Only a Reformist Conservative Discourse Can Stop the New Right's Ascendancy
Asking 'What is a Conservative' will be key to resisting Trump-Vance Authoritarianism
As I said in my article on how to prepare for Trump 2.0, only the revival of a genuine conservative philosophy could provide a compelling alternative to stop the rise of the New Right, and this would be of particular importance in our attempts to protect freedom in the next four years.
For many observers, Donald Trump's decision to choose J.D. Vance as his vice presidential nominee was perhaps the most significant event in this year's US Elections so far. Not only did it herald the total dominance of Trumpism and rejection of Reaganism within the Republican Party, it also marked the entrance of the New Right into the mainstream. Unlike in 2016, when he tapped Mike Pence, this time Trump didn't even feel the need to give a nod to the establishment in his choice of VP candidate. Instead, it looks worryingly like he is trying to form an alliance with the New Right.
While some casual observers might describe Trump himself as part of the New Right, I don't think this characterization is accurate. Trump is an old man, and his politics is even older than himself. He is a populist paleoconservative, and his ideology had been slowly dying out before he decided to run in 2015. On the other hand, the New Right is a totally new approach to authoritarian-right politics that was born on the internet, influenced by 'post-liberal' strands of thinking like Neoreactionism (NRx), National Conservatism (NatCon), Catholic Reconstructionism and the like. The common ground these ideologies share is the belief that America (and the West more generally) needs a 'regime change', because its cultural institutions are currently dominated by 'the left' (the label they broadly apply to their enemies, who might not even really be left-wing), and they need to take it back even if it requires highly authoritarian means to do so. Unlike Trump, who wants to 'drain the swamp' and oppose the 'deep state', the New Right probably wants to occupy and control the 'deep state' in their fantasies, and strengthen its power to new heights, so they can carry out their agenda without the hindrance of democracy (many New Right ideologies are specifically anti-democratic, with Neoreactionism going as far as calling for the return of absolute monarchy). Thus, compared to the New Right, Trump himself looks like a moderate. In a world where the New Right has won, perhaps it would even make sense for Trump to join the libertarian party, because the Overton Window would have shifted so far in the authoritarian direction!
The rise of the New Right is also an international phenomenon. Across Europe, candidates and parties backed by the New Right have done very well in recent elections. In Britain, Reform UK came close to surpassing the Conservative Party in many polls, and actually came second in many seats in the recent elections. In France, there were fears of the National Rally winning an outright majority, and it took an alliance between the center and the left to stop it from happening. In Germany, the far-right AfD is performing very well in the polls. Meanwhile, the New Right in both America and Western Europe look to Eastern European countries, particularly Viktor Orban's Hungary, for their inspiration. They would happily replace the centuries-long tradition of liberal democracy in the West with Orban's 'illiberal democracy'. Look no further than Hungary if you want to find out what their plans for America and the West ultimately look like.
There have been many analyses on the reasons for the rise of the New Right, and many solutions proposed. These include economic reasons, such as manufacturing regions like the Rust Belt being left behind in the new economy, as well as other reasons like the ease of spread of extreme ideas on social media platforms. However, one important but usually overlooked reason is the death of the genuine conservative tradition, particularly in intellectual circles. This actually started in the 20th century. In elite academia and associated circles, the 1960s radicals denounced all things conservative, and pushed everything associated with the conservative tradition away. The result was a self-reinforcing movement of the Overton Window ever more towards the far-left with no checks and balances available, like a truck with malfunctioning brakes hurtling towards a cliff. Meanwhile, in mainstream politics, the involvement of corporate media and its 24/7 news cycle, together with the strong influence of rich donors with an agenda, polarized politics into a permanent 'liberal vs conservative' or 'blue vs red' state, creating the illusion that liberalism is conservatism's enemy, and vice versa. It was in this context that the post-war 'three legged stool' fusionism on the right came to be commonly thought of as 'conservatism', even though it was actually made up of two radical pillars (economic and foreign policy) and one reactionary pillar (the religious right).
All this made the slightest hint of conservatism even more unfashionable, to the point of being taboo, in most intellectual circles that consider themselves progressive. The result is that, for the past ten to fifteen years at least, an idea can't be considered progressive unless it tears down tradition and challenges everything about the status quo in every part of life. The more anti-traditional, the better, even if it is not backed up by evidence of real necessity. The default in progressive circles has become revolutionary, and reformism is looked down upon, because the conservative arguments needed to make the case for gradualist reformism ain't there anymore. It is this context where progressive became almost synonymous with 'woke' for many people, and counterproductive challenges to long-standing linguistic and cultural traditions, and us-vs-them identity politics rooted in postmodern critical theory, have become the new orthodoxy in many parts of the left. In other words, the kneejerk allergic reaction to all things conservative has led otherwise well-intentioned progressive people down the path of a revolutionary radicalism that is essentially anarchistic in nature, and this has needlessly divided and polarized society. This, in turn, has allowed the New Right to grow in popularity, by seizing on the dissatisfaction with the culturally divisive status quo, while riding on the wave of polarization and irrationality that the radical left created.
