Friday, May 12, 2017

Septimius Severus' advice to his sons

Agnostic on the political-industrial alignment:
Why has the military latched onto the GOP so much in recent decades, and Wall Street so much onto the Democrats? As the parties have become increasingly aligned with liberals or conservatives, it has driven the more conservative military to the GOP and the more liberal financiers to the Democrats.

The voter bases reflect this split as well, with conservatives identifying more with the military, and liberals more with business professionals. This boils down to liberals being more abstract and cerebral, and conservatives being more concrete and physical in orientation (nerds vs. jocks, Jews vs. Celts).
Since its inception, the GSS has queried respondents about federal government spending on "the military, armaments, and defense" with three possible responses--"too little", "too much", or "about right". The following graphs show the percentage of liberals and conservatives, by decade, who gave other than a goldilocks answer:



The differences Agnostic identifies were clear during the Nixon administration and are even starker today, mostly on account of many conservatives clamoring for more military spending and few conservatives demanding less of it. The trend really got going after 9/11, and even as large year-over-year increases in military spending happened throughout the 2000s, the numbers of conservatives who wanted more spending still increased.

Following the end of the Cold War, when Pat Buchanan called for the troops to come home, military spending to be reigned in, and NATO to be retired, the grassroots were divided on how to proceed. It was conceivable that, having spent the Soviet Union into collapse, those on the right would have united in favor of smaller government across the board, including defense.

Instead, Buchanan was run out on a rail, the neocons nestled in, the grassroots urged the party to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

Most of Trump's based liked the Syrian airstrikes and a lot of them view the budget deal as a win on account of it netting another prodigious increase in defense spending even though it lacks any funding at all for the big, beautiful wall.

GSS variables used: NATARMS(1)(3), POLVIEWS(1-2)(6-7), YEAR(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016)

19 comments:

Feryl said...

"Regardless of who has the more toxic intolerance, the fact remains that people have trouble getting along. What to do? “One of the most consistent ways to increase tolerance is contact with the other side and sharing the experience of working toward a goal,” Brandt says. He suggests starting with the person next door. “Everyone benefits from safe neighborhoods, a stimulating cultural environment and reliable snow removal,” he says. “If liberal and conservative neighbors can find ways to work together on the local level to improve their neighborhoods and communities, it might help to increase tolerance in other domains.” (If you can find a neighbor of the opposite party, that is.)"

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/09/why-liberals-arent-as-tolerant-as-they-think-215114

The article talks about how either group has equal amounts of prejudice, it's just directed towards different groups. While "openness towards experience" is noted, central priorities are not clearly delineated (e.g. liberals and fairness, conservatives and order). There's an allusion to it via the notion that liberals have a right to be hostile to conservatives out of the sense that cons are bullies who deserve wrath. The Left-slanted article has a better/more flattering understanding of what motivates lefties, while making cons sound dull and staid ("traditionalists"). Needless to say, not giving airtime to what defines a lack of order (crime, terrorism, irreconcilable cultural/ethnic differences) is how lefties can make their BS sound so appealing to people in low-crime and prosperous periods.

I quoted the top section because it sounds like the kind of naive/facile mush that Silents and Boomers have been pushing for 70 years. And oh btw, omitting ethnic differences sure makes anything seem easier. Nordic, British, Celtic, and Slavic whites in North Dakota have, regardless of their political differences, learned to get along pretty well since all of these groups long ago adopted a generic white-American identity rather than thinking of themselves as special hyphenated-Americans. Meanwhile, blacks for 50 years have been encouraged to identify as "African-American", which is strange since there's been no parallel effort to brand whites as Euro-Americans. So, via branding alone, blacks do not think of themselves as normal Americans. It's like even liberals subconsciously understand that groups of people are innately different, some to the point that we need to give them a special label.

Immigrants are the most divisive group of people of all, since by default they don't talk or act like their host nation. It triggers a territorial reaction to be among too many immigrants too frequently. Silents and Boomers considered immigrants to be attractive exotics in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, when the majority of America was homogeneous and prosperous enough to make that attitude possible.

Mid-century dreams are dying hard because liberals/non racially-aware whites have destroyed the very thing that makes an equitable high trust culture possible: ethnic homogeneity.

Feryl said...

