Save this storySave this storySave this storySave this story
Back in 2018, during a gathering in Houston, Donald Trump pinpointed a distinction that was becoming crucial for the American right. “A globalist is an individual that desires the globe to flourish,” Trump stated. This entailed “not being overly concerned about their own nation.” Conversely, he identified as “a nationalist.” “Actually, we’re not really meant to use that term,” Trump continued. “Do you know what I am? I’m a nationalist, agreed? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist! There’s nothing improper with that. Employ that term. Employ that term!” The thrilled attendees began chanting, “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”
Trump’s application of “nationalist” puzzled numerous individuals. CNN, within its coverage of the address, linked it to “the protectionist trade strategies he has put into practice intending to bolster national manufacturing.” This was logical—a large portion of Trump’s address had revolved around his “America First” financial strategy—yet the notion of being a nationalist was obviously more expansive than that. Trump’s nationalism was partially connected to pride: “For an extended period, you observed as your leaders made apologies on behalf of America,” he informed the listeners, and “currently you have a President who is advocating for America.” It additionally encompassed a generally confrontational demeanor. He desired to wield America’s influence liberally. Conceivably, he was affiliating himself with the bold, brutal nationalisms characteristic of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
We seemed to be privy to merely a segment of the dialogue; we were uncertain of the precise subject of his discussion. Furthermore, it was peculiar to contemplate how Trump, whose mindset doesn’t operate within frameworks of ideologies, had begun contemplating nationalism initially. It proved challenging to envision him aboard Air Force One, observing the passing cloud formations, then jotting down the expression “nationalism” on a notepad and emphasizing it. It appeared more plausible that some assistant or speechwriter had propelled the phrase up the chain of authority until it could be introduced to him as an incantation to be uttered before his audience. (“Employ that term!” the advisor may have proposed.) Nevertheless, even this portrayal was somewhat difficult to embrace. “Nationalist” signifies an academic term, associated with historical and political sciences. Serving as a battle cry, it diverges significantly from “Lock her up!” The expression “nationalism” had surfaced from an unidentified origin—but what could that origin be?
In a broad sense, a duo of narratives exists behind the grandeur and formality of MAGA. One resonates freely throughout blogs, memes, forums, group text messages, Substacks, and chatrooms, whereas an alternate narrative unfolds at a more dignified rate, by means of policy reports, revisionist accounts, and conservative political-philosophical pronouncements. These streams frequently intersect, engendering the recognizable MAGA atmosphere—incendiary, emotive, yet curiously detailed. Upon J. D. Vance’s pronouncement to Tucker Carlson that America was managed, via the Democrats, by “a collection of childless female feline enthusiasts” who “aspire to render the remainder of the country equally miserable,” it was simple to discern the humor directed at men. What remained less apparent was its nature as a disparaging remark possessing an intellectual derivation, emanating from assertions in theology, historical studies, and conservative societal doctrines, along with the genuine occurrence of decreasing birthrates. Interpreted from the right, it possessed academic legitimacy.
How should we comprehend the intellectual facet of MAGA? Commencing in 2016, Laura K. Field chronicles, within “Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right,” a collective of “PhDs and intellectuals”—“predominantly men”—commenced uniting around concepts that they credited to, correlated with, or incorporated within Trump’s developing movement. To an extent, they valued his seeming adherence to the identical “traditional conservative perspectives” as they did. Nevertheless, they additionally perceived, within his ideological flexibility, an opportunity to progress further. Numerous individuals “desired to revert the trajectory of pluralistic liberal democracy, along with modernity itself”; other individuals aspired to advance “visions pertaining to the future”—“novel legislation, frameworks for educational systems, forms of constitutionalism, traditionalist communities, and technological paradises.” This amalgamation yielded a novel manifestation of conservative futurism.
