passed through the House to die in the Senate.
National Conservatives must go to school on Senate procedure, to know as much about the rules as the leaders who routinely lie to you about what is possible. Change precedent. Reinstate the filibuster for Biden judges. And if Democrats want to filibuster legislation, force them to do it for hours on the Senate floor, not from a phone call in their offices.
But to do any of this requires breaking up the Uniparty.
The uniparty pretends that the only way to stop public schools grooming kids and segregating lunch rooms is to support hedge fund tax loopholes and war in Ukraine.
This isn’t the brilliant strategy of master legislative tacticians. It’s hostage taking. It’s substituting the needs of the nation’s natural majority of workers, families, patriots, and parents for the whims of bond traders and women’s studies professors. It’s the stinking rot of corrupt elitism.
But defeating it will take more than one “red wave” election. It will require a fundamental remaking of the Republican party itself.
Our rich traditions – the virtues and freedoms that are the birth right of every American – are too precious to be negotiated away for yet another generation of globalization and financialization; or a uniparty majority parachuted in from a 1980s country club.
Our duty to the ancient truths that bind the living, the dead, and the yet unborn is what compels us. A fierce dedication to the country we love is what unites us.[6]
The preceding was only an excerpt, you should read all of Rachel Bovards op-ed here.
On the National Conservatism web site, we find another overview seeking to illuminate exactly what National Conservatism is.
[7] Politics in America, Britain, and other Western nations have taken a sharp turn toward nationalism—a commitment to a world of independent nations. This has been disorienting to many, not least the American conservative movement, which has, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, grown increasingly attached to a vision of a global “rules-based liberal order” that would bring peace and prosperity to the entire world while attenuating the independence of nations.
The return of nationalism has created a much-discussed “crisis of conservatism” that may be unprecedented since modern Anglo-American conservatism was formulated by Russell Kirk, William Buckley, and their colleagues in the 1950s. At the heart of this crisis is a question: Is the new American and British nationalism a hostile usurper that has arrived on the scene to displace political conservatism? Or is nationalism an essential, if neglected, part of the Anglo-American conservative tradition at its best?
“National Conservatism” is a movement of public figures, journalists, scholars, and students who understand that the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation, to the principle of national independence, and to the revival of the unique national traditions that alone have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing.
We envision a protracted effort to recover and re consolidate the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarian-ism, and in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race. Our aim is to solidify and energize national conservatives, offering them a much-needed institutional base, substantial ideas in the areas of public policy, political theory, and economics, and an extensive support network across the country.
National conservatism is a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation, a new public affairs institute dedicated to developing a revitalized conservatism for the age of nationalism already upon us.
This Statement of Principles as published on The American Conservative are as follows:
1. National Independence. We wish to see a world of independent nations. Each nation capable of self-government should chart its own course in accordance with its own particular constitutional, linguistic, and religious inheritance. Each has a right to maintain its own borders and conduct policies that will benefit its own people. We endorse a policy of rearmament by independent self-governing nations and of defensive alliances whose purpose is to deter imperialist aggression.
2. Rejection of Imperialism and Globalism. We support a system of free cooperation and competition among nation-states, working together through trade treaties, defensive alliances, and other common projects that respect the independence of their members. But we oppose transferring the authority of elected governments to transnational or supranational bodies—a trend that pretends to high moral legitimacy even as it weakens representative government, sows public alienation and distrust, and strengthens the influence of autocratic regimes. Accordingly, we reject imperialism in its various contemporary forms: We condemn the imperialism of China, Russia, and other authoritarian powers. But we also oppose the liberal imperialism of the last generation, which sought to gain power, influence, and wealth by dominating other nations and trying to remake them in its own image.
3. National Government. The independent nation-state is instituted to establish a more perfect union among the diverse communities, parties, and regions of a given nation, to provide for their common defense and justice among them, and to secure the general welfare and the blessings of liberty for this time and for future generations. We believe in a strong but limited state, subject to constitutional restraints and a division of powers. We recommend a drastic reduction in the scope of the administrative state and the policy-making judiciary that displace legislatures representing the full range of a nation’s interests and values. We recommend the federalist principle, which prescribes a delegation of power to the respective states or subdivisions of the nation so as to allow greater variation, experimentation, and freedom. However, in those states or subdivisions in which law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or in which lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order.
4. God and Public Religion. No nation can long endure without humility and gratitude before God and fear of his judgment that are found in authentic religious tradition. For millennia, the Bible has been our surest guide, nourishing a fitting orientation toward God, to the political traditions of the nation, to public morals, to the defense of the weak, and to the recognition of things rightly regarded as sacred. The Bible should be read as the first among the sources of a shared Western civilization in schools and universities, and as the rightful inheritance of believers and non-believers alike. Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private. At the same time, Jews and other religious minorities are to be protected in the observance of their own traditions, in the free governance of their communal institutions, and in all matters pertaining to the rearing and education of their children. Adult individuals should be protected from religious or ideological coercion in their private lives and in their homes.