As time goes by, post-Boomers will gain more influence and you can bet that mid-century mush will recede further and "what's in it for my people" will come to dominate. The US, and other Western places, might see regional partitioning, pogroms/more acts of terrorism, civil wars, ethnic expulsions, and so on. Left out of hysterical discussions regarding nationalism/fascism is that antipathy towards others grows in in times/places/generations which have been beset by tragedy, poverty, and disorder. Simply put, when we don't have much left we get awfully stingy with what we do have. See how in the Deep South, for many generations at this point whites have felt sufficiently threatened by the large numbers of menacing and still idiosyncratic blacks that whites down their mostly refuse to vote for whichever party panders to blacks. Indeed, when the South began coughing up lots of blacks onto the urban north, northern whites responded initially with strict segregation policies/social customs in big cities. When idealists attacked these policies and fueled black rage in the 60's, northern urban whites responded by just getting the hell away from blacks to the extent that one could.

In in theory, a lot of mid-century whites still felt sufficiently comfortable that they could at least speak of a great racial reconciliation even if in practice most whites as well as black elites were distancing themselves from horrible urbanized blacks. To some extent, there was a cognitive dissonance release valve at work: we know that most post 1960 blacks suck, and we live our lives accordingly, but at the same time it all works out rhetorically since we tell the masses that with enough effort and, um, hot air, we'll all get along just fine at some point. So it doesn't do a whole lot good to tell Boomers, "since when did you ever live among the people for whom your heart bleeds?"

Though I do think that some Boomers are finally woke about how much blacks suck, no thanks to 50-60 years of pandering to them, some will never accept the futility of diversity up to and including blacks. I was listening to an interview with a 1958 born white Detroiter, and his take on racial conflict basically was, "blacks got upset and started rioting because whites weren't understanding of what blacks had gone through". Missing is just why blacks seem to attract trouble (low IQ/impulse control, grandiosity, lack of empathy, etc.)

Dan said...

@AnnCoulter · 23h hours ago

McMaster just gave @realDonaldTrump's schedule next week: An entire week of MMEGA- Making the Middle East Great Again. America still waits.

Feryl said...

So it doesn't do a whole lot of good to tell Boomers, "since when did you ever live among the people for whom your heart bleeds?"

Piggybacking on this, for those under 40 or maybe 45 (e.g., most of the people who read "niche" alt-right blogs), need to realize at least three things: First, most Americans born before the late 70's were white. Second, due to the high white population as well as the majority of white Boomers/early X-ers growing up in all-white suburbs/small towns, older whites experienced very little diversity. Third, immigration into America was fairly low and confined to a handful of regions before the 1990's.

People get less impressionable with age. Most white Americans over 45 can't appreciate either what America has become, ethnically, or don't consciously think about what diversity inflicts on younger Americans who will never enjoy the benefits of living a large chunk of their lives in a homogeneous country.

Foks, there was a time in America when extant generations were most concerned about taxes, labor unions, communists, corporate corruption, etc. Admittedly, there was concern for white-black relations somewhere on that axis, too, especially in the 60's and early 70's when riots were happening and MLK was killed. But with America becoming increasingly diverse in ethnicity and origin over the last 30-40 years, it's hard to think of ethnic ID politics/race relations ever taking the back seat again. Not when Mohammadens are threatening to blow things up constantly.

In other words: politics, esp. outside of the 60's and the civil war era, used to be about different groups of whites arguing about particular hobby horses. As the West gets more diverse, relatively civil and good-faith debate about various policies will inevitably become impossible as different ethnics openly vie for greater spoils. Hell, among hyphenated-Americans, there's often open pandering to co-ethnics who don't even live in America.

Feryl said...

Ann Coulter has been acting like a drama queen for ages. Does she have any kids? Ya know how we like to chastise childless women over acting like fools for surrogate children (pets, third worlders, etc.)? Well, perhaps Ann is now PMSing over the continuing threats to her surrogate child, America.

Trump is, without question, perhaps the only person in America who has the means and the willingness to be able to take on at least some elements of the Deep globalist state. There are, no doubt, people out there with better ideas, but they haven't got either the money or sheer energy to pull off what Trump's been able to pull off.

We have to be grateful for what we can get. And how much did anyone realistically expect after the first half-year of Trump's rule, in which he just now finally got his complete cabinet. As we saw with the travel ban, it became very obvious just how much was going to be thrown at him when he tried to create some reforms. And Trump has to be careful with his public and personal dealings with the GOP now that he's in office, lest he burn bridges that could be useful, Trump can't summarily dismiss every butthole in the GOP or the government. It doesn't work that way. He's either got to persuade more of them, or failing that, gradually build a case to his closest and most powerful allies that careful pressure needs to be exerted on the most recalcitrant people and lobbies. And we, the public, have to exert pressure too, and we've done it before like when we got the dumbass gang of 8 amnesty bill torpedoed.

