Conservatism No More?

The Radicalization of the Right and the Reactionary Assault on Democracy. A reflection on what we are up against – Part II

This is the second part of my reflection on how to describe the political conflict and how to capture what, exactly, is happening on the Right. If you haven’t, please read Part I, in which I wrote about the counter-mobilization (rather than: backlash) against egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy (rather than simply: democracy).

The character of the counter-mobilization against egalitarian multiracial, pluralistic democracy is more adequately described as reactionary, rather than conservative – and yet it is fully in line with modern conservatism as a political project. Let’s try to unpack that.

A good place to start is to look at the way more and more people on the Right - people who are at the center of conservative politics, or at least close to it in terms of their ideas and agenda - are rejecting the label “conservatism.” A few weeks ago, The Federalist – one of those supposedly / formerly conservative outlets that provide a useful window into what is happening in the rightwing pundit and pseudo-intellectual scene – published a really instructive piece by John Daniel Davidson, one of its senior editors. It was entitled: “We need to stop calling ourselves conservatives.” According to the author, conservatism, a political project that was all about conserving and preserving the existing order of traditional American norms and values, had failed and was entirely unequipped to handle “our revolutionary moment.”

This indeed reflects a widely accepted understanding of what “conservatism” is: Conservatives focus on preserving and conserving what exists, they push back against change if it threatens the traditional order of things. That’s perhaps not an exact definition, but it captures the essence of what is usually associated with the term in the broader public discourse. It is, ultimately, a project of hierarchy maintenance (which follows directly from the preserving/conserving idea, although conservatives tend to dislike it when it’s phrased in this way).

But according to The Federalist, there is no point in trying to preserve and maintain what has actually long been destroyed – America, in this view, has been turned into a “woke dystopia,” something traditional conservatism had failed to prevent. Instead of continuing on a path that has led to destruction, those who used to see themselves as conservatives need to “claim the mantle of revolutionaries” – commit themselves to a (counter-)revolutionary, radical fight against these Un-American leftist forces.

Thankfully, The Federalist is very explicit about what such a not-conservative-anymore fight against leftism would entail in practice: The goal is to forcefully mobilize the coercive power of the state to impose a return of the traditional order onto the country and defeat those enemies within. In the words of the author: “The left will only stop when conservatives stop them, which means conservatives will have to discard outdated notions about ‘small government.’ The government will have to become, in the hands of conservatives, an instrument of renewal in American life – and in some cases, a blunt instrument indeed.”

There is certainly an element of self-aggrandizement here by a younger cohort of reactionary intellectuals who want to present themselves as trailblazing leaders of the Right by coming out with particularly “daring” statements and demands. One such young reactionary who loves to emphasize how he is more radical than his conservative forefathers is Nate Hochman. It’s worth mentioning Hochman because he is often featured and given a platform in mainstream media outlets, which he uses to call for a counterrevolution of the aggrieved against the sinister forces of liberalism.

(Side note: I really don’t think it necessarily requires any detailed knowledge of history to see why this type of reactionary intellectual radicalism – and its coddling by centrist elites – is dangerous and problematic. There are some rather concerning echoes here, and maybe lending mainstream respectability to this stuff by presenting it in the nation’s leading papers and magazines is not such a good idea… For more on Hochman, the New Right’s ideology and political project, and those historical echoes, please read this excellent Unpopular Front essay by John Ganz.)

But this isn’t just grandstanding or attention-seeking behavior: The idea that traditional conservatism needs to be replaced by a much more radical form of politics has become a key theme in rightwing thinking. In March 2021, the American Mind, the online publication of the Claremont Institute, that Trumpiest of all rightwing think tanks, published a really instructive piece entitled: “Conservatism Is No Longer Enough.” It was written by Glen Ellmers, one of the most outspoken reactionaries in that Claremont sphere.

Although the author makes no claim that the 2020 election was “stolen” and explicitly acknowledges that more people voted for Joe Biden than for Donald Trump, he maintains that the outcome is illegitimate and must not be accepted. According to Ellmers, Biden’s presidency represents an “Un-American” idea of multiracial pluralism – something that is fundamentally in conflict with what he refers to as “authentic America.” In his view, everyone who voted for Joe Biden and his “progressive project of narcotizing the American people and turning us into a nation of slaves” is also “Un-American” and not worthy of inclusion in the body politic. Ellmers declares that “most people living in the United States – certainly more than half – are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.” Only “authentic Americans” allowed – a clearly racialized idea of “the people,” mostly represented by “the vast numbers of heartland voters.” On the other side, the “Un-American” enemy for whom Ellmers knows nothing but disgusted contempt, not coincidentally characterized by their blind admiration for a young Black artist and activist: “If you are a zombie or a human rodent who wants a shadow-life of timid conformity, then put away this essay and go memorize the poetry of Amanda Gorman. Real men and women who love honor and beauty, keep reading.” Ellmers’ racist, anti-pluralistic vision is remarkably radical: He wants to redraw the boundaries of citizenship and exclude over half the population. Fittingly, the piece was published with a big picture of a very manly-looking man getting ready for a fight, taping his fists. “Conservatism is no longer enough” indeed.

Ellmers has continued to build on these themes and takes them to what admittedly is the logical conclusion. In a more recent piece entitled “Hard Truths and Radical Possibilities,” which came out in American Greatness in November, Ellmers reacted to the midterm results – by rejecting the legitimacy of elections altogether: “Elections – and therefore consent and popular sovereignty – are no longer meaningful.” Once again, his issue is not that the midterms were fraudulently stolen; it is actually much worse: “even if conducted legitimately, elections no longer reflect the will of the people.” There certainly isn’t much of a conserving spirit to be found here. Ellmers rails against the “woke oligarchy” which, based on a massive state bureaucracy that is entirely dominated by “the Left” and unresponsive to the will of the real people, has already completely destroyed the constitutional republic. There is, in this view, very little time to stand up to the “left-wing masters.”

The radical political project that emerges here cannot be captured by the platitudes with which modern post-war conservatism has usually been described since the 1950s or in the terms in which conservatives themselves have presented their cause. This striking renunciation of the supposed pillars of modern conservative thought manifests most clearly in the open rejection of “small government” principles: Reactionaries don’t fear the authoritarian state, they want to mobilize it against their enemies – want to use it, remember, as a “blunt instrument,” in the words of The Federalist. And if that sounds like a threat to you, it’s because that’s exactly what it is.

Since we are already over 1,200 words in, and everybody tells me that no one has the patience to read long pieces anymore, I will be taking this to a Part III (and maybe a Part IV? Who knows! Have to get it right…), coming very soon, in which I’ll talk more about the Right’s new-found love for big government (that probably isn’t all that new after all), the role and importance of reactionary intellectuals on the Right, and how to situate this reactionary turn in the longer-term history of modern conservatism.