That's what separates;

Conservatives from Reactionaries

The Right from the Far-Right.

Conservatives want to Stop Time

Reactionaries want to Go Back in Time

Now for the GOP;

They want to Return to an Idealic Version of the Past when Institutions like the ones Thurmond supported were still in existence (even if they don't explicitly admit it about all of them).

It's not about Conserving anything; it's about Returning to something in REACTION to Change.

The Dixiecrats in the 60s wanted to preserve the Institution of Segregation.

Democrats today talk about how much they want to preserve (or you might say "CONSERVE") this-or-that Institution/Norm all the Time!

I think comparing both Parties to this Rhetoric would be worth doing;

You could also look at this:

bsky.app/profile/zeek...

As for me; I prefer Democracy to technocracy (which I think all this talk of expertise is just a smokescreen for).

He isn't the best advocate for the "Enlightened Monarch", I'll grant you.

But I maintain that I think contemporary "Liberals" in the U.S would very much be swayed by the arguments used to justify that concept.

I think you should read the full thing.

I phrased my framing of the request wrong when I specified replacing certain words.

It sounded better Rhetorically, but wasn't necessarily accurate to what I did.

That's my bad and I apologize.

Think things like Charter Schools, the current relationship between Arms Manufacturers and the U.S Government, and Mercenary Companies like Blackwater (or whatever that ghoul Eric Prince is calling it now).

In fact, in terms of Policy;

Neoliberalism could be described as using Keynesian Regulatory Frameworks as a means of creating new Markets where none previously existed and using Subsidizes as a way of transferring Tax Dollars back to Private Capital via Public-Private Partnerships.

... Do... do you know what the original Liberals believed when it came to Markets?

Because what you're describing IS that position!

Neoliberalism isn't just the dismantling of the Welfare State (although they did do that).

His justifications around Monarchy draw many parallels with U.S "Liberals" appeals to expertise and technocracy throughout the first Trump Administration and after.

Or at least I find saw strong parallels.

Wow, you read the whole thing that fast?

Anyways, he does appeal to traditional English Political Institutions many times throughout the text, and justifies them on the basis of their longevity.

I'm not gonna argue with you over the etymology of "Neoliberal" (that'd be pedantic), instead I'll just ask;

Where are the Liberals you speak of?
Who are they?
What do they care about?

Then read Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" (what is often considered the "Founding Text" of Conservativism as an Ideology), and replace words like "Tradition" with "Norms" and his talk of Monarchy with "Expertise".

You'll see what I mean.

Go look at Neoconservative Foreign Policy Rhetoric from the Late 90s/Early 2000s, and then look at the Rhetoric that U.S Liberals have using for the last few years.

I've gone on LiveLeak before;

Does that count?

Jokes on You!

I can't afford a House!

It's almost like "Liberals" in the U.S are barely different from the Reactionaries, and the only thing that sets them apart are superficial Cultural Positions like Etiquette.