### contents - [[#start]] - [[#1. how did we get here?]] - proposal of a ideology and hierarchy framework - loss-of-hierarchy hypothesis for fascist cannibalization of traditional conservatism - [[#2. can we turn it around?]] - proposal of a solution centered around expansion of highly structured institutions & better economic security` - institutions: the military, elite universities, civil service, political parties - economic security: housing - [[#in conclusion]] --- ### start this is a response to the Liberal Currents article by Toby Buckle, ["Liberalism Did Not Fail, Conservatism Did"](https://www.liberalcurrents.com/liberalism-did-not-fail-conservatism-did/), which argues: 1. the world is coalescing around two ideological poles: a fairly standard progressive liberalism, and a nationalist far-right. 2. it was not a failure of liberalism that led to the rise of far-right elements, because the far-right is not converting liberals—it is absorbing and mobilizing the rest of the right wing. 3. the left wing must unite in the same fashion to oppose the right wing, instead of trying to appease it. i agree with the main points of the essay, and i think it's important to recognize the patterns at work here so that we prioritize unity and inter-coalitional strength over endless self-criticism & appeasement (read: unity at the meta level, not the political party level). but i think it's worth investigating two things: 1. why, on a base level, was the far-right actually able to achieve all this? 2. is there a way that we can bolster or revive traditional conservatism and undermine their coalition *without* appeasement or watering down liberal principles? ### 1. how did we get here? to start, i propose the following simple framework, which asks: how do people of dominant political ideologies respond to societal hierarchy? ![[simple hierarchy framework#ideology & hierarchy framework]] *(this is not supposed to be an all-encompassing definition for each ideology. it is generalist and simplified.)* under this framework, you can start to understand why traditional conservatism has hollowed out in the 21st century. liberals (and socialists) won the 20th century fights about hierarchy! we achieved civil rights for women, racial and sexual minorities. we destroyed empires. we flattened- for good reason!- so many of the hierarchies that traditional conservatives existed solely to defend. and without them, conservatives became vulnerable to this fascist cannibalism. far-right coalitional dominance succeeds in part because *the conservatives like being subjugated within their own coalition*. just in 2025 we had a whole spate of GOP freaks who couldn't stop referring to Trump as ["daddy"](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conservatives-daddy-experts_l_6797bce7e4b038f1c403c2f8). now maybe it makes more sense as to why the Trump II admin has focused their ire on immigrants (especially specific groups such as Haitians, Somalis, and "illegals"), and on trans people but not so much other queer people, like their erasing the TQ from the Stonewall monument. british TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) similarly exploited and inverted patriarchy to justify bigotry against trans people by painting them as a threat to feminist gains. it's all bigoted, but it's more than raw base emotional discomfort with minorities. their actions indicate that they're constantly trying to establish new underclasses—new hierarchies that they get to be on top of. many of these people have never met or even seen a trans person but they're happy to try and subjugate them anyway. ### 2. can we turn it around? to the degree that this loss-of-hierarchy framework is right, is there anything we can do to ward off fascist cannibalism of the right wing? reactionary centrists, as Buckle describes in the piece, favor appeasement of fascists as they try to establish this new nationalist paradigm. the principled left wing understandably finds that disgusting and stupid. my idea is to find areas of society where hierarchy is either necessary or at least not directly reliant on bigotry toward minorities and expand them with public policy. those would be areas such as: - the military - elite universities & high schools - the Democratic Party & other civil society groups - non-military public service corps people often extol the virtues of the military, public service corps, and higher education for their ability to expose people to diversity. but maybe that misses the big picture—these organizations bring diverse groups together, sure, but what if the real benefit is pairing diversity with *structure*? structure that tells you in no uncertain terms that your role and rank is determined not by who you are or where you come from, but by your effort and merit? the current set of elite universities is small and they serve mainly as networking opportunities for kids that are already rich and well-connected. sure, the very best of the best academically might end up there as well, but that's not the main thing. the right wing rage machine blames affirmative action policies for destroying merit in higher education, but because they fundamentally believe in hierarchy, they must also believe that the elites who already benefit from these universities are all meritorious, and it must the minorities who compete with themselves/their children at the time of admission who lack merit. most people—not just conservatives—crave security, structure, some level of control over their lives and futures. homeownership and education are big deals to families across ideologies (conservatives are just bigger freaks about it). using public policy, we can expand the number of rigorous, academically elite universities. we can build SO much more [[housing & land use|housing]], especially if we figure out how to fix condo defect liability law and build more dense apartments designed for ownership. we can embrace [[partyism]] and expand the Democratic Party as an organization with real presence in people's lives. we...don't really need to expand the military, i guess, but we can make sure to recruit the kind of folks who need to be yelled at by a drill instructor to become Normal. i also don't think we are going to be able to reverse the trend of low unionization and lack of long careers because you'd simply forgo too much economic dynamism for that to be tenable (but maybe reforms like sectoral bargaining can help.) ### in conclusion let's not try to save liberalism with the reactionary centrist / Starmerite approach and appease fascists' attempts to build a new world order by subjugating some correct number of immigrants and trans people. instead, let's unite in opposition, and also undermine the fascist coalition by expanding hierarchical institutions that appeal to traditional conservatives who crave structure.