I've been wary of and followed Claremont since just after college in the early 90s when I crossed paths with a fellow Kansan sucked into their pipeline. Endless email debates with him on political theory when Claremont was still heavily Founder-worship and not yet Flight 93. I tickled out strains of argument and positions that struck me as deeply illiberal back then that screamed DANGER (the monomania of reasoning), so it's gratifying that they have come under scrutiny this past decade. Currently reading this, after having heard her on several podcasts, and her typology and analysis is strong. The hard pivot to Flight 93 surprised me, in part because I let my vigilance wane in those years, but it makes sense, especially vis a vis the Post Cold War narrative offered in this review. I've come to accept that the fusionism and mid-century movement conservatism I took to be the water in which I swam growing up was just a particular bend of the river, an exception, an interregnum. This places me in the camp of Continuity as opposed to Aberration in the debate about conservatism and MAGA.
Unpopulist-style woke "libertarians" such as Steve Chapman and Jacob Levy (who support big government spending, and are progressives in disguise) helped fuel the rise of Trump by voting with woke progressives to elect Obama, thus defeating pro-market Romney-style moderate conservatism. As the article above points out, "After moderate Republican candidates lost twice to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton became the favorite to succeed him, the revolt that had begun with the Tea Party during the Great Recession shattered the GOP’s 'let us continue as usual' faction and led to Donald Trump’s improbable nomination as the Republican standard-bearer." Why did these moderate Republicans lose? Unpopulist authors like Steve Chapman voted against them and publicly supported Obama (people like Chapman support spending trillions of dollars on things like reparations, and, in the case of Jacob Levy, supported the multi-trillion dollar "Build Back Better" plan. Jacob Levy celebrated the victory of Zohran Mamdani on social media, and consistently voted for the Democrats and for the Fidel Castro-loving, leftist Justin Trudeau in Canadian elections. And Shikha Dalmia praised Mamdani's victory on Bluesky, claiming Mamdani is "infinitely better" than other New York mayoral candidates, even though Curtis Sliwa was the most pro-market candidate and the most honest candidate (Sliwa is also pro-LGBT, like Mandani). Chapman supported the bloated COVID-era stimulus packages of BOTH Biden and Trump.
Very fascinating review. I appreciate the dive into history to get a deeper sense of how connected it is to our past. Since I’m not a political theorist, I have not been following these trends. So I appreciate this summary.
The connection with Leo Strauss is disturbing, and yet not surprising. And this just goes to show how something that is rich and deep can be interpreted in so many contrary ways.
One aspect of the myriad potential causes for the rise of the New Right that isn't addressed in the book (I've read most of it by now) is the faux-populism of the MAGA intellectuals and how that is enacted with Trump as vehicle and bearer of the "message". I understand that's an entirely different aspect, with Trump as "performer" and inciter of grievances and resentments (though at the current moment, a rapidly declining perforer, which may make him more dangerous). This means that there will be shape-shifting among the various coalitions of the New Right as they seek to maintain power with a new standard-bearer (i.e. Vance).
I also think that liberals and Democrats, as suggested by Joseph Heath, still don't understand that populist grievances from the Right aren't as much against economic elites as against *cognitive elites* (progressives and liberals in epistemic institutions like universities, others). This may be similar to al-Gharbi's arguments about "symbolic capitalists" in "We Have Never Been Woke."
In any case, it's quite a bit of legerdemain in MAGA world to make it seem that the only "cognitive elites" are on the progressive Left, and not among some of the figures Field discusses in this book, whom she considers as serious thinkers.
I am quite taken by the author's descriptions of some of the leading figures--of Adrian Vermuele as the high theoretician of post liberalism, and of Chris Rufo as the "propaganda minister" of the MAGA Right. Those are precise descriptions of both of them.
Go easy on the incels. They're already hurting because they can't get laid. ;-)
I knew that I was gay when I realized I had the answer to my grandfather when he asked, "Why ain't you interested in goylz?" My proposition to an incel: "You don't need to stake your self-esteem on the approval of a woman. I'll get you off!"
As I wrote elsewhere on this thread, "Authoritarianism comes in many flavors (and genders). Hold an election between Tom Sawyer and Nurse Ratched, and (unfortunately, even a counterfeit) Tom Sawyer will win every time. ;-)
I wish the reviewer (and perhaps the book?) had mentioned Isaiah Berlin, and had elaborated on the ways that Berlin's notion of pluralism addresses the very real dilemmas (and discontents) of life in a liberal polity.
