In the midst of a miasmatic heatwave, attendees to two conferences swamped Washington DC this week. Now Prime Minister, Keir Starmer made his first foreign visit, fawned over on the plane by a sycophantic press. A few blocks over from the NATO summit, critics of supranational managerialism gathered for the fourth annual National Conservatism conference. Despite Lisa Nandy unilaterally declaring “culture wars” to be over, the proximity of these conferences demonstrates that the age of merely disagreeing about marginal tax rates has ended. Politics now recognises the existential nature of competing liberal and conservative conceptions of the good. 

Exoterically, the schedule of speeches and breakout sessions were less contentious than those at prior Nat Cons in the UK and Europe. Last May, Miriam Cates singlehandedly shifted Britain’s national discourse on birth rates with her opening day address. The Guardian balked at her use of the term “cultural Marxism”, calling it an antisemitic conspiracy theory — voiced, curiously, at a conference run and heavily attended by Jewish people. In Brussels, local authorities barred entry to the venue, vindicating every criticism levelled at the EU that Nigel Farage was delivering on stage.

The most incendiary feature of Nat Con DC was the absence of Steve Bannon: booked for day one, but interned in federal prison for refusing to comply with the Biden regime’s January 6th Potemkin committee. Despite the brutal repression of Trump, his allies, pro-life activists, and Catholics by the FBI and Department of Justice, a prevailing sense was that victory in November is a foregone conclusion. “When President Trump is re-elected” was repeated often.

… the former Home Secretary’s speech went down like a brick in a duck pond when it reached the other side of the Atlantic

The biggest splash was made by Suella Braverman. One of only two British speakers, the former Home Secretary’s speech went down like a brick in a duck pond when it reached the other side of the Atlantic. Demonstrating some rare conservatism for a Conservative politician, Braverman lambasted Sunak and the Cameron consensus for letting the Pride flag fly over government buildings. Rival leadership contender Kemi Badenoch accused her of having a mental breakdown. (Worthy of note for those championing her candidacy as a course correction.) One would think the party would enter a period of introspection after their worst election result in a century. But instead, they seek to render themselves impenetrable to reformists. (Pardon the pun.)

As if by magic, that morning I received an email from CCHQ, saying I had been suspended from the Conservative Party, “pending an investigation into social media posts and comments you are alleged to have made.” They then foolishly asked that I “not to make any public comment or announcement”, on the matter. (A confusing request made of someone publicly criticising the party.) This appears to have been the deathbed request of Richard Holden, who signed off on the email before resigning as party chairman during Suella’s speech. Presumably, they were seeking to safeguard against members like me from voting for Suella in a leadership election — if they even allow them to vote this time.

The irony is that the Conservative party in Britain practice the exact politics that America’s National Conservatives preach, but publicly decry it as divisive. They gatekeep against those more in tune with the base, and wonder why they hemorrhage votes. The Conservative party is a contaminated brand and clearly set on ensuring it is unsalvageable. Keir Starmer is governing like Bane, announcing his intent to release up to forty thousand prisoners. Deporting foreign criminals, or returning domestic ones to well-earned cells, is a reasonable response come 2029. But you can count like clockwork on the Conservative party countersignalling that sensible suggestion with cries of “Racist!” and comparisons to Nazism, in lockstep with the left.

As institutions lose legitimacy and the pretense of neutrality by weaponising laws against their opponents, America’s right is learning to understand the existential nature of politics. David Azerrad’s speech on day three invoked Carl Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction: that all politics is driven by insurmountable value conflicts. Jack Posobiec and Will Chamberlain made the case for reciprocating the prosecution of President Trump with investigations into credible claims of corruption by the Democrats. They recognise that they cannot compromise with those willing to ignore all Constitutional norms to perform mastectomies on gender-confused teenage girls.

Britain, however, purports to believe that all disputes can be resolved by debate. But late-stage liberalism has a Schizophrenic relationship with the marketplace of ideas. As Emily Finley observes, the liberal presumption of an egalitarian human nature results in democracy being an exercise in making identical choices. Any deviation from the policies presumed to be in our rational self-interest is ‘a threat to our democracy’. 

There is unanimity between Labour and Conservatives on limitless funding for Ukraine, the sacred status of the NHS, the necessity of COVID lockdowns, the unalloyed economic benefits of migration, and more. Populism is derided as “divisive”, but it is merely an exercise in returning issues pushed beyond the boundaries of political debate back to public consciousness. Topics such as transgenderism are radioactive, until the evidence against the elite consensus becomes undeniable (a la the Cass Review) and it becomes fashionable to pretend to be against them all along. 

But this predictable, on-rails way of “doing politics” is not universal. MPs who, until now, enjoyed the privilege of mocking the pale, male, and stale population without violent reprisal, were aghast  when their speeches were interrupted by an imported ummah. They recoil in horror; but obfuscate exactly who caused this “coarsening” of discourse. Any suggestion that liberalism doesn’t ineluctably dissolve the tribal priors of new entrants into a neutral milieu must be denied. Instead, those noticing the problem at Nat Con are somehow responsible for their Tower of Babel still looking like a pile of rubble.

Perhaps this is what attracts so many Jewish attendees. After October 7th, there is a growing awareness about how politics has become, as Rachel Bovard summarised, a “zero sum” fight for survival. There can be no negotiated settlement with a faction who decree the foundations of our civilisation are irredeemably racist, and which deserves intifada. Liberalism demands we give these vandals and their claims of oppression equal consideration. America’s Nat Cons prefer they be given short and swift shrift. 

There is no more reason to refrain from using power, in case it sets a precedent for your enemies to use it when it’s their turn. They are using it already, and would sooner see you dead than happy. Remember that, no matter how many names you are called for doing eminently sensible things in defense of your civilisation. 

The lesson from Nat Con US is not that America must deescalate political tensions ahead of November 5th. Rather, Brits should reach the same conclusion as their former colony. If the revolution was fought by Englishmen, then the restoration can be led by them too.