The “New” American Right
I recently read Vanity Fair’s article on the New Right, by James Pogue. The article is a comprehensive snapshot of the philosophical outlooks of some of the up and coming younger cohorts that make up the new right. This sample of perspectives changed my understanding of the Right from what initially seemed to be a series of random, discursive, and disparate political machinations led by a populist right wing social media hoard into something more intentional and focused. The new right, much like the old right, sees themselves as a collection of renegade protectors of western society and perhaps not surprisingly seem to be comprised of mostly white, wealthy, and well-educated young men.
These young intellectuals of the right seem to be a collection of contradictions. They publicly hold academia in disdain, yet many hold degrees from elite Ivy league institutions. Ben Shapiro went to Harvard, Josh Hawley and JD Vance went to Yale, Ron Desantis went to both. They all are accused of portraying right wing populist on TV while enjoying the lavish leftist lifestyles of the elite they so readily disdain. Perhaps they have more justification than most as graduates of these liberal institutions to critique them. Yet, their critiques might hold more sway if they more readily drew from their own experiences to provide more incisive condemnations of academia. However, they seem conscious of the populist right’s disdain for their alma matters and would rather not remind the hoard of their pedigrees.(with the exception of Shapiro, who often finds opportunities to obliquely reference his academic qualifications)
They are hyper concerned that technology giants like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have gained too much power in our society. Yet many of them have come from corporate America or have made their fortunes from big tech. Maybe this only makes their concern more warranted. Yet their treatment of powerful corporations is decidedly mixed. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were castigated for banning Donald Trump and censoring right wing and anti-vaccine view points. Disney is on the verge of losing its special status as its own local polity because their CEO spoke out against Desantis’s bill preventing LGTBQ perspectives from being discussed in 3rd grade and below.
Yet Elon Musk’s bid to take over Twitter is being cheered as righteous. Musk taking over Twitter would of course further consolidate the power of big tech, ostensibly exacerbating the problem they claim to be so concerned about. But it must be understood that to the new right Elon Musk is the “right” type of leader and him commandeering Twitter is what they are dreaming of for all of Western Society one day.
The new right seems to have identified many of the same symptoms as the anarchical left as to what ails western society but diverge with their proposed solutions. The problem, recognized by both, is that society is run by a handful of wealthy corporate overlords that control the political class through financial incentives and the judicial system through armies of well connected ivy league attorneys. These overlords are forcing members of western society to live out bleak existences of consumerist nihilistic wage slavery.
These incisive symptomatic critiques are a critical component to their recent recruiting success. The new right plagiarized the symptoms of our sick society identified by anarchists like Noam Chomsky decades ago and have repurposed them for their own objectives. They respool these narratives setting themselves and their followers in the center of a quixotic manichean tale on a hero's journey to save the world.
Yet the new right’s proposed solutions, when they venture to offer anything at all, veer sharply towards authoritarianism. The new right would propose that we wrest societal control from these corporate overlords and then further centralize power into the “right” hands of an ideologue, unilaterally granting one man total authority over all of western civilization. Musk taking over twitter is a first step in an algorithm that should be repeated until this end is met. Musk is more ideologically aligned than the current Twitter board, therefore him seizing control is good and should be supported. Repeated many times, all power will eventually be consolidated into the most ideologically pure hands.
To the right Western society is a spoiled child that will, if left to its own devices, end up causing itself pain and misery. The remedy then is the child must be disciplined by a strict but wise father. We all must be taught how to live correctly, otherwise society will continue to experience chronic ennui as our “core” values are continuously eroded by woke progressivism.
This new right framework presupposes a Platonist Judeo-Christian ideal, that there is one correct way to live. There is not universal agreement among these right wing philosophers but the “right” way is generally along the lines of what the Abrahamic religions proscribe. Existence should occur within the narrow framework of a traditional nuclear family, with a traditionally masculine patriarch at its helm. A strong dogmatic faith should be adhered to with a clear hierarchy (i.e. Catholicism).
Karl Marx is almost certainly the new right’s most vilified historical figure. Yet, there are unmistakable parallels between Marx’s prognostications of capitalism’s inevitable collapse and what this rebranded right imagines for our future. They both hold that the current system is untenable. They both dream of a day when control of society is wrested from those that wield it and is handed over to a more ideologically aligned entity. But this is where they begin to diverge.
