With the Republican Party securing a majority in the House of Representatives, the era of Trump’s complete rule that many people had imagined is approaching. However, whether this will become a true political reality remains to be seen. The Republican Party’s advantage within the House of Representatives is extremely weak, which will greatly amplify the personal voices of restless lawmakers. The dismal resignation of former Republican House Speaker McCarthy is an example.

However, the above facts will not change the reality that Trump has greater freedom during his second term. The media’s high attention to Trump’s appointment indicates that Americans have great interest in the possible measures of the next government. Trump’s dismissal of Haley and Pompeo, as well as the appointment of Musk and Ramaswami as the heads of the Department of Efficiency (DOGE), quickly made headlines, and this wave of personnel and public opinion will continue until Trump officially takes office.

The author has no intention of making any predictions about the candidates for Trump’s various departments, after all, the rumors circulating in the media a few days ago that Pompeo would serve as defense chief have been replaced by the unknown former infantry captain Pete Hegsas. The opposition sees this appointment as a result of Trump being unavailable or lacking political experience; Supporters, on the other hand, link the Veterans Commission just mentioned by The Wall Street Journal and see the appointment as part of Trump’s comprehensive reform of the appointment of senior military officers.

Considering the polarized attitudes of Pompeo and Hegsas towards the Ukrainian issue, this will deepen the sense of disillusionment among Ukrainians. Gates’ appointment as Attorney General and Tulsey’s appointment as Director of National Intelligence have further fueled criticism from Trump’s first term National Security Advisor, the renowned neoconservative Bolton.

The opposite predictions indicate a fact that, apart from Trump’s true core aides, the vast majority of mainstream media predictions are not fundamentally different from the general public’s speculations on personnel appointments. Prediction is indeed a hot topic, but what I am more concerned about is what kind of political ideology or structural changes are represented behind Trump’s series of personnel appointments. From Trump’s current personnel appointment trends, looking ahead to the next four years, this year may be the best year for liberalism and neoconservatism.

In our article “Trump’s Return, Not a Conservative ‘Restoration'” a few days ago, we mentioned that the Trump of the second week is not only conservative, but also the reconstruction and evolution of globalization itself, as well as the various changes brought about by the process of self contradiction and self repair, have led countries and the United States, which was once a leader in globalization, to enter a period of growth of nativist narrative together.

At that time, due to space limitations, the article did not elaborate in detail on the entanglement and differences between traditional conservatism and neoconservatism in American politics. Taking the perspective of the structural opposition between the global and local spheres is an important way to understand Trump’s re-election. But this perspective may require further explanation of why traditional conservatism, represented by the Trump movement, is more representative of local consciousness than neoconservatism/neoliberalism and left-wing movements in the current cycle, which is closely related to the strong preference of traditional conservatism for local consciousness. From this perspective, Trump’s second term in office is an undeniable revival of traditional conservatism. Behind the revival of traditional conservatism lies the complex changes in the relationship between traditional conservatism and neo conservatism.

With the appointment of more non establishment outsiders and the establishment of government efficiency departments as a sign, Trump’s second term will accelerate the reshaping of the political fundamentals of both parties, and the cultural agenda focused on anti awakening will become the focus of the upcoming public opinion confrontation. The total revenge of traditional conservatism against neoconservatism/neoliberalism and progressive liberalism has officially begun.

Trump’s traditional conservative bloodline

Many members of the intellectual class in contemporary American academia, or more precisely, in the 1960s and 1970s, have made an interesting assertion that there is no conservative tradition in the United States. This statement can ultimately be summed up in the fact that the United States has no history. Or more precisely, the United States does not have an old system that needs to be preserved.

In this sense, even if the United States has conservatism, it is a conservatism different from Europe – a conservatism that supports the liberal tradition. In Huntington’s words, the United States is a country built on the principles of Locke style liberalism. In a sense, liberals point out the long-term dilemma of conservatism. Conservatism lacks a clear and distinct intellectual lineage like liberalism or socialism. It seems to prefer the creative expression of genius figures. However, if viewed from a more objective perspective, viewing American conservatism as a vassal of liberalism can only be a blind spot.

