Volodymyr Zelensky delievered a speech yesterday to the United States Congress. This has aroused support from the general American populace. By contrast, anti-Ukrainian extremists, particularly on the right, seethe. Cathy Young with The Bulwark delivered an excellent summary of how these extremists seethed in anger, from criticizing his suit to calling him an autocrat to more obscene attacks created by Donald Trump Jr.

Why does the alt-right hate Zelensky and Ukraine so much? They do have ideological reasons. There is a general hatred of the liberalism and globalism that Zelensky purportedly fights for. There is also a hatred of the American-led global order in favor of the United States abandoning the rest of the world. But Young argues that:

“Partly, it’s simply partisanship: If the libs are for it, we’re against it, and the more offensively the better.”

This is the main reason. Conspiracy theories about Zelensky blackmailing the US government were not popping up before the Russo-Ukrainian war began. But once the United States interfered, a wild-eyed array of conspiracy theories and rants popped in to explain things. The United States is helping Ukraine for nefarious reasons, whether it is because Ukraine has secret biological weapon labs or the secret 2020 ballots that conceal Trump’s victory.

But there is one argument coming from these people which I find to be revealing. This new argument says a great deal about the new kind of conservative and how it differs from more traditional Reaganite conservatives. That argument declares that the United States should not be funding Ukraine, but rather should be spending its money to help the American people. See the below image:

Now a key caveat here: the above image is actually from a far-left organization. BT Newsroom declares on its Twitter account that Israel is a fascist state and that Cuba has developed a new, miraculous diabetes treatment. The far-left’s willingness to abide Putin’s fascism like Stalin did in 1939 should not be forgotten.

But it is not hard to find similar sentiments among the alt-right, such as Donald Trump Jr. calling Zelensky a welfare queen. The alt-right places a bit more emphasis on the idea that the money should be used to fund the border, but that is about it.

There are some legitimate concerns about us helping Ukraine too much. If we give execessive aid, that might leave our military in a poorer position to deal with a PRC invasion of Taiwan. Losing Taiwan would hurt the United States far more than Ukraine. Then again, if we had done nothing in response to the Russian invasion, that might have spurred further Chinese aggression. These are difficult questions which have difficult answers.

But the discussion about funding shows that we are seeing a new kind of conservative. These alt-right types are comfortable with the government providing benefits to constituents. This is a marked contrast from past Republicans who were more willing to believe in the free market, free trade, and a leaner welfare state.

But since Trump’s election over six years ago, we have seen some slow change towards this idea. Liberals and leftists will charge that this is all talk. The behavior of the Republican-controlled government under President Trump is evidence towards that supposition. That government focused on tax cuts and repealing the ACA over giving monies to the American people.

Yet the Republican Party has continued to become more hostile towards corporate power, especially as those same corporations are happy to fund Democrats and various DEI iniatives. If they lose corporate support, then they will turn towards other sources to garner votes and appeal.

Some people may find this good. The Democrats will likely not become a party wholly for corporations even if there is a shift. So we could have two political parties, each working to ensure that the people can escape from poverty by funding various initatives.

That sounds great. Until the money runs out.

The real legacy of Trump’s rise and these alt-right conservatives is not so much whether the GOP is more interested in big government spending. The real legacy is that the GOP has all but completely abandoned the idea of fiscal responsibility.

Now it is true that the GOP’s rhetoric has never ever come close to matching the reality. But the rhetoric matters, as Donald Trump has made clear. Fiscal responsibility was not just about the debt. It was a less philosophical way of expressing the idea that the government has restrictions on it. That it cannot do everything the people wants.

The traditional conservative perspective was that defense and foreign affairs were the necessary purviews of the government. The decline of that rhetoric signifies a general lack of interest in the very idea of a limited government conservatism. Instead, we see a turn towards the sort of “national greatness” conservatism which is nothing more than fascism’s little brother.

On a more practical level, the fact that no one gives even a fig of a leaf about fiscal reality is worrying. All the more so as we look at rising interest rates and a retiring Baby Boomer Generation which will further stretch the budget. Will the day come that the US government must limit its foreign commitments so as to pay for debt servicing and an increased demand for entitlements spurred by Republican and Democrat alike?

It is a dark future to contemplate, and no one is even considering it at all.

Zelensky in his speech to the US Congress declared that the money we give to him is not out of charity. Instead, it is an investment which will benefit the United States. I believe that is true. But I also believe that the Ukraine War has made it clear just how conservatism has changed since the rise of Trump. The question will become less about how much power the state should have, and more about who the state should attack and who it should benefit. That road will only have one final chaotic, anarchic end.