We need to find a balance between fired-up cockiness and fatalistic whining (what Coulter seems to have turned into over the last couple months). I gather that Coulter is still stung over Corey Lewandowski getting the boot long before Trump was even elected. But Trump, to get anywhere, couldn't flat-out defy the system and it's veteran operatives at every turn. Some alliances and yes, compromises, have to be made. That's how life works. I'd rather pick a random person off the street to lead the pentagon rather than some neo-con war whore like McMaster, but you can't do that. I honestly think there's a possibility that a sizable chunk of the GOP would ally with the Dems to impeach Trump if he went too far off the reservation too fast.

For those who beat the campaign promise drum, don't forget that Trump was not privy to how much of the game works prior to being elected. He probably didn't appreciate just how big and tenacious the globalist deep state is. According to guys like Roger Stone, Trump is not letting the bad guys push him around and gang up on him to make him cooperate with the really dumb ideas. Guys like McMaster are salivating to launch more wars while little is done to protect America's demographic destiny. Trump is trying his best to beat them just within the parameters of acceptable discourse while hopefully over-time slowly stretching the boundaries of policy discourse so that new ideas and people get their foot in the door.

Only time will tell just how successful Trump is, but we had to start somewhere. And he's already provided a playbook for future nationalist candidates and movements. If nothing else, we have that, not to mention 1 Sup. Court pick under his belt and perhaps 1-2 more to come.

BTW, Cernovich I believe said that Trump fears that McMaster may have been passing stuff to Deep State doofus Patraeus, to the indifference of Comey and that's part of the reason Comey got fired. Stone also recently said that McMaster may be on his way to being "promoted" to a position that makes him less dangerous. Trump, again, is not a fool. They didn't let him have his ally Flynn, and he ended up with a guy whose hands drip with blood and dirty money.

Audacious Epigone said...

So it doesn't do a whole lot of good to tell Boomers, "since when did you ever live among the people for whom your heart bleeds?"

Polemically it's actually pretty damned effective, especially for recruiting those who are already sympathetic to the alt right. I've made a habit of linking to this and then saying, "I guarantee I can find you more house and more diversity in the same metro area for *less* than what you're paying now. It's a win-win. When we find it, will you publicly explain why you are interested or why you won't move there?" I do it in person, too. It makes people squirm like hell and totally puts them on their heels.

There isnt an effective answer to it. The best they're able to come up with is "I like my neighbors/I'm settled in here". Put that in the noggin and blast them with it when you find out they're moving to another city or state!

Joe Sobran famously said (summarizing) you can't tell the difference between a klansman and a liberal by the race of their neighbors.

WRT to Trump, your point is well taken, but it does seem like a massed opportunity to not have really concentrated his initial energy in the wall. The 'leaderless' public has thwarted bipartisan amnesty efforts over and over again. It's a populist cause, one that is more popular than Trump is. He had a mandate after the election. Now the initial thrust is gone, the momentum has dissipated, and everything is going to be a hard slog now.

Gorsuch looks pretty good, but the SCOTUS appointment is a relatively easy one. How many Republican senators were going to vote against a conservative appointment?

Audacious Epigone said...

missed* opportunity

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Trump owes his presidency to the promise of building a wall. In the very early days of the primaries, Trump only surged because people believe he stuck to his guns on immigration especially that big beautiful wall he talked about at every one of his rallies. His strong performance and the weak neocon performance was a clear message that Republican voters are done with neoconservatism.

So Trump's plan is to revive neoconservativism with some nationalistic tendencies?

If Trump is hoping that going along to get along will help him, he's wrong. He will lose (if not already) his new base that he absolutely needs that he carved out of the Upper Midwest if he does not start building that wall. He can't go to rallies in 2020 and still promise to build the wall. "We're gonna build the wall believe me" will go over like a lead balloon if he couldn't do it with a conservative leaning Supreme Court and two branches being GOP majorities.

I will give Trump the benefit of the doubt: I do believe he will make a yuge push to build the wall but it will be met with more resistance the longer he waits. People aren't going to accept a virtual wall either. It has to be something people can look at and touch.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Random Dude, A.E.


You are missing a 50(+) year Patron - Client social relationship between the White Working class and the Defense-Industrial Complex that underlies the Conservative attachment to Defense spending.

