Who's On The Right

In a recent discussion about the Alt-Right (which sounds like an "Alternative Lifestyle," doesn't it? ... not that there's anything wrong with that wink wink), I got to wondering about who is on the right. Why discuss this? Because conservatism has failed. Let's be honest. And if we're going to revive it, then we need to understand what happened to make the right so toxic so we know how to fix it. So let's start by understanding what the modern right has become. As I see it, the right breaks down as follows:

(1) Actual conservatives - not fringe

These are the good guys. They are the people who used to drive conservatism until recently. They are the people Reagan appealed to and who maintain the American belief in conservatism. They are the people who made up the Tea Party for the first few weeks before the others began pouring in:

●Ideological Conservatives: The heirs of Buckley and Reagan, who understand that conservatism cannot win if it is extreme or tries to grab all it wants at once. They are patriotic, support limited government, support law and order, and generally like traditional values. I suspect this is most of you. PROS: Brainy. CONS: Lack empathy for humanity.

●Rational Libertarians: These are people who like limited government, but also accept the need for government in more than just a couple areas of life. They are not beset by conspiracy theories. They aren't pot heads. I get the sense a lot of these think of themselves as conservatives but don't like the moralizing of the GOP. PROS: Often have brilliant ideas. CONS: Not good at selling their beliefs to non-believers.

●Rational Religious Conservatives/Traditionalists: These are people who think the country was running fine before liberals messed with it and they would like to see a society which includes a greater push for personal responsibility but don't want to see a repressive government impose that upon society. They want the right to practice their religion as they see fit without government interference. Where they differ from the Religious Right, however, is that these people aren't trying to use the government to force their own theology on everyone else. PROS: Decent people. CONS: Often misled by charlatans.

●Non-ideological People with generic American values: These are average people who pay no attention to the political system, but support the GOP because they believe in a series of values that generally align with the GOP -- opposition to freeloading, strong military, law and order, low taxes, less regulation. These are not generally ideologues or extremists and they don't buy into the GOP's platform of pet peeves, but they do identify themselves as conservatives. This is easily the largest group of "conservative" voters. PROS: Massive numbers. CONS: Won't help control the party.

(2) The Near Fringe

●Grumpy Cons/Nostalgia Cons: This groups also could be called "anti-liberals," which describes them perfectly. They don't have much in the way of ideology except that they oppose everything liberals want, and they do so on the basis of nostalgia or a general opposition to change. These guys aren't quite ideological conservatives and they aren't quite fringe either. The biggest problem with these people is that they reinforce the stereotype that conservatives are living in the past and don't understand America. PROS: Better than they seem. CONS: Negative outlook depresses support.

● Neocons: In a way, calling the Neocons "fringe" is a little unfair because no one thinks of them that way because they claim to be moderates who strive to be practical rather than ideologically hidebound. But that's not really accurate. What these people are is a group of military hawks who want to use the US's power to reshape the world in our image. They also make a fetish of expertise, believing that experts can run the world better than those dirty masses of bigots and retards called the American public. They are, basically, the military adventurer wing of the cronies. I would actually put Hillary in this camp, believe it or not. PROS: N/A. CONS: Disloyal, mistake prone, will throw conservatism under bus to cover up mistakes.

(3) Single Issue Obsessives - The Original Fringe (pre-2010)

●The Religious Right: The Religious Right was the original GOP fringe (after the John Birchers were expelled in the 1950's). They are obsessed with forcing the rest of America to accept their religious views. This began as trying to force prayer into public schools, forcing schools to teach Creationism, banning abortion and outlawing gays. They sideline with book banning, trying to ban pornography, stopping Muslims, stopping atheists, and stopping other Christians who don't share their views. These people account for almost all of the caricature of the GOP, until recently. PROS: Control the southern states. CONS: Angry obsessives who give conservatism a hateful image.

(4) The Post-2010 Nutjob Fringe

This group is relatively new to the right. They moved in when the country elected a black man and then the Tea Party movement became their vehicle for attacking conservatism and replacing it... like pod people. They are the people who became Talk Radio conservatives or "genoooine conservatives." They are not conservative.

●Racists/White Socialists: These are people who see the word "American" as meaning white, English speaking "conservative" males. However, their definition of "conservative" basically equates to "someone who agrees with me." They actually favor socialism, but only for whites, and their biggest issues are minorities and foreigners who get benefits and crimes committed by brown people. Hello Ann Coulter! These are the people who invented the word "cuckservative" which tells us more about them than anyone else. Oh and women scare them. PROS: N/A. CONS: Obvious.

●Strongmen/Militia/Survivalist Types: These militia types form their own private armies in the hinterlands of various states. They like to bring automatic weapons to places like Starbucks. They support ranchers who steal public land and racists who get into standoffs with the police. They make their nests at websites that use words like "False Flag" and "sheepdog theory." They argue for the elimination of government on the belief that society will come crawling to them for protection from the ensuing chaos. This is sexual dysfunction as ideology. It's a jerk-off fantasy. PROS: N/A. CONS: Obvious.

●Paranoid Libertarians: "The Fed wired my teeth so the CIA can watch me in the bathroom!!!" These people were largely confined to the world of Ron Paul in the past, but now use the Tea Party as a bullhorn. They are economically ignorant, but believe they know things no one else does because they believe every anti-American conspiracy theory they can find. They are a mess of contradictions, but their over-riding principle seems to be that the government shouldn't have done whatever it did to piss them off, e.g. charge me with animal cruelty, support my ex-wife in the divorce, stop me from masturbating on my lawn, or arrest me for buying meth. These people are insane and use politics to prove they are more sane than evEryOne elSe!!!!! PROS: N/A. CONS: They are excellent liars and they excel at infiltrating organizations by sounding rational at first.

I see that as the list of people currently claiming the right as home. When I look at this list, it strikes me that sometimes less is more. In this case, conservatives need to drive the three freakshow types from the GOP. I would do that by selecting women and minorities for a large number of leadership positions and by shouting down their issues. I would also recommend stripping the Religious Right and the Neocons of their influence. I would do this by inserting a neutral abortion provision in the party platform, endorsing gay marriage, and including a provision against foreign adventuring. The Grumpy Cons aren't a problem, just don't pander to their negativity... get younger and more attuned to the culture.

As for the rest, I think conservatives need to refocus the party by coming up with an agenda that uses conservative ideology to address the issues that concern the non-ideological people with typical American values, while using the rational libertarians and the rational religious conservatives as a check on the lack of empathy conservatives often display.

Thoughts?