I guess the silver lining to the rise of the New Right is that it gives us an opportunity to question what actually is conservatism, which would give us the opportunity to seriously examine and repair all that has gone wrong since the mid-late 20th century. While the New Right is certainly not conservative, and cannot be allowed to claim that label for itself, it is actually correct that the 'neoconservative' (neocon) fusionism that dominated the Republican Party and other Western conservative parties until the rise of Trump is not conservative either. The economic policies of the pre-2016 right were actually radical, almost to the point of libertarian immediatism. As a libertarian gradualist I have often criticized libertarian immediatism as impractical and harmful to practical freedom, but they somehow got away with implementing 80% of that under leaders like Reagan and Thatcher. The resurrection of protectionist paleoconservative policies under Trump, (as well as the popularity of radical socialism among young people,) is simply a reaction to the radical nature of Reaganomics, which a genuine conservatism needs to rationally face and deal with. A genuine conservative simply cannot, in good conscience, continue to support an economic policy that leads to widespread devastation of communities, with all the broken families and social problems that inevitably follow. As a libertarian reformist, I ultimately believe that freer markets are better, but perhaps we need to take a step back for now, and only move forward again when the conditions are ready. Meanwhile, another pillar of the New Right is its aversion to the interventionism of the neocons that brought us the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, and many other needless, endless wars. This, again, was a post-1946 radical invention of the neocons, and was actually anything but conservative, especially in the American context. If you look at the pre-WWII foreign policy of America, you would notice that reluctance to take part in foreign wars was generally the norm. Therefore, in summary, on both economic and foreign policy, the neocons were actually radicals, and the New Right is actually correct to call them out for being anything but conservative.
On the other hand, the New Right itself is very radical when it comes to social and cultural issues, and their casual disrespect of long-standing norms of individual liberty. This alone makes the New Right radicals rather than conservatives. Ironically, all this was actually started by the 20th century neocons, and their decision to marry their radical economic and foreign policy to a reactionary social agenda, to make it more palatable to certain voters. Thus, on social issues, neocon orthodoxy was essentially reactionary rather than conservative. Evidence suggests that they were this way throughout the mid-late 20th century on multiple issues (e.g. the Southern Strategy, the controversial policies surrounding the War on Drugs and other criminal justice issues, video games, rap music and more), but I will focus on their handling of the gay marriage debate, because this was what I was old enough to remember. When the neocons were in charge, they did not encourage a respectful and intellectual discussion about gay marriage, and what impacts it could have on traditional culture. Rather, they encouraged a totally reactionary attitude based on fear, that gay marriage would lead to the collapse of family values, the disrespect of religious freedom, or even the total collapse of Western civilization. They rode this strategy to a resounding victory in the 2004 US elections, which meant they doubled down on it for at least the next decade. Of course, what the neocons did look relatively mild compared to what the New Right has in store for us. However, we need to recognize that it was the neocons active embrace of fear-based reactionary cultural politics that opened the door for the New Right to go even further. You can't reject the New Right without also rejecting the neocons before them in this regard, because the New Right is only taking the neocon approach to the culture wars to its logical conclusions.
A genuine conservative would reject reactionary cultural politics in its entirety, because conservatism doesn't reflexively oppose all change. Rather, a conservative opposes change that is reckless, hasn't been shown to be justified, too radical in scope and nature, rooted primarily in abstract ideas and philosophy rather than practical needs, and/or break with long-standing traditions in an unnecessary and unjustified way. A conservative therefore moderates the impulse for progressive change, guiding it into safer and more productive channels, and making sure it doesn't trample on existing liberties. The role of conservative thinking should be to review proposals for change to make sure they are safe, sound, and practical rather than ideological. It is not to reflexively reject all change, and thus polarize society along radical vs reactionary lines, to the benefit of politicians but to the harm of society. The return of good faith conservatism is needed to end the polarization that is getting dangerously out of hand right now. Both the New Right and the radical left would only exacerbate it. We also need to stop the New Right (or the neocons) from claiming the 'conservative' label exclusively for themselves, just like we need to stop the 'woke' postmodernists from claiming the 'progressive' label exclusively for themselves, if we want to put an end to the cycle of mutually reinforcing polarization and extremism.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).