Having surfaced haphazardly and opportunistically, the New Right presently appears to occupy the focal point of the most spirited political progression within contemporary American history. Nevertheless, the function of concepts within politics proves intricate. Interpreted from one vantage point, concepts mold political prospects. (One might assert that, absent the Enlightenment era, there would exist no French Revolution.) Yet, it is similarly accurate that intellectuals devise concepts to render sensible the events already transpiring. Trump’s unparalleled ascent resulted from a multitude of elements—among those are transformations within the media landscape, the economic system, and American culture—which possessed limited connection to the arguments being presented by conservative intellectuals, who were as astonished by Trump as all other observers. Through interpreting and substantiating his ascent, numerous of those thinkers attained influence; certain individuals currently serve within the federal administration, and are translating their concepts into implementation. And yet their intellect did not fabricate Trump. Individuals did not automatically endorse it. They might not comprehend its essence.
Concurrently, Trump, presently seventy-nine years of age, seemingly experiences a decline in influence; the MAGA movement, at the zenith of its influence, confronts the progressively pressing inquiry of what transpires hereafter. Should MAGA possess valuable concepts, they might buttress its prospective trajectory. Conversely, should it encompass deficient or irrelevant ones, it might encounter difficulties maintaining its vitality. Do the concepts linked to Trumpism guide toward a defined location, or do they culminate in a deadlock? Can they endure autonomously, devoid of a reality television personality to energize them?
Field, an academic situated in Washington, D.C., previously identified as a conservative, and possesses significant empathy for varied conservative standpoints. She received instruction within the “Great Books,” scrutinizing Plato and Rousseau; attained a Ph.D. in government from the University of Texas at Austin; and has dedicated considerable time among the conservative intelligentsia. Within the preface to “Furious Minds,” she recounts the genesis of her disenchantment. She was in her fifth year of graduate studies, and was participating in a prestigious summer initiative for emerging scholars at the University of Virginia. During the inaugural dinner, hosted by a conservative educational institution, she was positioned adjacent to one of the program’s senior personnel, a well-regarded individual she denotes as Todd, who had recently attended an occasion at which he had encountered Michelle Obama, then serving as the First Lady. “She was unequivocally statuesque,” Todd remarked. “Of considerable stature, extremely impressive. I would genuinely relish engaging in sexual relations with her.”
Appalled, Field excused herself from the table, proceeded to the restroom, examined herself within the mirror, and contemplated, “Precisely what am I undertaking in this location?” She depicts the instant as “the inception of the protracted, gradual procedure” of extracting herself from the right. Disturbed by what she discerned as a newly amplified misogyny among conservative intellectuals—according to her assessment, they are “fixated on masculinity” to an extent that their forerunners were not—Field monitored their abrupt shift toward a more radical stance. During the nineteen-eighties, Ronald Reagan had perceived conservatism as a three-legged seat. The fundamental notion revolved around liberation from governmental control; the legs, Field documents, comprised social conservatism, free-market economics, and anti-Communism. Nevertheless, even Reagan was presently viewed as “a prominent capitulator” within a significantly more extensive conflict. The emergent conservative thinkers professed a desire for a more substantial, more assertive governing body—conceivably even a “Red Caesar”—to subvert atheistic, scientific, multicultural modernity, thus ushering in a “postliberal” epoch.
Did this novel disposition possess logical coherence? There are contradictions involved in deploying expansive governmental authority to emancipate individuals from the societal and political frameworks they themselves have constructed. Yet, it remains uncertain “the degree to which the incoherence inherent within the New Right movement exerts significance within the tumultuous realm of real politics,” she inscribes, within “Furious Minds.” Incoherence might conceivably constitute a component of the objective: presenting an overtly contradictory argument can function as a means of exhibiting influence and dedication. She quotes the political theorist Matthew McManus, who maintains that the New Right regards “a readiness to sublimate and affirm contradiction” as a form of membership prerequisite.
