Port: Conservatism can't just be about making liberals angry

We conservatives should make our choices — from whether to buy a gun to what sort of immigration policy we prefer — based on what's workable and in line with our principles. Not on how it will make liberals react.

Kevin Cramer rally.jpg
U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., speaks at a rally in support of President Donald Trump's stolen election conspiracies in Bismarck on Saturday, Nov. 7.
Kyle Martin / Forum News Service
We are part of The Trust Project.

MINOT, N.D. — "Piss off a liberal," the bumper sticker on the pickup in front of me read, "buy a gun."

I spotted this crude bon mot after dropping my kids off at school this week. I was stuck in a traffic jam — or, at least, what counts for a traffic jam in Minot — with not a lot else to do but ruminate.

It occurred to me that this bumper sticker may encapsulate, succinctly, what conservatism in the era of Donald Trump has become.

An ideology that is fundamentally reactionary. One that is defined by its liberal opposition.

I'm in favor of people buying guys if they want a gun, or need a gun. Keeping and bearing arms is a civil right. But why would you exercise that right just to make someone else angry?


Why would you do anything just to earn the pique of another person?

That's childish, yet this juvenile thinking seems to permeate the modern conservative movement, to its detriment.

Principled conservatism works when it promotes policies generally organized around the belief that taxes ought to be low, and government ought to be small and not intrusive.

Somehow, Trump-aligned "conservatives" went full circle, from prudent skeptics of authoritarianism to its footsoldiers, Rob Port writes.
Thanks to turmoil at FTX, a high-profile cryptocurrency exchange, that industry is in free fall. What does it mean for crypto-related data center projects here in North Dakota?
"That'll be for Coach Berry to make a determination," UND President Andrew Armacost said on this episode of Plain Talk.
"We're still left with many questions," Port writes.
"There are significant questions of ethics and competency here, and UND owes us answers," Rob Port writes.

So what, then, to make of an iteration of conservatism that seems to be little more than culture war trolling?

Did we elect Donald Trump as president because he'd be a good leader, or because he makes progressives puke?

Do we want to build a border wall because that's an effective way to secure the southern border? Or do we just want to earn a scolding from a New York Times columnist?

The recent imbroglio over the busing of immigrants from border states to places such as Martha's Vineyard is a prime example of what I'm talking about. There is a valid point to be made about the hypocrisy of liberals who talk sanctimoniously about offering sanctuary to those crossing our borders illegally while living hundreds and even thousands of miles away from the epicenter of the problem.

With a little bit of forethought, the Republican governors, like Ron DeSantis in Florida and Greg Abbott in Texas, could have made that point by publicly asking communities like New York and Martha's Vineyard to take some people in. It would have put the leaders in those liberal-leaning communities in a tough spot. They would be expected to have the courage of their convictions.


Instead, DeSantis and Abbott, et al, went about it in a way intended to provoke anger among liberals, rather than a thoughtful reconsideration of their positions.

This is how conservatism is going off the rails. We conservatives should make our choices — from whether to buy a gun to what sort of immigration policy we prefer — based on what's workable and in line with our principles.

Not on how it will make liberals react.

When we do the latter, it allows liberals to define us as conservatives, and not in a flattering way.

When our ideology, our culture, and our policy positions, are rooted in whatever "pisses off" a liberal, we end up becoming what liberals accuse of us being. And that's not something conservatives should ever want to be.

Opinion by Rob Port
Rob Port is a news reporter, columnist, and podcast host for the Forum News Service. He has an extensive background in investigations and public records. He has covered political events in North Dakota and the upper Midwest for two decades. Reach him at Click here to subscribe to his Plain Talk podcast.
What to read next
Columnist Jim Shaw offers critical remarks after North Dakota Sens. John Hoeven and Kevin Cramer voted against the Respect for Marriage Act. "Hoeven and Cramer are using religion as a cover to justify bigotry and discrimination," Shaw writes. "History will not be on their side."
Columnist Scott Hennen takes time to be thankful for the local community's generosity.
Columnist Joan Brickner writes shares her experience with the Lunch Bunch, a group of volunteers who make and assemble meals for those in need year round.
InForum columnist Mike Hulett recalls the many ways he and his family took care of the planet when he was a child. "Our friends and neighbors lived pretty much like we did," Hulett writes. "Many still do."