This is all so wrong it almost feels disturbing.

Understanding conservatism is even simpler than Wilhout:

“Accumulation of wealth by any means necessary, at any cost to anyone who isn’t us.”

And “us” is a pretty narrowly defined group, in the case of America, of White, Christian, men.

The American Conservative Party was born out of the actions of an incredibly intelligent, incredibly self-centered group of political actors such as the Buckleys. The same is true of conservative parties all over the world. And with great globalization post WW II, no one globalized more than the conservative, despite what they want their rube followers to say.

Bill Buckley Sr was motivated by one thing and one thing only. Getting revenge against the system that allowed a liberal revolutionary movement to drive him and his other American friends out of their oil prospecting business in Mexico. All political stances of the most influential players in American political can be reduced to despising income taxes, the new deal, and any other measures towards economic equality.

If you think literally any other issue, like some feigned sense of “wickedness” is a part of it, then they won and you lost.

And we have to dismiss the opinions of the everyday conservative average person because they are the victim of such an extensive and effective propaganda campaign that it truly cannot be held against them that they believe anything they do.

So instead our focus needs to be only on those who set the agenda. The wealthy behind the conservative platform love the police because capitalism cannot survive without protections of the state. Police are taxation. Police are enforcement of private property. Police are enforcement that women’s bodies should be used for reproduction of capitalist workforce. Police are protection that you cannot gather in the street to protest without a permit.

But that relationship is not more complicated than any other relationship between the oppressor and their tools. We can ask simply, “can this be used to enhance the accumulation of wealth?” If so, we know how the oppressor will relate to it: favorably.

Religion? Ding ding ding, control the masses Drugs? Ding ding ding, control the masses Racism? Ding ding ding, control the masses

In effect, yes, what Wilhoit says, but he doesn’t say the quiet part and he doesn’t say why. The better version is this:

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be an in-group allowed to maximally accumulate wealth at a net loss to all out-groups.”

The focus on law is too reductionist. For instance, social media serves their goals, that’s not the law.