5. The Rule of Law. We believe in the rule of law. By this we mean that citizens and foreigners alike, and both the government and the people, must accept and abide by the laws of the nation. In America, this means accepting and living in accordance with the Constitution of 1787, the amendments to it, duly enacted statutory law, and the great common law inheritance. All agree that the repair and improvement of national legal traditions and institutions is at times necessary. But necessary change must take place through the law. This is how we preserve our national traditions and our nation itself. Rioting, looting, and other unacceptable public disorder should be swiftly put to an end.
6. Free Enterprise. We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are central to the Anglo-American political tradition. We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state. But the free market cannot be absolute. Economic policy must serve the general welfare of the nation. Today, globalized markets allow hostile foreign powers to despoil America and other countries of their manufacturing capacity, weakening them economically and dividing them internally. At the same time, trans-national corporations showing little loyalty to any nation damage public life by censoring political speech, flooding the country with dangerous and addictive substances and pornography, and promoting obsessive, destructive personal habits. A prudent national economic policy should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial for national defense, and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare. Crony capitalism, the selective promotion of corporate profit-making by organs of state power, should be energetically exposed and opposed.
7. Public Research. At a time when China is rapidly overtaking America and the Western nations in fields crucial for security and defense, a Cold War-type program modeled on DARPA, the “moon-shot,” and SDI is needed to focus large-scale public resources on scientific and technological research with military applications, on restoring and upgrading national manufacturing capacity, and on education in the physical sciences and engineering. On the other hand, we recognize that most universities are at this point partisan and globalist in orientation and vehemently opposed to nationalist and conservative ideas. Such institutions do not deserve taxpayer support unless they rededicate themselves to the national interest. Education policy should serve manifest national needs.
8. Family and Children. We believe the traditional family is the source of society’s virtues and deserves greater support from public policy. The traditional family, built around a lifelong bond between a man and a woman, and on a lifelong bond between parents and children, is the foundation of all other achievements of our civilization. The disintegration of the family, including a marked decline in marriage and childbirth, gravely threatens the wellbeing and sustainability of democratic nations. Among the causes are an unconstrained individualism that regards children as a burden, while encouraging ever more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation as an alternative to the responsibilities of family and congregational life. Economic and cultural conditions that foster stable family and congregational life and child-raising are priorities of the highest order.
9. Immigration. Immigration has made immense contributions to the strength and prosperity of Western nations. But today’s penchant for uncontrolled and unassimilated immigration has become a source of weakness and instability, not strength and dynamism, threatening internal dissension and ultimately dissolution of the political community. We note that Western nations have benefited from both liberal and restrictive immigration policies at various times. We call for much more restrictive policies until these countries summon the wit to establish more balanced, productive, and assimilationist policies. Restrictive policies may sometimes include a moratorium on immigration.
10. Race. We believe that all men are created in the image of God and that public policy should reflect that fact. No person’s worth or loyalties can be judged by the shape of his features, the color of his skin, or the results of a lab test. The history of racialist ideology and oppression and its ongoing consequences require us to emphasize this truth. We condemn the use of state and private institutions to discriminate and divide us against one another on the basis of race. The cultural sympathies encouraged by a decent nationalism offer a sound basis for conciliation and unity among diverse communities. The nationalism we espouse respects, and indeed combines, the unique needs of particular minority communities and the common good of the nation as a whole.
Well there you have it, a general overview of what the National Conservative movement really is; regardless of what you might have read or heard on liberal media. For the most part, National Conservatism is a return to ideals that evolved out of the middle of the twentieth century and a rebuke to globalism and the so called uni-party that controls Washington. National Conservative seeks to uphold the principles that made middle-class America strong and renew the American Dream.
[1] George Hawley, 19 April 2022 Book Review: Surveying the American Right,
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/surveying-the-american-right/
[2] Edmund Burke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
[3] Conservatives and neoconservatives ADAM WOLFSON 2004 https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/conservatives-and-neoconservatives
[4] Rupert Cornwell 9-12-2006 The Big Question: What is neo-conservatism, and how influential is it today? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-big-question-what-is-neoconservatism-and-how-influential-is-it-today-415637.html
[5] National Conservatism: A Primer for the Uninitiated, Josh Hammer, 16 September Townhall. https://townhall.com/columnists/joshhammer/2022/09/16/national-conservatism-a-primer-for-the-uninitiated-n2613174
[6] National Conservatism’s Ideas Are Winning, But We Need A Plan To Carry Them Out, By: Rachel Bovard September 12, 2022 https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/12/national-conservatisms-ideas-are-winning-but-we-need-a-plan-to-carry-them-out/
[7]https://nationalconservatism.org/about/
You must be logged in to post a comment.