Taking Trump’s core policies as an example, his policies can be roughly divided into the following aspects: highly emphasizing the importance of cultural warfare in the cultural field, actively defending the social way of traditional families and communities; While opposing excessive infiltration of government power in the economic field, we emphasize the importance of social solidarity and take into account the interests and demands of workers and rural classes; Politically emphasizing the priority of US national interests, tending to adopt trade protectionism policies such as high tariffs and non interventionist approaches towards the outside world.

Trump’s policies are incompatible with the mainstream order dominated by neoconservatism. But once we enter the traditional conservative path that liberals are unfamiliar with, we will immediately find that these policies have strong consistency within orthodox American conservatism.

The last person who was highly aligned with Trump’s basic policies was Pat Buchanan. He emphasized in the mid-1990s the catastrophic destruction of traditional conservatism by the neoliberal order. This is not only reflected in the issue of illegal immigration, but also in cultural conflicts, and most importantly, in the future of the United States.

He accused the Republican establishment and the Democratic Party of succumbing to abstract atomized individuals under capitalism and surrendering to economism. The result of this surrender is that “young married families with a large group of children have now become endangered species. Only wealthy young people can afford that ‘way of life’, and they are not interested in it.” He attempted to represent traditional conservatism and compete with George H.W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in an era dominated by neoconservatism. It was he who officially pushed the concept of culture wars into the political vortex of the United States at the 1992 Republican National Convention.

The last traditional conservative who closely aligned with Trump’s policies was Robert Taft, a long-standing opponent of Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition. As the long-term leader of the Republican Senate, he formed a conservative alliance that included both the Republican and Democratic parties. He supports safeguarding workers’ rights while opposing excessive intrusion of state power. His support for the lower class is highlighted by his support for the Housing Act.

Non interventionism may be his most famous attitude. He opposed the United States joining World War II, as well as joining the United Nations. He also opposed NATO and questioned the constitutionality of the United States joining the Korean War. Compared to Taft’s non interventionism, Trump’s withdrawal proposal can only be said to be relatively moderate, if not in line.

Russell Kirk, the most representative intellectual of traditional American conservatism after World War II, commented that Taft represented the true character and temperament of American conservatism. In his book “Robert A. Taft’s Political Principles,” he wrote, “After the hollow rhetoric of ‘world unity’ can no longer make people laugh, the principles of safeguarding national interests, efforts to prudently maintain peace, and the grand strategy of abandoning imperialism remain the goals of American foreign policy

This lineage can certainly be traced further back, and through tracing it, we can discover the importance of Southern conservatism in the orthodox conservative path of the United States. For the general reader, the author believes that the continuity of this policy and philosophy has fully demonstrated that Trump has inherited a continuity that does indeed exist in conservatism. This continuity is reflected in the political practices of Buchanan and Taft, as well as in the true conservative minds of Russell Kirk and Paul Goldfried.

Or more precisely, today’s so-called liberal world sees Trump as an incomprehensible anomaly precisely because they arrogantly ignore traditional American conservatism. Under this path, they can only draw a single dimensional conclusion, that the Trump movement is merely a rebellion against neoliberal global consciousness.

What is traditional conservatism

From the perspective of neoliberal globalization, the Trump movement is a rebellion of American domestic consciousness against the neoliberal universal order. Even whether Trump himself is a staunch traditional conservative is questionable. As pointed out in my previous article, Trump finally confirmed his Republican identity after 2010. But these statements are not enough to deny the connection between Trump’s victory and the revival of traditional conservatism. To better explain this issue, what is traditional conservatism is an urgent question that needs to be answered.

