This was very interesting - thank you. I’m a GenX woman who has known I was a Democrat since I was 10 yo, despite being raised by a very Reagan Republican father. Your description of Gipper’s Stool was so helpful because it’s how I understood Republican and conservative core political beliefs until Trump came on the scene in 2015/2016. I didn’t agree with the philosophy but I understood the through lines; they made sense.
During Trump’s first term and even more so during his second, I have been shocked not only by how thoroughly Gipper’s Stool has been rejected by the current Republican Party but also the hypocrisy of them doing so. When I am more alarmed than my now-Trump loving father about tariffs, exploding deficits, attacks on the independence of the Fed, pardons for criminals who attacked the police, cuts to the research which helped create American exceptionalism, and an American President kowtowing to Putin and attacking our European allies, there is a serious problem. Not just with my relationship with my dad and friends who were also former Reagan Republicans but now are now MAGA ones, but with the upside down nature of political thought and discourse right now. Perhaps Congressional Democrats have been slow to act because this shift is just as shocking to them as to many of the rest of us.
When I read about the New Right, I’m not seeing a coherent philosophy which explains why and when these particular thinkers/writers/influencers have shifted from this historical background. I have some personal theories but would be curious if there would be anything you might recommend on this topic.
I agree that "New Right" confuses the nomenclature. I am not sure "Alt Right" is any better. As a big-tent term, why not use "Trumpian Right?" This is particularly apt because Trump himself, being ideologically vacuous, opportunistic and performative, offers the tent.
Also, in this big tent, where do you put the "Federalists," associated with the Federalist Society, unitary executive theory and devolution of powers in favor of the wealthy, powerful and people of status? And the "Tech Bros" or "Nerd Reich," associated with the likes of Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Curtis Yarvin and the replacement of the republic with a techno-corporatist monarchy?
Another, perhaps more fundamental concern I have with this particular discussion, a concern going beyond nomenclature, is that it tends to disguise more than clarify the roots of these various flavors of conservatism. Those roots are reactionary and best described with anti-democratic antecedents – that is, with words like "fascist," "falangist," "ultranationalist," "racist," "objectivist,""techno-elitist," :corporatist," "authoritarian," "oligarchic," etc.
Finally, I question the tone. If we are going to have such discussion – which we should have – we should be clear: the discussion about definitions is not a polite academic one in which a wolf is given opportunity to wear a sheep's cloak; rather, it is a vicious political one about the fate of the country, its institutions, and its governance. Drawing links to historical precedent helps clarify that point; on the other hand, trying to invent newness where newness is more facade than substance does not.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment here Mike. In the book, especially in the intro and early chapters, I do go through some of the history, which I agree is really important. I hope you’ll check it out since it’s hard to do justice to all of these nuances in a talk. If you watch the panel discussion that Zach I and were part of at the Unpopulist Youtube channel, you will hear more about these other groups. And here’s something I recently wrote about the conservative legal movement: https://verfassungsblog.de/trump-newright-federalistsociety/. Thanks for listening!
An interesting interview with a thoughtful analyst I'd like to hear more from. The flaw, however, is failing to distinguish more clearly between liberals and the left. One reason that liberals, in the Democratic party sense, seem to lack ideas is that they have coasted for decades (or more?) on the assumption that their ideas--technocratic governance, some form of welfare state, and, yes, the broadly liberal ideas of tolerance, rule of law, free speech, free inquiry, etc.--were safely in charge where it mattered. They thus found themselves unprepared or unwilling to resist the intolerant and propagandistic left as it corrupted the academy. Too often, especially in academic circles, liberals regarded the left as liberalism in an identitarian hurry when in fact it was "My vision of the world is good and true, and if you don’t agree with it, you’re a heretic and justifiably can be persecuted.” Now they find themselves similarly ill-prepared to resist the destruction of normal politics by the Trumpist right.
For me this is another great wake up call to the traditional liberals that are more or less represented by mainstream democrat and formerly liberal republicans. I think it’s very important for us traditional liberals to have a more effective response. I don’t know if academics are the right people to inspire action anymore. Academics seem to be very much aligned with woke philosophies like critical theories including critical race theory . I don’t think that’s going to fly with the general public. I think liberals need to accept the appeal of economic populism like Bernie sanders and focus on how our system makes it hard for middle class people, and especially those without degrees , to get ahead. The democrats have always prioritized this in the past, and I think our energy can come from honestly pointing out how the United States is becoming a winner takes all economy and its time to dump the corporate democrats who are unable to deliver an affordable country. This includes housing, healthcare and child care that is a lot better in other countries. Thanks for your post I think it’s critical to get the other side even if they drive you nuts 🌰🤨Definitely buying your book Laura!