Political existence invariably engenders disillusionment, given that all political movements encompass contradictions. Democrats perceive themselves as champions of the working strata, yet their affiliation gravitates toward the highly educated; traditional Republicans extol freedom from expansive government while enduring the rapacity of large corporations. Whenever an individual advances an argument pertaining to the manner in which society ought to function, they encounter the potential for hypocrisy, considering the convoluted nature of reality. Therefore, perhaps the contradictions of the New Right are merely commonplace.
Field illustrates how this deviates from the norm. The contradictions inherent within the New Right mirror a distinctive disconnection between intellectualization and actuality. The expression “nationalist,” for instance, might have infiltrated Trump’s lexicon through the widespread impact of “The Virtue of Nationalism,” a publication released the month preceding the Houston rally, by the philosopher and political theorist Yoram Hazony, to conservative commendation. Its central assertion posits that the world attains a superior state when comprised of discrete nation-states, each possessing its own distinct culture and historical narrative; such societies exhibit greater stability, attain enhanced accomplishments, and contribute singular elements to humanity in its entirety. That is not irrational. Nonetheless, Hazony extends this notion to an extreme degree. He contends, in abstract terminology, that multiculturalism essentially functions as a manifestation of globalist imperialism, aimed at undermining the framework of those nation-states. Within his depiction, there exists a stark, binary decision to be rendered between this alleged imperialism and national sovereignty. Hazony proposes that the concept of national sovereignty, in turn, can be traced back to the struggles of “biblical Israel” to safeguard its political autonomy and religious liberty. Hence, a prosperous nation-state essentially constitutes a theocratic ethnostate, characterized, as Hazony articulates, by “a majority . . . whose cultural dominance remains unambiguous and unquestioned, and against which resistance manifests as futile.”
Hazony’s conceptualization of nationalism has transpired to wield considerable influence within Trumpism; National Conservatism, the movement that Hazony assisted in establishing, counts Vance, Marco Rubio, and Josh Hawley among its adherents. All manner of predicaments arise from grounding one’s perception of nationhood, even peripherally, upon the case of Israel. Yet, the principal impediment inherent within Hazony’s theory, Field documents, simply resides in its being “divorced from the historical trajectory of the tangible world.” As a matter of fact, numerous nations have prospered notwithstanding their lack of monolithic composition, and gradations of nationalism, multiculturalism, and liberalism exist, which empower countries to flourish sans necessitating binary determinations. Furthermore, it simply embodies an undeniable reality that the United States accommodates individuals originating from diverse locations, encompassing disparate cultures and perspectives. There truly exists no interpretation wherein Hazony-esque nationalism can be translated into practical application within this context. The signal intellectual fallacy of the New Right, Field asserts, resides in its allowance for “abstractions to stifle straightforward real-world verities.” You cannot proceed to deport half of America’s populace.
The New Right maintains a plethora of exceedingly abstract notions—encompassing not solely nationhood but additionally human essence, God, virtue, gender dynamics, technology, “the Common Good,” et cetera. An avenue for comprehending this inclination toward abstraction, Field documents, entails examination of a publication such as “Ideas Have Consequences,” an “archetypal text” of American conservatism released in 1948 by Richard Weaver, an intellectual historian affiliated with the University of Chicago. Weaver’s viewpoint, Field contends, posited that “lacking a transcendental metaphysics . . . there exists no constraint upon political depravity, and no justification for individuals to embody goodness and veracity.” We might harbor skepticism regarding this assertion; we might emphasize that harboring uncertainty concerning the demarcation between right and wrong incontestably does not transform you into a nihilist. (In actuality, the converse likely holds validity.) Nevertheless, ever since that juncture, numerous conservative intellectuals have maintained a conviction that “moral relativism” constitutes a significant menace to civilization.
