If you've been listening to the podcast, you know that I promote
an early 20th century nationalistic version of conservatism. Any
intellectually robust study of nationalism therefore immediately piques my
interest.
Currently generating the most interest among nationalist thinkers
is Isreali-American scholar Yoram Hazony. I recently read Hazony's The Virtue of Nationalism, and while I haven't reviewed it yet, my copy
has dog-ears and highlighted passages throughout, in preparation for the task.
When I saw that Hazony was one of the organizers of the new National Conservatism Conference, I was sold.
After attending the event, I tossed around the idea of recording a
podcast or even writing an article about my experiences. On the other hand,
sticking to the book reviews seemed a little more on task for
a podcast and website dedicated specifically to book reviews. I also had been
turning over a variety of fresh ideas in my head and didn't want to jump into
any sort of commentary until I had adequately percolated.
Then I read an analysis of the event on the Christian website Mere
Orthodoxy. Much of my own thoughts concerning the event revolve around an
atheistic, naturalistic interpretation of the current zeitgeist, and while I
essentially concur with much of what was written there, a point-by-point
response seems like the ideal avenue to raise a few important considerations.
Brad Littlejohn's article, 'A National Awakening', raises seven
major points. He postulates three concepts that the new national conservatives
repudiate, and four that they affirm. I'd like to respond to these one by one.
First, the repudiations.
Repudiating White Nationalism
Littlejohn is correct that any successful attempt at American
national conservatism must reject white nationalism. The task is all the more
necessary given the Democrats' and media's obsessive attempt to pin the white
nationalist label on the entire modern right, and all the moreso on any person
or movement embracing the title of 'nationalist.'
Non-whites, and particularly African-Americans, have deep roots in
the nation's history, and including them in a civic nationalism is necessary,
decent, and pragmatic. The progressives rely heavily on the black vote, but
don't seem to deliver anything but promises and fear. There is a rising tide of
black conservatives and the energy among them is remarkable. Candace Owens is
the most visible member of this movement, but she is far from alone. Listen to
these young black conservatives and you will find that many of them are as
nationalistic as any presenter at the conference.
As Littlejohn noted, black conservative Bob Woodson delivered one
the best speeches of the conference, spectacular in part because it deviated
from the standard lofty concerns and dived right into the pragmatic necessity
of face-to-face conservative activism within the black community. He gets it.
If nationalist conservatives can draw black America into a shared vision of
national prosperity, we stand to pull the rug out from under the progressives
in a way that will have long-lasting effects on the global progressive agenda,
will lift the fortunes of Americans of all backgrounds, and will bring a new
sense of belonging to the minority communities of this country as we all work
together toward prosperity and virtue.
With all this said, there are concerns that simply must be
addressed. First and most basic, the separation of culture from ethnicity is
simply nowhere near as clear-cut as Hazony and others would like for it to
be.
Everywhere on Earth, four things typically go together: land,
blood, roots, and culture. These are not airtight connections, but all else
being equal, human development tends to tie them together and the extent to
which we reject or deny them is the extent to which we reject or deny our own
natures. A place simply exists by virtue of geography. When a people live in a
place for some time, in some greater or lesser degree of isolation from other
people, they develop an ethnicity distinct from that of other peoples. This is
the only way ethnicities come about. Ethnicity is not handed to us by some
deity, we develop it by virtue of proximity to some and isolation from others.
Even nomadic groups develop distinct ethnicities by virtue of adhering to
in-group/out-group distinctions. Again the distinctions are not airtight, but
if they were completely non-existent, ethnicities would not be able to develop
in the first place, and the entire Earth would be a homogeneous melting pot. It
clearly isn't, at least not yet.
Over time, on a shorter time scale than that of the creation of
ethnicities but still over hundreds or even thousands of years, cultures
develop. People put down roots in a place, as they take up agriculture or even
migrate across the same lands repeatedly. This development is rooted in place, and
ethnicity is also rooted in place so of course the two overlap. Languages
develop, and cultures often adhere in one language group and see speakers of
different languages as foreign. All of this is a perfectly natural development.