Thank you for listening! As Berny said below, I agree that the Democratic party has taken way too much for granted, and agree with some of what you say about the left. We may disagree about the extent of the corruption in the academy but the very real vulnerabilities of the contemporary academy (and the ways in which the right exploits these) is an important theme of the book!
"One reason that liberals, in the Democratic Party sense, seem to lack ideas is that they have coasted for decades (or more?) on the assumption that their ideas—technocratic governance, some form of welfare state, and, yes, the broadly liberal ideas of tolerance, rule of law, free speech, free inquiry, etc.—were safely in charge where it mattered."
And I think this, from Laura, echoes much of that—especially the penultimate sentence—even if it differs with other aspects of your reply:
"I don’t have all the answers. But it was frustrating, as an observer, to see that Bernie and AOC were the people who went and toured the country, and had a lot of energy in those first months, while more centrist Democrats didn’t seem to be doing very much. And I still think that’s the case. They seem very shocked and unprepared. And I think that that comes down to a failure of imagination—taking way too much for granted for a very long time. And that’s part of what got us Trump in the first place."
It may be that the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment are just not all that popular nowadays. People want their cake and to eat it too, and demagogues at both extremes of the political spectrum are telling them want they want to hear.
Please consider some term other than "New Right." For years, "New Right" has been associated with the postwar movement -- in contrast to the "Old Right" of the prewar era -- of Wm F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, which became dominant in US politics with the Reagan presidency and the Moral Majority. It just creates confusion to use the same term for the alt right of recent years.
The podcast version is already out. We included a video version of it in this post, but if you go to your favorite podcast app and search for The Gray Area by Vox, you'll find it there.
This was very interesting - thank you. I’m a GenX woman who has known I was a Democrat since I was 10 yo, despite being raised by a very Reagan Republican father. Your description of Gipper’s Stool was so helpful because it’s how I understood Republican and conservative core political beliefs until Trump came on the scene in 2015/2016. I didn’t agree with the philosophy but I understood the through lines; they made sense.
During Trump’s first term and even more so during his second, I have been shocked not only by how thoroughly Gipper’s Stool has been rejected by the current Republican Party but also the hypocrisy of them doing so. When I am more alarmed than my now-Trump loving father about tariffs, exploding deficits, attacks on the independence of the Fed, pardons for criminals who attacked the police, cuts to the research which helped create American exceptionalism, and an American President kowtowing to Putin and attacking our European allies, there is a serious problem. Not just with my relationship with my dad and friends who were also former Reagan Republicans but now are now MAGA ones, but with the upside down nature of political thought and discourse right now. Perhaps Congressional Democrats have been slow to act because this shift is just as shocking to them as to many of the rest of us.
When I read about the New Right, I’m not seeing a coherent philosophy which explains why and when these particular thinkers/writers/influencers have shifted from this historical background. I have some personal theories but would be curious if there would be anything you might recommend on this topic.
I agree that "New Right" confuses the nomenclature. I am not sure "Alt Right" is any better. As a big-tent term, why not use "Trumpian Right?" This is particularly apt because Trump himself, being ideologically vacuous, opportunistic and performative, offers the tent.
Also, in this big tent, where do you put the "Federalists," associated with the Federalist Society, unitary executive theory and devolution of powers in favor of the wealthy, powerful and people of status? And the "Tech Bros" or "Nerd Reich," associated with the likes of Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Curtis Yarvin and the replacement of the republic with a techno-corporatist monarchy?
Another, perhaps more fundamental concern I have with this particular discussion, a concern going beyond nomenclature, is that it tends to disguise more than clarify the roots of these various flavors of conservatism. Those roots are reactionary and best described with anti-democratic antecedents – that is, with words like "fascist," "falangist," "ultranationalist," "racist," "objectivist,""techno-elitist," :corporatist," "authoritarian," "oligarchic," etc.