A minor (but significant) bone to pick: The author cites Yoram Hazony's contention "that the religion of the majority should be the religion of the country, with limited accommodations for religious minorities." For Hazony, religion is a proxy for ethnicity. That's understandable, given that Hazony is an ethnocratic Zionist, but it overlooks the ways that Jews have flourished in liberal democracies precisely BECAUSE such societies mandate equal protection REGARDLESS of ethnicity (and where religious and ethnic traditions are exercised outside the political sphere).
This is a(n equal and opposite) problem with "wokeness," much as it is with Hazony.
(EXAMPLE: I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and [as my parents raised me] I’m proud to be -- simply and uniquely -- myself. OTOH, I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.)
This isn't about "assimilation"; it's most genuinely who I am as an individual.
Meanwhile, the implicitly adversarial notion of "Queer" (or some putative “LGBTQIA+ community”) dilutes and jeopardizes the hard-won, widespread acceptance (and self-confidence, as individuals) that gay people have otherwise already gained. I call that a protection racket -- operating in perverse symbiosis with MAGA, each feeding on the other to maintain a foul (and ultimately self-defeating) equilibrium of fear and mutual disdain.
This misguided approach also applies to race -- an approach that (unfortunately, however temporarily) was ascendant during the Summer of Floyd.
That's a far cry from the pluralistic neutrality of "live and let live."
PS: Especially in light of the above, I'm skeptical of the (book) author's focus on feminism. Authoritarianism comes in many flavors (and genders). Hold an election between Tom Sawyer and Nurse Ratched, and (even a counterfeit) Tom Sawyer will win every time. ;-)
I enjoyed your review but must admit I will probably not read the book. In retirement I am trying to enjoy quiet comfort. That said, I am a lifelong learner and certainly learned a lot here. Your explanation of a time of new right discipline intrigued me. In my dream of quiet comfort, I feel I'm like a great number of "real people", unlike politicians, pundits and activists, who are burdened by the extremes of both the left and the right. At this time, MAGA fascism has become the burden on the right but post-Trump how will we easily identify the "new Right"? At the same time, DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) is exerting so much pressure to be normalized and I consider it to be just factional, fractional and marginal selfishness. Practically speaking, Post-Trump reforms and real progress for every American can only be possible if we learn how to entertain the ideas but drown out the clamor of the extremes. How to get this to be normalized is a big trick.
Every time I read a book review here my list of "must read" books gets longer! This was no exception.
One comment struck me (and it has before) "Vice President JD Vance, recently has done the same when he noted that “heritage Americans” whose ancestry goes back to the Civil War have “a lot more claim” over the country."
So how exactly is it that descendants from all the African people trafficked here against their will and Native Americans who were the original people here don't have as great a claim as white men going back to only the Civil War? The three major branches of my own family were here as early as 1635, 1654 and 1843. Does that mean my ancestry gives me a bigger claim? It's all nonsense of course. My Scandinavian California relatives married into the Latino families that have been there since the 1700s. Every generation of my family becomes more divers as time goes by. The old stock blending with the new stock in ways none of our ancestors could have imagined.
AND WTF is a "claim" anyway? Some sort of privilege being denied white men in the present day because latter day immigrants are here now? Give me a break!
I'm of the same generation as Mr. Galston but have watched the developments of the conservative / right-wing / MAGA movements of the past decades from far outside those orbits. Although I'm familiar with most of the figures and ideas Galston highlights in Field's book, I'm more used to narratives that make Buckley / Reagan / Buchanan the storyline (and the "underbelly" tradition of the "intellectual dark web"). Galston's review seems to me in itself so interesting and analytically clear that I plan to get Fields' book and bring order to my understanding of the different stream of storyline she articulates.
Thanks to Mr. Galston for an very informative and engaging review, and to the UnPopulist for publishing it.
Yeah from my working class view once off shoring and then the curse of downsizing, right sizing and privatization really took flight with neo liberal economics trumpyism was just a matter of time, it actually took longer than I expected.
I wish that I didn't agree with you but in my long working life in the maintenance department at a university I can tell you that the administration and professors mostly despised us workers and shafted us whenever the opportunity presented itself.
I've been wary of and followed Claremont since just after college in the early 90s when I crossed paths with a fellow Kansan sucked into their pipeline. Endless email debates with him on political theory when Claremont was still heavily Founder-worship and not yet Flight 93. I tickled out strains of argument and positions that struck me as deeply illiberal back then that screamed DANGER (the monomania of reasoning), so it's gratifying that they have come under scrutiny this past decade. Currently reading this, after having heard her on several podcasts, and her typology and analysis is strong. The hard pivot to Flight 93 surprised me, in part because I let my vigilance wane in those years, but it makes sense, especially vis a vis the Post Cold War narrative offered in this review. I've come to accept that the fusionism and mid-century movement conservatism I took to be the water in which I swam growing up was just a particular bend of the river, an exception, an interregnum. This places me in the camp of Continuity as opposed to Aberration in the debate about conservatism and MAGA.
