Apparent conservative ideological contradictions are strategically coherent

Evidence

In an important blog post last year, Adam Kotsko discussed this liberal leftist compulsion — rife in social media — to point to superficial contradictions in conservative ideology. “‘They believe in small government… until it comes time to control women’s bodies!’ Zing!” The problem is that these kind of sarcastic dismissals confuse argumentative or philosophical incoherence with strategic incoherence. The stated rationales for right-wing positions may not make much add up philosophically, but seen in terms of strategy, they all make perfect sense. Taken together, they serve to blame the victims, assert that the powerful are powerful for moral reasons, and then claim that the role of government is to endorse and reinforce the morally-discovered power structure rather than futilely try to disrupt it. The arguments might clash on a superficial level, but their effects are perfectly coherent and rational once the goal is granted. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 1693

Categorization

  • XREF: Aligns with ch90 and ch98 on how right-wing discourse functions as coordinated weapons; also connects to the neo-Reaganite argument that ruling ideology need not be internally consistent. — connects to: The Right’s liberal-and-traditionalist mix is coherent in Hayek’s doctrine — Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise…, 125; Vague ideological slogans can mask rather than resolve real political contradictions — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 2766; Ideological malleability reflects strategic rationality rather than irrationality — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 681 (+5 more)

Broader Connections