Finally, I question the tone. If we are going to have such discussion – which we should have – we should be clear: the discussion about definitions is not a polite academic one in which a wolf is given opportunity to wear a sheep's cloak; rather, it is a vicious political one about the fate of the country, its institutions, and its governance. Drawing links to historical precedent helps clarify that point; on the other hand, trying to invent newness where newness is more facade than substance does not.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment here Mike. In the book, especially in the intro and early chapters, I do go through some of the history, which I agree is really important. I hope you’ll check it out since it’s hard to do justice to all of these nuances in a talk. If you watch the panel discussion that Zach I and were part of at the Unpopulist Youtube channel, you will hear more about these other groups. And here’s something I recently wrote about the conservative legal movement: https://verfassungsblog.de/trump-newright-federalistsociety/. Thanks for listening!
An interesting interview with a thoughtful analyst I'd like to hear more from. The flaw, however, is failing to distinguish more clearly between liberals and the left. One reason that liberals, in the Democratic party sense, seem to lack ideas is that they have coasted for decades (or more?) on the assumption that their ideas--technocratic governance, some form of welfare state, and, yes, the broadly liberal ideas of tolerance, rule of law, free speech, free inquiry, etc.--were safely in charge where it mattered. They thus found themselves unprepared or unwilling to resist the intolerant and propagandistic left as it corrupted the academy. Too often, especially in academic circles, liberals regarded the left as liberalism in an identitarian hurry when in fact it was "My vision of the world is good and true, and if you don’t agree with it, you’re a heretic and justifiably can be persecuted.” Now they find themselves similarly ill-prepared to resist the destruction of normal politics by the Trumpist right.
For me this is another great wake up call to the traditional liberals that are more or less represented by mainstream democrat and formerly liberal republicans. I think it’s very important for us traditional liberals to have a more effective response. I don’t know if academics are the right people to inspire action anymore. Academics seem to be very much aligned with woke philosophies like critical theories including critical race theory . I don’t think that’s going to fly with the general public. I think liberals need to accept the appeal of economic populism like Bernie sanders and focus on how our system makes it hard for middle class people, and especially those without degrees , to get ahead. The democrats have always prioritized this in the past, and I think our energy can come from honestly pointing out how the United States is becoming a winner takes all economy and its time to dump the corporate democrats who are unable to deliver an affordable country. This includes housing, healthcare and child care that is a lot better in other countries. Thanks for your post I think it’s critical to get the other side even if they drive you nuts 🌰🤨Definitely buying your book Laura!
Thank you for listening! As Berny said below, I agree that the Democratic party has taken way too much for granted, and agree with some of what you say about the left. We may disagree about the extent of the corruption in the academy but the very real vulnerabilities of the contemporary academy (and the ways in which the right exploits these) is an important theme of the book!
Thank you for reading/listening!
I think what you wrote here is broadly correct:
"One reason that liberals, in the Democratic Party sense, seem to lack ideas is that they have coasted for decades (or more?) on the assumption that their ideas—technocratic governance, some form of welfare state, and, yes, the broadly liberal ideas of tolerance, rule of law, free speech, free inquiry, etc.—were safely in charge where it mattered."
And I think this, from Laura, echoes much of that—especially the penultimate sentence—even if it differs with other aspects of your reply:
"I don’t have all the answers. But it was frustrating, as an observer, to see that Bernie and AOC were the people who went and toured the country, and had a lot of energy in those first months, while more centrist Democrats didn’t seem to be doing very much. And I still think that’s the case. They seem very shocked and unprepared. And I think that that comes down to a failure of imagination—taking way too much for granted for a very long time. And that’s part of what got us Trump in the first place."
It may be that the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment are just not all that popular nowadays. People want their cake and to eat it too, and demagogues at both extremes of the political spectrum are telling them want they want to hear.
Please consider some term other than "New Right." For years, "New Right" has been associated with the postwar movement -- in contrast to the "Old Right" of the prewar era -- of Wm F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, which became dominant in US politics with the Reagan presidency and the Moral Majority. It just creates confusion to use the same term for the alt right of recent years.
Is a podcast version coming?
The podcast version is already out. We included a video version of it in this post, but if you go to your favorite podcast app and search for The Gray Area by Vox, you'll find it there.
Thanks so much, dude! Looking forward to listening.