A comprehensive review of traditional conservatism is a large-scale issue. This does not prevent the author from pointing out the core characteristics of traditional conservatism in a targeted manner. In short, all the claims of traditional conservatism can revolve around the belief that individuals exist because of a community. Applying Aristotle’s ancient admonition, ‘Outside the city-state, neither gods nor beasts exist.’. Humans possess a biological brain capable of independent thinking, but what we call humans can only be produced within a community.

Give a less precise example. We can talk about a person’s height, weight, heart rate per minute, and even their genetic sequence. But for us, a living person refers to their relationship with us, or rather with the world we perceive. He can be a friend or an enemy, he can be a relative or a stranger, but only in my interactions with others can the concept of a person have meaning.

For conservatives, this means a self-evident truth that people can only live within a community. The abstract atomized individual imagined by modern social contract theory is neither historical nor in line with the logical premise of human society.

In the community-based thinking mode, the confusion between liberalism and conservatism on individual freedom issues can only be clarified. As a common misconception, liberals often claim that traditional conservatism in the UK and the US also accepts the concept of individual freedom, so even if they are not liberal, they are being liberalized. Obviously, this is not clear about the essential difference between the two types of freedom.

The individual freedom understood by liberalism is a universal freedom based on the abstraction of atomic individuals. After extracting all the special elements, they obtained an empty set of people that could only be established in ideas, and in turn, it became the foundation of all equal rights. This kind of flattery towards individual will has a logical result, that is, the supremacy of individual will, and the community has become an accessory to individual will, serving it.

For traditional conservatism, individual freedom is not the result of abstract ideas, but rather the result of different historical and cultural customs in each region. In Burke’s words, the freedom of the French is not the freedom of the British. There is no universal individual freedom, only concrete individual freedom shaped by various communities. This personal freedom is limited and in line with the internal consensus of the community. In other words, individual freedom is subordinate to the norms of the community.

This clarification also applies to many other confusions. For example, many people often associate conservatism with laissez faire pro business policies and small government. It has to be said that the prevalence of such stereotypes fully demonstrates the weakness of contemporary conservatism in terms of propaganda ability.

Burke did emphasize the value of free markets when laying down the fundamental principles of conservatism. Adam Smith, relying on Burke’s close friendship, emphasized Burke’s support for his ideas. But Burke’s free market still relies on a benign community as a prerequisite, and only when there is an effective consensus within the community on basic commercial exchanges, is the free market valuable. Otherwise, the phenomenon of bad money driving out good money will frequently occur.

That’s also why Burke pays special attention to the value of stability for small farmers. From a purely capitalist perspective, the petite bourgeoisie dominated by farmers and small manufacturing owners has no way of dealing with the invasion of transnational or monopolistic capital. In Burke’s own words, “As for weaker capital, we can easily judge that any small mistake they make will further weaken, weaken, lose productivity, and even completely destroy them.” However, traditional conservatism needs to defend these unprofitable classes in capital, which are important links in maintaining the healthy operation of local communities.

Burke’s idea can further explain the true idea of traditional conservatism’s preference for small government. It should be emphasized that traditional conservatism has never clearly tied itself to the goals of small or large government, and there is a clear difference in preference between traditional conservatism in the UK and the US and traditional conservatism in Europe in this regard. Even Burke himself emphasized the need to accept a high degree of centralization of central power in specific situations.

The preference for traditional conservatism in Britain and America is more based on the idea that it is unnecessary and should not be changed. For example, in a community in the United States or the United Kingdom, everyone has established a set of long-term stable lifestyles, and there are no real structural conflicts among members within the community; In this situation, traditional conservatism in the UK and the US believes that the government does not need to interfere any further; The invasion of powerful external forces may actually destroy the harmony of the original community.

Even the resistance of traditional conservatism to the awakening movement is based on this concept. The cultural awakening movement has threatened the harmony and unity of the community itself, and a community without harmony and unity cannot provide stability and consensus for political activities. Without such stability and consensus, the so-called capitalist democratic system is like a castle in the air, and in the conflicts of countless strong individual wills, human society will eventually face its own end in despair.