Should you presume, irrespective of the rationale, that moral ambiguity signifies nihilism, then you must urgently procure a transcendent metaphysics. This might entail recourse to the Greeks, or the Romans, or the Bible, or to some alternate origin of authority, and asserting that whatever you ascertain within that source embodies capital-T Transcendently True. Regrettably, given our confinement within modernity, disagreement concerning that which transcends invariably remains a possibility; it additionally proves facile to welcome novel transcendent abstractions into your pantheon. Consequently, an individual such as the influential hard-right provocateur Costin Alamariu—recognized pseudonymously as Bronze Age Pervert, or BAP—can propose an alternate rendition of ancient historical accounts wherein men once existed freely, during the Bronze Age, but have subsequently become entrapped within the confines of “gynocracy.” This perspective, outlined within the widely circulated publication “Bronze Age Mindset,” scarcely qualifies as metaphysical. Nevertheless, it can readily be integrated into a repository of abstract notions that appear, to particular individuals, to somehow embody capital-T Transcendently True. (Vance maintains a following of Bronze Age Pervert on X.)
It embodies small-T truth that, in contemporary times, men confront a multitude of predicaments, among which are shifts within the labor market and within cultural conventions surrounding masculinity. It ought to be feasible to deliberate upon those predicaments through employing straightforward, concrete, real-world terminology. Nevertheless, should your intellect teem with abstractions, succumbing to their utilization proves enticing. The trajectory extending from Bronze-Age “gynocracy” to “childless female feline enthusiasts” can prove relatively abbreviated, and the presence of the abstract notion can transmute concrete inquiries into what manifest as catastrophic crises of value. Actuality bears minimal relevance; abstractions reign supreme. Yet, how numerous Trump voters evince concern for the identical abstractions as the New Right intellectuals? How numerous solely aspire to attain more affordable grocery provisions, unoccupied apartments, and respectable employment prospects?
A prevalent thread interwoven throughout “Furious Minds” pertains to the frequency with which the New Right merely asserts verities in eternal diction, sans justification or substantiation, and the gratification it derives from engaging in such assertions. These purported verities, once asserted, function as substantiation for supplementary assertions, thus engendering a performance of certainty regarding that which embodies True. And yet this performance expeditiously surpasses that which incontestably embodies self-evidence. The legal scholar, political theorist, and Nazi Party member Carl Schmitt maintained that there exists a “state of exception” during which a leader can, and conceivably must, circumvent the constitutional framework so as to safeguard the nation; certain factions within the New Right have amalgamated this notion with the concept of “Caesarism,” contending that the country necessitates a “Red Caesar.” (“Should we inevitably require Caesar, who do you desire him to embody?” Michael Anton—who would proceed to contribute to the authorship of Project 2025—inquired, in 2016.) Nevertheless, does a “state of exception” genuinely exist? Even under the presumption of its existence—do we presently inhabit such a state? Do voters subscribe to these tenets—or even possess cognizance of them? The New Right conducts itself as though all aspects are perfectly unambiguous. (“Sovereign is he who determines the exception,” Schmitt documented, in 1922. “He who rescues his Country does not contravene any Law,” Trump posted on social media this year.)
The discovery that the intellectual structure of Trumpism embodies a fragile composition evokes minimal astonishment. What possibly elicits surprise pertains to the extent to which the New Right has, through its arguments and conduct, refuted its own foundational premises. In 2019, within a celebrated joint essay entitled “Against the Dead Consensus,” a collective of conservative thinkers contended that liberalism and “consensus conservatism”—the traditional variant—had “long since ceased to inquire into the fundamental aspects”; it had assumed erroneous inferences regarding “the essence and objective of our shared existence.” They pledged to transform America into the kind of setting wherein values were regarded earnestly—wherein we might inquire, for instance, whether “the soulless society of individual affluence” embodied one that we desired. However, it transpires that liberalism compels you to inquire into concepts, precisely by virtue of their uncertainty, mutability, and contested nature. Within the illiberal realm engendered by Trumpism, you are absolved from the obligation to inquire—you can merely proclaim. You can undergo instantaneous metamorphoses, articulating or contemplating any notion whatsoever. ♦
Sourse: newyorker.com