Please see Ann R. Markusen 1991 book "The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial America"

This is the marketing on Google books --

Since World War II, America's economic landscape has undergone a profound transformation. The effects of this change can be seen in the decline of the traditional industrial heartland and the emergence of new high tech industrial complexes in California, Texas, Boston, and Florida. The Rise of the Gunbelt demonstrates that this economic restructuring is a direct result of the rise of the military industrial complex (MIC) and a wholly new industry based on defense spending and Pentagon contacts. Chronicling the dramatic growth of this vast complex, the authors analyze the roles played by the shift from land and sea warfare to aerial combat in World War II, the Cold War, the birth of aerospace and the consequent radical transformation of the airplane industry, and labor and major defense corporations such as Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas. Exploring the reasons for the shifts in defense spending--including the role of lobbyists and the Department of Defense in awarding contracts--and the effects on regional and national economic development, this comprehensive study reveals the complexities of the MIC

It's been said that LBJ used NASA to industrialize the South.

Actually it was the Vietnam War and Reagan Defense Build up that did it.

So Liberals seeing defense money as wasteful and conservatives loving it is very much a matter of who's pocket got picked and filled.



Mil-Tech Bard said...

A.E.

The following was from a southerner I know that captures the essence of the Southern White Working class attitude regards military service in the late Pres. Obama era --

One rural county in Texas supplied ten times the number of total members of the military in 2007 than OAKLAND. (Twenty vs two. Yes, Oakland only had two people volunteer for military service in a year. At least volunteer AND meet the standards.) Which had nearly fifty times its population.

Post 9/11 the 'red states' (and counties) rose up in fury even though they were not the target. Because 'them damn ragheads attacked 'Murica!' See also: Courtesy of the Red White and Blue.

These days, they really don't give much of a rat's ass.

The response in those zones after Boston was, to say the least, muted. Because they spent years pouring out their blood, got called every name in the book for defending the 'blue county' asshats and got paid with Obama.

The people who are the most targeted seem the least concerned. I'm fine with completely dropping every aspect of 'the global war on terror', cutting back every defense agency, completely annihilating the DHS then letting them take what's coming to them.

So Syria is a win/win. Use by Assad proxies on the US? You go boy. Maybe it will finally give someone the balls to be uniferous with you. (Yesterday's word of the day.)

Proliferation of chemical weapons? Aren't going to be used on Chattanooga. Troops already spent two wars in MOPP IV assuming they'd be gassed. (And in Desert Storm were, albeit accidentally.) The people who are going to die from a terrorist attack elected Obama. They get what they deserve.

For the few who are innocent of stupidity or simply innocent: God will surely know his own.

This is, by the way, a fairly common sentiment in the 'Tea Party' wing.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

The prospect of him having made it through a gauntlet unlike any other in American history not only still standing but standing victoriously only to subsequently give away the farm is infinitely frustrating for those on the outside looking in. I agree that as his candidacy was a referendum on a wall so will a wall--or the lack of one--be a referendum on his presidency.

Mil-Tech Bard,

But the white working class has only very recently shifted over to the GOP in convincing numbers--just last November, really. McCain--Mr. Military--beat Obama by a whopping 4 points among whites making less than $50k/year.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

The White Working class voted for Reagan in 1980, 1984 and somewhat for the elder Bush in 1988.

Bill Clinton seduced them away in 1992 and only Trump got them back for the GOP in 2016.

Romney could have had them in 2012 with a full throated plan to repeal Obamacare...but blew it.

Feryl said...

"The following was from a southerner I know that captures the essence of the Southern White Working class attitude regards military service in the late Pres. Obama era --

One rural county in Texas supplied ten times the number of total members of the military in 2007 than OAKLAND. (Twenty vs two. Yes, Oakland only had two people volunteer for military service in a year. At least volunteer AND meet the standards.) Which had nearly fifty times its population."

As usual, the corn-belt is left high and dry. The financial wing of globalization is dominated by Jews in their strongholds of the northeast and the most powerful cities in Western Europe. The military wing is dominated by battle axe Southerners. Agnostic brought up a survey showing that the Midwest and of course Western US is less interested in Pax Americana than the East Coast and South.

Part German Trump voiced pragmatism about interventions and regime change prior to being elected. Which fits right into his appeal (higher than a typical modern GOP'er) in the bratwurst-belt.

There's a decent history of populists uniting Midwesterners/Westerners (with perhaps some of Appalachia thrown in) by being hostile towards the entrenched arrogance and corruption of Eastern elites. Over the last couple decades, a lot of the Western states have been infiltrated by too many yuppie refugees and immigrants and their effete nonsense. Just the same, endless warmongering is still pretty unpopular Out West.