If we understand the above conclusion, it is not difficult to find that traditional conservatism is the spiritual essence of Trump’s line. His emphasis on the working class, attempts to alleviate the burden on farmers and small manufacturing owners, and non interventionist policies are all attempts by traditional conservatism to repair the American community.

The iconic slogan of the Trump movement, ‘Make America Great Again,’ is a direct visualization of traditional conservatism. On the surface, it is a nostalgia for the beautiful years. But this nostalgia is aimed at repairing the spiritual coordinates of the internal division within the community, and allowing the American people to once again imagine a united America.

This is also the result of the natural consistency between traditional conservatism and local consciousness. Under the universal vision of socialism and liberalism, conservatism has a clear preference for local consciousness. This is not only reflected in the preference for local community communities, but also in the preference for ethnic or national communities. It fundamentally opposes the universal political landscape of rationalism. It is at this point that we can confirm that the Trump movement is a revival of local consciousness, as well as a revival of traditional conservatism.

The New Conservatism of the Beizi Sect

After a rough explanation of traditional conservatism, we can move on to the next question, which is whether neoconservatism is conservatism or not.

The author is not in a hurry to answer this question. The historical review of the first part is a more appropriate entry point. Sharp readers have noticed that from the death of Taft in 1953 to Trump’s victory in 2016, there seems to be a huge gap in traditional conservatism. It seems that traditional conservatism has been dormant in politics for decades since the 1960s. Or more precisely, Buchanan’s failure illustrates the fact that traditional conservatism has been in a slump in recent decades. The reason behind this is an accurate grasp of the complex relationship between neoconservatism and traditional conservatism.

In the 1960s, the United States launched a massive civil rights movement. With racial equality at its core, progressives vigorously promote the so-called equal rights movement. The expansion of black political rights was a landmark event that had a profound impact on the political structure of the southern United States. Like the Civil War, the white dominated politics of the American South became a moral and political target of criticism. In the words of Southern conservatives themselves, this is another victory for the Yankees over the Dixies.

The decline of southern conservatism has led to the disruption of the original political balance. The conservative majority alliance established by Taft in the US Congress, especially in the Senate, was on the brink of collapse, and the Progressive Alliance gained a majority from the Supreme Court to the President and then to Congress. In order to overcome this dilemma, finding new forces, or in other words, new election alliances, has become a problem that traditional conservatism must solve. It is in this context that neoconservatism has emerged.

For traditional conservatives at that time, in the context of the Cold War, neoconservatism was in line with the ideas of traditional conservatism in at least two core viewpoints. One is a strong preference for personal freedom; The second is to firmly oppose the invasion of Soviet ideology.

Unlike the Cold War situation during the Reagan era, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet Union played a more ideological exporting role. The United States was deeply mired in the quagmire due to the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. Traditional conservatives see this situation as a sign of the declining American way of life. The attitude of neoconservatism towards the above core viewpoints perfectly satisfies the idea of defending the traditional American way of life. Intellectually speaking, almost all neoconservatives come from the intellectual class, especially the Jewish intellectual class. Traditional conservatism also sees neoconservatism as an opportunity to expand its influence among the intellectual class.

It was the traditional conservatives themselves who opened the door to neoconservatism in the 1970s. Russell Kirk at best believes that these neoconservatives are too focused on gaining influence on television and have some harmless impatience. However, the strategies of these neoconservatives were successful. They successfully used television as a medium to seize the discourse power within conservatism, and then gradually eliminated traditional conservatism from conservative magazines and think tanks.

This purge has been so successful that traditional conservatism has completely disappeared from academia and politics. Especially after the unexpected victory in the Cold War, the preference for individual freedom turned into a fervent belief in individual rights, and the resistance against the Soviet Union turned into the superiority of the universal system of the United States. So much so that Kirk finally repented in the first Gulf War and found himself as an isolated minority. Neoconservatism has also shaped a collection of conservative stereotypes today. The strong preference for external interference and the pro wealthy domestic attitude have become iconic attitudes among them.