Marx proposes that a collection of stewards hold the power until the masses are ready for it, in practice this transition never actually occurs which is one of the primary flaws of dogmatic Marxism. The right wants to move towards Plato’s idea of a Judeo-Christian philosopher king, handing complete control over to an all powerful individual. They both have the same weakness in that they propose as a step, or the goal, the concentration of power into the hands of a few men, or one man.
This is also a core philosophical distinction between Anarchists and the new right, both want to destroy the current system, each has an oppositional view of how to proceed after. Anarchist would like to slowly syndicalize power away from a centralized government until the government becomes superfluous. The right would push for further concentration of power under one and the elimination of bureaucratic institutions and other countervailing sources of dissidence. The new right’s monarchical man will, like the one true God of the Abrahamic faiths, guide western society with a strong hand towards salvation. This reframes something like the Jan 6th capitol riots not as an aberration but as an inevitable and necessary step towards that future.
The “right” framework is noticeably silent on climate change. Its unlikely that these educated intellectuals disagree with the scientific consensus that climate change is an impending global threat. Its probable they are well aware and even counting on climate change having catastrophic consequences over the next few decades. They perhaps see this catastrophe as an opportunity to seize control amidst the chaos caused by natural disasters.
Its noticeable too that these younger minds are myopically focused on “Western Society” rather than humanity at large. This is presumably part of their Platonist philosophical framework. Much like there is one correct way to run society, there is one correct society, and that is western society. All other societies are less perfect formats. Western society is the closest to the Platonic ideal of the correct society and therefore the most relevant.
Through this lens the right’s worship of autocrats like Vladmir Putin can be understood as part of a larger philosophical framework of Judeo-Christian Platonism. Putin is admired because of the unilateral control he wields as a traditionally white masculine Christian over Russian society. This is their ultimate goal.
The obvious weakness of this proposition is inherent in its core feature. It fully relies on one man to act in societies best interest. If this man becomes captivated with an insidious idea, such as the complete extermination of an “undesirable” segment of society, there is no countervailing force to oppose him. It fully relies on the assumption that their chosen champion will not wield his power irresponsibly. This assumption doesn’t hold a high success rate in modern society.
It may be that the intellectual champions of this new right all, to some degree, harbor some belief that they personally will be the chosen king to take control of the west. It is hard to imagine how else they could have so much faith in such a framework when writ large they carry such a pessimistic view of humanity. Perhaps they each solipsistically consider themselves to be the Nietzschian Ubermensch that will save western society.
Yet generally the preferred modality of members of this young cohort is not to offer solutions at all. They prefer the comfort of a Nietzschian critique, lambasting the current holders of power while shying away from productive dialogues earnestly focused on solutions. They reactively preach nihilism and conjure up culture-war chimeras as attentional lightening rods when presented with progressive ideology or lagging poll numbers. This manifests through talking points of reactionary victimization following the format of the “right” is simply “protecting” western culture from left wing “attacks”.
Their most favored tactic is painting the LGBTQ as the ultimate destructors of culture. They will survey social media until they locate a suitable straw-man, veil their argument in sophomoric bathroom metaphors, and wage and win the war of popular opinion with their populist hoard. Slowly codifying legal discrimination against members of society that don’t adhere to their platonic ideal. But this is how some in the new right see their role. They are simply protecting what remains of the previously perfect 1950s version of western society from woke progressivism until their powerful ruler comes to save us all.
The new (and old) right doggedly pursue this singular vision of western society while truly believing they are renegades. They are reluctant to offer up their authoritarian panacea because of how universally it would be condemned, yes by the establishment, but also by anarchists, libertarians, and free market fundamentalists alike. One can empathize with their discontent with modern society but most would have to reject their hyper-paternalistic dystopian vision and their platonic conclusion that there is a single best template for humanity to follow and that it was found millennia ago.
Modern experience shows that elevating a single man well above his fellow men and handing him unrestricted power over them has generally resulted in his devolution into despotic madness. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Putin are all recent testaments to this. The consolidation of power that they so desperately desire would only hasten the total destruction of the western society that they claim to be so fervently protecting. Modern society is riddled with egregious and systemic flaws that need to be addressed, but the not so new new right wing vision is not simply a step in the wrong direction, its a frenetic sprint to the end of the world.