Should we see greater aggression, shit-libby Westerners are going to have to suck it up and join corn-belters in opposition to the mil. industrial complex. It's the one thing hippies Out West and quite a few blonde farmers can agree on.

The Wall will play fairly well to clannish Southerners and a decent amount of blonde-Americans tired of cultural chaos. Between that and the campaign promise aspect, Trump probably does need to be aware of the potential of it becoming his "read my lips" betrayed legacy. For what it's worth, the kind of people bugged by the broken promise are the kind of people who would not vote Dem. in 2020 if the candidate was created using the DNA of Ghengis Khan, Reagan, Eric the Red, and Charlemagne.

Fence sitting people who couldn't pull the trigger for Hillary are more concerned about health care and jobs, jobs, jobs! than a physical wall, especially given that immigration numbers have already been suppressed. And frankly, Trump was right to immediately focus on banning invaders from terrorist hot beds. The sombreros might run you over or even paw at your wife, but the burkas represent a clear and present danger to thousands of years of Western progress. Mestizos might never rise above being half-assed whites, but they're more palatable than Allah.

Feryl said...

"The White Working class voted for Reagan in 1980, 1984 and somewhat for the elder Bush in 1988.

Bill Clinton seduced them away in 1992 and only Trump got them back for the GOP in 2016.

Romney could have had them in 2012 with a full throated plan to repeal Obamacare...but blew it."

Comparatively comfortable (financially speaking) Silents and Boomers punished the Dems in the 70's and 80's for Willie Horton type reasons. Dems/liberals badly over-reached with their pandering to criminals and various other weirdos, not to mention their ill-fated "wars" against all kinds of things (the effort to end poverty being the most ignominious in it's unintended consequences, as blacks began having huge numbers of kids while whites for the most part throttled their fertility).

By the early 90's, Dems swore to never let another Mike Dukakis happen again. Bill Clinton told the generations of Korea and Vietnam that he was going to protect their communities and reform welfare. He was persuasive enough to make his re-election a cinch. Furthermore, a lot of blue collar/lower middle class voters in the 90's, after the late 80's Wall Street scandals and the early 90's recession, felt that the GOP went too far in their promotion of individualistic glory seeking which came at the expense of many others. I know, it's not like neo-liberal Bill Clinton was any better; he had the extremely fortuitous break to take office after Bush became a joke and before the recessions of the 2000's exposed what a fraud the "booming" 90's were, after all, it was in the 90's that the US started gaming official measures of inflation and unemployment which made it easier to conceal how those born after 1954 had an anemic financial backstop.

As you say, any number of people running for the GOP in 2012 could've blown the whistle on how horribly corrupted by neo-liberalism/corporate welfare both parties were for 30 years. But instead, we got the dude behind the pre-cursor to Obamacare. No threat to the status quo.

Feryl said...

The White Working class voted for Reagan in 1980, 1984 and somewhat for the elder Bush in 1988.

Voting R was as quintessentially an 80's phenomena as early digital synthesizers, wrinkle-free(ish) cotton and back-combed hair. Then again, if not for Watergate, the GOP would've swept the 70's too although people voted more casually and at times begrudgingly in the mid to late 70's than they did during the various crises of the 80's (Aids, crack, nuclear war and child abuse hysteria, etc.)

In the 90's, people relaxed a fair bit (sloppy anti-fashion, the "irony" craze, grunge, laid-back rap) after the apocalypse porn of the 80's turned out to be a bit oversold, esp. when the Soviets embarrassingly were revealed to be a ramshackle outfit who barely could run a functioning postal system, let alone an empire. Did we really need to feel that afraid of them in the 70's and 80's?

Audacious Epigone said...

Did we really need to feel that afraid of them in the 70's and 80's?

Do we need to feel afraid of them today? Rhetorical.

Feryl said...

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2017/05/richard-nixon-race-iq-moynihan-herrnstein/

Nixon was about as woke as you could be on HBD, and this was the early 70's! A lot of his comments sound like what you'd read on a dissident right site.

But that didn't mean he wanted the US to be an ethno-state. He was an optimistic G.I. who wanted to make America strong and harmonious, even in the face of great challenges. G.I.s and Losts (virtually the entire notorious 60's Warren Supreme Court was born in the late 1800's) gave us the Cultural Marxist post-WW2 nightmare of futile efforts to enforce "anti-racism" policies designed to keep society humming. The younger generations of the mid-century (Silents and Boomers) were mostly on-board.