In hindsight, traditional conservatives represented by Kirk clearly misjudged neoconservatism. Or rather, they overlooked the issue of the bloodline of neoconservatism from the very beginning. Almost all of the neoconservatives in the United States are members of left-wing liberals and even former Trotskyists with Jewish ancestry.

As acknowledged by the father of neoconservatism, Owen Crystal, in his autobiographical memoirs, it was the Cold War that completely changed his attitude and made him a neoconservative. These neoconservatives believe that today’s liberalism is no longer liberalism. The United States has fallen into a new eternal war.

The end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was just the beginning of another Cold War. It is a spirit that targets both political and social collectivism, as well as moral anarchism. It won’t win, but it will make us all losers. I believe we have reached a critical turning point in the history of American democracy. Now that another ‘Cold War’ has ended, the real Cold War has begun

Any reader who is familiar with Trotskyism can easily see the lingering shadow in Christo’s thought. Or more specifically, there is a shared spiritual essence between this eternal cold war and the theory of constant revolution. This ultimately gave rise to a strong desire of neoconservatism for external intervention. The collapse of the Soviet Union is not the end, it is necessary to promote the American system to every corner of the world.

Neoconservatives like Christo seem to have shaken off the influence of socialism and liberalism, but the conceptual structure they once identified with has already been embedded in their way of thinking. This is precisely the problem of traditional conservatives of Kirk’s generation. They were too eager to absorb fresh blood, to the point where they forgot that the true ideological motivation that led to the birth of neoconservatism came more from the instinctive aversion of the Trotskyists to Stalinism.

This aversion can even be traced back to Christo’s sectarian struggle between Trotskyism and Stalinism in the conference room during his student years. In his own words, “We believe that our radicalism is a privilege of status, not a burden imposed on us by bad luck. We have never thought of blaming anyone or anything for ‘elitism’. Elites are us – the ‘happy few’ chosen by history, guiding our fellow citizens towards secular redemption

This spiritual temperament that is incompatible with traditional conservatism should have been discovered from the beginning, and traditional conservatives ultimately paid for this mistake with their decades long low tide. Buchanan’s unlucky attempts and the less than sufficient Crisma have already hinted at the future of traditional conservatism – waiting for the opportunity, waiting for the leader.

The revival of traditional conservatism

The relationship between Trump’s rise and the 2008 economic crisis, or the neoliberal global order, has been elaborated in previous articles and will not be repeated. Traditional conservatism finally hopes for its own Christian leader. Through a comprehensive struggle against neoconservatism or the Republican establishment, traditional conservatism has once again regained its voice.

This also constitutes a decisive difference between Trump’s second term and his first term. This is not simply a four-year rotation between the two parties, but a comprehensive reckoning of the post Cold War American landscape by traditional conservatism. This is also the reason why a large number of people from both parties have exchanged basic positions. They are structural sacrifices for deep political restructuring. Cheney has fallen from being the third most powerful figure in the Republican House of Representatives to only being able to assist Harris in his campaign.

The initial personnel appointments of Trump’s second term further indicate a trend of liquidation. This trend has two prominent characteristics. The first is the massive elimination of neoconservatives.

Hardcore neoconservatives like Bolton and Cheney, who had a falling out with Trump in their first term, were the first to be eliminated. Next is Haley, who claims to be a representative of the moderate faction. Since the end of the primary, in the final moments of this election, Trump has secretly rejected Haley’s candidacy. Finally, there are opportunistic figures like Pompeo. These people all have a common characteristic, they were once part of the Republican Party’s establishment faction. After winning the election, Trump directly kicked Haley and Pompeo out, cutting off the speculation of public opinion.

