One commenter pointed out that every type of “conservatism” has failed.

Great deduction, Dick Tracy!

Calling oneself a conservatism means supporting the side which opposes change.   It also means you claim to know what you are opposing, i.e., the changes that are GOING to take place.  If you get your nose out of philosophy books and look at the basic logic, it is oxymoronic that a “conservative” is by definition holding on til he loses.

If the present staff of National Review were sitting at a table with the magazine’s own founders and a group of liberals, they would outliberal the liberals.  As I keep repeating, the official stand of all paycheck conservatives is that everything liberal was glorious, especially integration and immigration, until on or about January, 1971.

The only difference is that they denounce “reactionaries” and “racists” more loudly than do liberals and they demand all disagreement be shouted down or outlawed.    The only national columnist to praise long sentences in Europe for Holocaust deniers was William Buckley.

The media have naturally become used to this oxymoron, that “conservative” means loser, just delaying progressive politics.   After blocking any openly “conservative” discourse, useful idiots with this label became part of the system: A “progressive” program becomes unquestionable in the media when “both sides” endorse it.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that the Hate Laws Buckley endorsed are now being questioned despite his deathbed veto on all opposition.