Unpopulist-style woke "libertarians" such as Steve Chapman and Jacob Levy (who support big government spending, and are progressives in disguise) helped fuel the rise of Trump by voting with woke progressives to elect Obama, thus defeating pro-market Romney-style moderate conservatism. As the article above points out, "After moderate Republican candidates lost twice to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton became the favorite to succeed him, the revolt that had begun with the Tea Party during the Great Recession shattered the GOP’s 'let us continue as usual' faction and led to Donald Trump’s improbable nomination as the Republican standard-bearer." Why did these moderate Republicans lose? Unpopulist authors like Steve Chapman voted against them and publicly supported Obama (people like Chapman support spending trillions of dollars on things like reparations, and, in the case of Jacob Levy, supported the multi-trillion dollar "Build Back Better" plan. Jacob Levy celebrated the victory of Zohran Mamdani on social media, and consistently voted for the Democrats and for the Fidel Castro-loving, leftist Justin Trudeau in Canadian elections. And Shikha Dalmia praised Mamdani's victory on Bluesky, claiming Mamdani is "infinitely better" than other New York mayoral candidates, even though Curtis Sliwa was the most pro-market candidate and the most honest candidate (Sliwa is also pro-LGBT, like Mandani). Chapman supported the bloated COVID-era stimulus packages of BOTH Biden and Trump.
Very fascinating review. I appreciate the dive into history to get a deeper sense of how connected it is to our past. Since I’m not a political theorist, I have not been following these trends. So I appreciate this summary.
The connection with Leo Strauss is disturbing, and yet not surprising. And this just goes to show how something that is rich and deep can be interpreted in so many contrary ways.
One aspect of the myriad potential causes for the rise of the New Right that isn't addressed in the book (I've read most of it by now) is the faux-populism of the MAGA intellectuals and how that is enacted with Trump as vehicle and bearer of the "message". I understand that's an entirely different aspect, with Trump as "performer" and inciter of grievances and resentments (though at the current moment, a rapidly declining perforer, which may make him more dangerous). This means that there will be shape-shifting among the various coalitions of the New Right as they seek to maintain power with a new standard-bearer (i.e. Vance).
I also think that liberals and Democrats, as suggested by Joseph Heath, still don't understand that populist grievances from the Right aren't as much against economic elites as against *cognitive elites* (progressives and liberals in epistemic institutions like universities, others). This may be similar to al-Gharbi's arguments about "symbolic capitalists" in "We Have Never Been Woke."
In any case, it's quite a bit of legerdemain in MAGA world to make it seem that the only "cognitive elites" are on the progressive Left, and not among some of the figures Field discusses in this book, whom she considers as serious thinkers.
I am quite taken by the author's descriptions of some of the leading figures--of Adrian Vermuele as the high theoretician of post liberalism, and of Chris Rufo as the "propaganda minister" of the MAGA Right. Those are precise descriptions of both of them.
New Right males are incels with better clothes and broader vocabularies.
Go easy on the incels. They're already hurting because they can't get laid. ;-)
I knew that I was gay when I realized I had the answer to my grandfather when he asked, "Why ain't you interested in goylz?" My proposition to an incel: "You don't need to stake your self-esteem on the approval of a woman. I'll get you off!"
As I wrote elsewhere on this thread, "Authoritarianism comes in many flavors (and genders). Hold an election between Tom Sawyer and Nurse Ratched, and (unfortunately, even a counterfeit) Tom Sawyer will win every time. ;-)
Yeah, that's right although I thought Louise Fletcher was pretty smokin ,
Fry my brain honey !
Haha! Believe it or not, I never saw the movie (with Louise Fletcher), so my comment was based on Kesey's book. ;-)
Mea culpa! Looks like I can stream the film (via Amazon) for $3.79, so here goes...
She steals the movie from Nicholson, no easy feat .
Interesting and very worthwhile review!
I wish the reviewer (and perhaps the book?) had mentioned Isaiah Berlin, and had elaborated on the ways that Berlin's notion of pluralism addresses the very real dilemmas (and discontents) of life in a liberal polity.