Perhaps someone will mention potential Secretary of State candidates like Rubio. Rubio, who comes from the Tea Party, cannot be considered a standard Republican establishment, but the most crucial thing is his ability to turn things around. As someone who shouted support for Ukraine in 2022, he used his position as a senator to vote against the Ukraine aid bill in 2024. The answer to who caused the 180 degree change in his attitude is self-evident.

John Thune can indeed be considered a pro establishment figure, but in order to gain Trump’s support for him as the Republican leader of the Senate, he went straight to Mar-a-Lago estate as early as March this year in an attempt to ease tensions. The result of this lobbying avoided Trump’s public support for specific candidates. After last night’s vote, Thun quickly declared, ‘This Republican team is united and supports President Trump’s agenda. Our work starts today.’.

The second is a comprehensive purge of the Washington bureaucratic system. The appointment of a new defense commander is a typical manifestation. Trump is by no means useless, his goal is to weaken the influence of the military leadership. Under the trend of this goal, appointing a former infantry captain as defense chief is only part of the overall plan, and the Veterans Committee (whose name has not yet been finalized and may also be called the Warrior Committee) reported by The Wall Street Journal is the more deadly trump card. This means that Trump has the ability to create a personnel assessment system for senior military officers through executive orders, forcing them to obey the will of the Trump movement.

The nomination of Matt Gates as Attorney General is a blatant threat to the Department of Justice. As an ambitious politician, Gates’ characteristic lies in his uncompromising style, to the point where he is a prominent presence within the party. With only a slim majority in the Republican House of Representatives, Gates’ nomination as Attorney General is a triple win. This is beneficial for Speaker Johnson to manage the House of Representatives and also meets Trump’s demand for a comprehensive purge of the Department of Justice. Gates himself also has a bigger stage to accumulate capital for future senatorial campaigns.

The reason why Trump is cleaning up the Washington bureaucratic system is closely related to the partisan tendencies of the institutions themselves. If the Democratic Party in Deep Blue can lead the Republican Party by 20-30 percentage points, then the Republican and Democratic support rates in Washington D.C. can reach shocking levels of 1-8 or even 1-9. In this year’s election, Harris led Trump’s 6.5% with a 90.2% approval rating. Due to the unique nature of Washington D.C., the majority of voters are closely associated with bureaucratic institutions.

This extremely distorted data can only illustrate one fact, which is that bureaucratic institutions, at least central bureaucratic institutions, have clear partisan tendencies. It is normal for Trump to lean towards selecting candidates outside of the bureaucratic system. Trump’s first term has proven that bureaucratic departments with strong partisan tendencies cannot have a harmonious relationship with Trump, nor can they effectively implement the agenda that traditional conservatism truly wants to promote.

It can be foreseen that during Trump’s second term, traditional conservatism will intensify its attacks on the awakening agenda, including LGBT and DEI, and directly go to war against hardcore Democratic groups such as teacher unions and civil service unions that support this agenda. The parental rights movement that has emerged in recent years is just the prelude to the storm.

Musk’s government efficiency department also meets the core demands of traditional conservatism, which is to systematically reduce the American bureaucracy based on neoliberalism. Eliminating bureaucracy and improving government efficiency are more aimed at satisfying the appetite of libertarians like Musk. Or, in other words, this is part of a strategic alliance between traditional conservatism and libertarianism.

This is a question worth further discussion. In order to avoid overly loose themes, the author will only briefly summarize that in the context of progressive liberalism fully occupying the mainstream institutional discourse, the two have a common alliance foundation and similar key propositions. This time, traditional conservatism did not encounter the embarrassment of forming an alliance with neoconservatism last time. For libertarians with fewer personnel, traditional conservatism is the object they need to cling to.

For the Republican Party, the question now is no longer Trump, but who can inherit the campaign alliance created by Trump. Trump’s success is closely related to his strong leadership charisma, but the Republican Party, which is once again controlled by traditional conservatism, needs to find ways to solidify the new campaign alliance. Vance is a possible choice, but only time can tell us everything clearly.