At TakiMag, commentator Leon Haller presents an unorthodox definition of conservatism that is indistinguishable from hard communitarianism:
Conservatism may be defined (OK, roughly) as “the disposition to defend, or increase the power or influence of, the existential particularities of one’s communally formed identity; that is, one’s people, nation, culture, psyche, way of life; within the bounds of universal, immutable moral law.”
This definition is explicitly identitarian, vaguely racialist, historically grounded and certainly not mainstream. Compare it with Austin Bramwell’s definition of conservatism as the defense of the legitimacy of existing institutions.
The terms “liberal” and “conservative” haven’t had a consistent ideological meaning since the era of the Enlightenment. The terms are now completely meaningless and cause more confusion than anything else. Left and right are obsolete, and so are the Republicans and Democrats. It is the false dichotomy that keeps our politics stupid.
“the disposition to defend, or increase the power or influence of, the existential particularities of one’s communally formed identity; that is, one’s people, nation, culture, psyche, way of life; within the bounds of universal, immutable moral law.”
This pretty much summarizes my ideology right now (whatever you want to call it). However, I would replace the term moral law with natural law.
The elites of the “Left” and “Right” agree on the most important issues of the day.