Unmasking the Authoritarian Core of National Conservatism

In an increasingly polarized political landscape, a formidable new ideological current has emerged: National Conservatism. While often presented as a return to traditional values, a deeper look reveals a philosophy that diverges sharply from the foundational principles of American conservatism and, indeed, from the very ideals of liberal democracy.

Far from simply being a robust defense of national interest, National Conservatism, or NatCon, displays a profoundly authoritarian streak, advocating for an expansive state power that fundamentally reshapes society.

Traditional American conservatism, historically rooted in the Enlightenment and classical liberal thought, championed individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and a skepticism towards centralized authority.

It sought to conserve established institutions, often with an emphasis on individual responsibility and local control. National Conservatism, however, appears to discard much of this heritage. Its proponents openly express disdain for the Enlightenment, viewing its emphasis on individual rights and reason as a corrosive force that has undermined societal cohesion and traditional morality.

At the heart of NatCon’s authoritarian tendency is its fervent belief in the necessity of a strong, interventionist state.

This is not the limited government of conservative lore, but a powerful entity capable of shaping culture, enforcing moral norms, and safeguarding a specific national identity. Where traditional conservatives sought to restrict government's reach, National Conservatives empower it, seeing it as the primary instrument for achieving their vision of a 'good society'—a vision often characterized by a homogenous national culture, traditional family structures, and a hierarchical social order.

This embrace of state power extends to areas once considered beyond government's purview.

NatCons frequently advocate for government intervention in the economy to serve national interests, often expressing skepticism towards globalism and unrestricted free markets. More alarmingly, they are keen to use state authority to promote their preferred cultural and religious values, even if it means impinging on individual freedoms and pluralism.

This stands in stark contrast to the liberal democratic ideal of a neutral state that protects the rights of all citizens, regardless of their beliefs.

The movement’s skepticism isn't limited to economic globalism; it extends to democratic institutions themselves. Some NatCon thinkers voice concerns about the 'tyranny of the majority' or the erosion of national sovereignty by international bodies, sometimes hinting at a preference for a more 'organic' or 'guided' form of democracy, reminiscent of illiberal democracies seen in certain Eastern European nations.

The Hungarian regime of Viktor Orbán is often cited, implicitly or explicitly, as a model for this type of governance—one where democratic forms exist but individual liberties and checks on power are systematically eroded.

The implications of this shift are profound and unsettling. By prioritizing an idealized national identity and a specific set of cultural values over individual rights and limited government, National Conservatism risks paving the way for a society where dissent is curbed, diversity is suppressed, and state power becomes paramount.

It challenges the very foundations of American constitutionalism, with its intricate system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties. Understanding National Conservatism means recognizing not just a political stance, but a fundamentally different vision for society—one that carries significant authoritarian potential.