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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.