I really do think that the Nazis utterly destroyed the appeal of enthno-nationalist-collectivist ideology (which after we declared war against Hitler came to be derided as fascism, regarded by much of the "respectable" class as the more stupid and mean cousin of communism). Problem is, any thing sensibly believed by mid-century fascists (like racial differences) got associated with barbaric excesses. Ironically, the greater damage inflicted by communists didn't kill the mainstream viability of some of their worst ideas (like attacking all religion or "ironing" out national/racial/gender differences).

HBD awareness (to say nothing of prescriptive dissident right rhetoric) is automatically associated with the Third Reich, while futile and counterproductive blank slate rhetoric/ambitions are promoted ceaselessly by those who conceal the basis of the terrible crimes perpetrated by commies in the name of the greater good of the Left-wing cheerful nation-state despoilers

Whether it's Nixon's public persona or Howard Deans recent attacks on the 1st Amendment, one thing is clear: suppression of the truth and perhaps in times of crisis, dissidents, is mandatory to maintain the dream that one day we all will just get along. Even in the presence of apparently perpetual biological differences.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The specter of Nazism is a boogeyman that keeps people from intellectually touching HBD with a 10-foot pole. It's strange--we don't reject biology or medicine because of what the Greeks thought about the four humors. I guess we need another 2000 years or so, then Hitler won't seem so raw!

Otoh, that risible dream is increasingly becoming more difficult to ignore. Respectable thought leaders who are sympathetic to HBD, like Charles Murray, have really started coming out strong in their predictions of where the science is going to take us.

Feryl said...

Sorry for the belated response, but it dawned on me that the Nazis were Western. "We" are responsible for them. Americans, Brits, and Nords created a scientific culture regarding genetics that ended up being exploited by Nazis. We are all Germans, now, in the sense that ethnically and culturally we traveled with them on the same journey; they just went further than we did and now we all must be punished for it.

Liberals, in their endless romancing of the exotic and foreign, actively distorted and defended Soviet culture before the 70's and then proceeded to simply act as if many of these atrocities never happened. I mean, the commies weren't perfect, but their heart was in the right place. And hey, they weren't trying to perpetuate white Western privilege or anything.

Liberals distorting and concealing the embarrassing reality of Arab culture after 9/11 is the latest manifestation of this flaw of liberal psychology. They have such a ferocious shame regarding the accomplishments of Western Civ. that the more something is removed from trad. Western culture, the more it is to be seen as worthy of support.

Conservatives never get why liberals are drawn to non-white West Euro cultures which are profoundly illiberal. The answer to this vexing tradition is that the very things that make Westerners capable of being, well, Western liberals, make liberals feel guilty. So their heart bleeds for cultures that want to make Western liberalism impossible. Keep in mind too that the Soviets were not promoting Western liberal culture; rather, they believed in subjugating all individual desires (commercial, artistic, sexual, social, etc.) to the needs of the God-like state. Funny that the bashing of Putin for muh gays never acknowledges that the only countries in the world that defend sexual hedonism are ones founded by white Westerners (West Europe, the Anglosphere, and Latin America). American conservatism is individualistic (e,g., Western) in the sense that the majority of us do not believe that the Fed Gov should be imposing sexual morality on distinct states/cities/towns. On the prairies, let people outlaw sex shops and fag marriage. But if people in Sodom I mean San Fran want to look the other way at public buggery in the presence of minors, well, let 'em have it that way.

Ultimately, liberals derive too much glee from white conservative discomfort to fully understand the implications of flooding Western countries with Muslims and Arabs, of all people. When we enter a period of crisis/ongoing conflict, it is almost always the hardcore liberals who end up losing since loyalty to clan, tradition, security, etc. over-rides everything else. And liberals don't have much loyalty, other than to Permanent Cultural Revolution which is the opposite of what people in difficult times tolerate. For all the handwringing about muh DACA and so forth, the reality is that native Westerners are showing more nativist tendencies than they have in ages, because the time for entertaining liberal utopian diversity non-sense has ended. We over-loaded our mental and social capacity for diversity, and that sector of the culture is collapsing under it's own weight as "liberal" students demand ethnic pandering and even segregation, things that would've been unthinkable to young Boomers and X-ers in the 60's-90's.

Note too that Millennials are camping out with their families for decades, a definite sign of their disinclination to experiment and take risks. They're not being socialized to embrace the other (other ethnic groups, regions, religions, etc.) as Boomers and X-ers were.