A minor (but significant) bone to pick: The author cites Yoram Hazony's contention "that the religion of the majority should be the religion of the country, with limited accommodations for religious minorities." For Hazony, religion is a proxy for ethnicity. That's understandable, given that Hazony is an ethnocratic Zionist, but it overlooks the ways that Jews have flourished in liberal democracies precisely BECAUSE such societies mandate equal protection REGARDLESS of ethnicity (and where religious and ethnic traditions are exercised outside the political sphere).
This is a(n equal and opposite) problem with "wokeness," much as it is with Hazony.
(EXAMPLE: I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and [as my parents raised me] I’m proud to be -- simply and uniquely -- myself. OTOH, I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.)
This isn't about "assimilation"; it's most genuinely who I am as an individual.
Meanwhile, the implicitly adversarial notion of "Queer" (or some putative “LGBTQIA+ community”) dilutes and jeopardizes the hard-won, widespread acceptance (and self-confidence, as individuals) that gay people have otherwise already gained. I call that a protection racket -- operating in perverse symbiosis with MAGA, each feeding on the other to maintain a foul (and ultimately self-defeating) equilibrium of fear and mutual disdain.
This misguided approach also applies to race -- an approach that (unfortunately, however temporarily) was ascendant during the Summer of Floyd.
That's a far cry from the pluralistic neutrality of "live and let live."
PS: Especially in light of the above, I'm skeptical of the (book) author's focus on feminism. Authoritarianism comes in many flavors (and genders). Hold an election between Tom Sawyer and Nurse Ratched, and (even a counterfeit) Tom Sawyer will win every time. ;-)
I enjoyed your review but must admit I will probably not read the book. In retirement I am trying to enjoy quiet comfort. That said, I am a lifelong learner and certainly learned a lot here. Your explanation of a time of new right discipline intrigued me. In my dream of quiet comfort, I feel I'm like a great number of "real people", unlike politicians, pundits and activists, who are burdened by the extremes of both the left and the right. At this time, MAGA fascism has become the burden on the right but post-Trump how will we easily identify the "new Right"? At the same time, DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) is exerting so much pressure to be normalized and I consider it to be just factional, fractional and marginal selfishness. Practically speaking, Post-Trump reforms and real progress for every American can only be possible if we learn how to entertain the ideas but drown out the clamor of the extremes. How to get this to be normalized is a big trick.
Me too on the life long learning. I'm 70 and retired also. It seems that the deeper you delve into something the more interesting it becomes.
Good to know a fellow traveler!
Every time I read a book review here my list of "must read" books gets longer! This was no exception.
One comment struck me (and it has before) "Vice President JD Vance, recently has done the same when he noted that “heritage Americans” whose ancestry goes back to the Civil War have “a lot more claim” over the country."
So how exactly is it that descendants from all the African people trafficked here against their will and Native Americans who were the original people here don't have as great a claim as white men going back to only the Civil War? The three major branches of my own family were here as early as 1635, 1654 and 1843. Does that mean my ancestry gives me a bigger claim? It's all nonsense of course. My Scandinavian California relatives married into the Latino families that have been there since the 1700s. Every generation of my family becomes more divers as time goes by. The old stock blending with the new stock in ways none of our ancestors could have imagined.
AND WTF is a "claim" anyway? Some sort of privilege being denied white men in the present day because latter day immigrants are here now? Give me a break!
This was a good review. Thank you. I’m going to pick it up based on your recommendation.
I'm of the same generation as Mr. Galston but have watched the developments of the conservative / right-wing / MAGA movements of the past decades from far outside those orbits. Although I'm familiar with most of the figures and ideas Galston highlights in Field's book, I'm more used to narratives that make Buckley / Reagan / Buchanan the storyline (and the "underbelly" tradition of the "intellectual dark web"). Galston's review seems to me in itself so interesting and analytically clear that I plan to get Fields' book and bring order to my understanding of the different stream of storyline she articulates.
Thanks to Mr. Galston for an very informative and engaging review, and to the UnPopulist for publishing it.
I'm currently reading the book--well worth it for the comprehensiveness, and the contextualization of many figures in this movement.
Sounds well worth reading, good review especially the very end.
Yes! That ending might seem to suggest (but never states) that the rise of the New Right has been a (wrongheaded) response to corporate oligarchy.
Yeah from my working class view once off shoring and then the curse of downsizing, right sizing and privatization really took flight with neo liberal economics trumpyism was just a matter of time, it actually took longer than I expected.
I wish that I didn't agree with you but in my long working life in the maintenance department at a university I can tell you that the administration and professors mostly despised us workers and shafted us whenever the opportunity presented itself.