The multiethnic and multicultural nature of the United States
deprives its inhabitants of this typical background. The manner in which
ethnicity and culture bind other nations or groups simply cannot apply to us in
the same way. But that is not to say that it does not apply to us at all.
America was founded by Europeans and descendants of Europeans, much of our
labor came from African slaves, and the native peoples continue to occupy areas
of the country. Our culture and its attendant array of subcultures is a
specific array as a result of this arrangement. Had we been colonized by the
Chinese or developed exclusively by Native Americans, we would have developed
in an entirely different way. We likely would not be so attached to baseball,
blues, and burritos. It might sound trite, but it's also true.
I say all this simply to point out that our culture is to a large
extent defined by our ethnicity, our location, and the various roots our
forefathers have laid down for us. To be an American means more than simply
being in this location. A first-generation Pakistani-American immigrant who
dresses in traditional garb and doesn't speak English may be an American by
law, but she simply isn't an American in the same capacity as a European
American whose ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. To argue otherwise is
to argue that roots mean absolutely nothing, culture means absolutely nothing,
and ethnicity means absolutely nothing. It is to argue that America is simply a
place, and the full extent of being an American is defined simply by one's proximity
to other Americans.
Now, if this said Pakistani is in the country legally, or even
better has obtained citizenship, then she should be treated with the utmost
respect, as a welcome guest. But it is not until she begins to deeply
assimilate that she truly becomes American, in a deeper sense than can be
bestowed by citizenship.
Moreover, she will never have the deep roots of one who lives in
the same town as his great-grandfather, whose ancestors were slaves, abolitionists or
even slaveholders, or whose roots go back to the colonial era. These roots
means something, and they tie us into the greater American story in a way that
no amount of assimilation ever can.
Moreover, we should recognize that over time different ethnicities
will have children together. Eventually one could expect that Americans of all
backgrounds will begin to converge toward a new American ethnicity that
incorporates a wide variety of genetic stock and gives the people deeper roots.
For instance, my great-grandfather was a Norwegian immigrant, but other
English-American branches of my family tree reach back to the colonial era. As
time goes by and the new American ethnicity is created, we will all have both
deeper and shallower branches in our family trees. A massive inflow of immigrants
undermines this slow but necessary process of convergence.
This may be a hard pill to swallow, particularly as we do our best
to earnestly welcome new immigrants, who may even feel a sense of patriotism
missing from a young snarky videogamer who can't even point to the US on a map.
But its bitterness does not remove its truthfulness. Roots do matter, and it's
only the modern liberal focus on individual autonomy and deracination that has
convinced us otherwise.
How we address these potentially conflicting truths will define
how well national conservatism will succeed as a movement. The best first step
is to identify the truths and the conflicts between them, and to do so with
love for our neighbors and our nation.
Repudiating Libertarianism
Littlejohn and some of the conference speakers went too far in
their condemnation of libertarianism. While utterly unrestrained markets have
some serious defects that need urgent addressing, the proven value of
capitalism and the academic insights of the Austrian economists should not be
nonchalantly cast aside.
For example, I have seen it stated by progressives that
conservative concerns for the working poor are not genuine if they are not
paired with calls for minimum wage laws. But these laws have measurable downsides
for the working poor that are too often ignored by progressives. National
conservatives must avoid falling into this rhetoric. Government interference in
markets is generally not going to make markets work more efficiently.This is
not an absolute maxim, as I detail below, but it should be our starting point
from which we only deviate deliberately and with cause.
The originator of fusionism, Frank Meyer, in his book In Defense of Freedom, made the important distinction between the
realm of government and the realm of civil society. He proposed that the role
of government is to secure freedom for the citizens, while the role of civil
society and the family is to promote virtue. I call this 'the separation of
culture and state.' We are treading in dangerous areas when we concede to the
government the right to promote virtue. Right now the left is using the school
system and the administrative state to force-feed the population their version
of virtue. Rather than using the government as a football (a nuclear one at
that) to be fought over and wielded to bring ultimate social power to one side
then the other endlessly, whiplashing the population between prayer in school
and gender-neutral bathrooms, leaving them disoriented, and either apathetic or
engaged in a life-or-death struggle for coercive power, we should be building
safeguards to keep the government morally neutral while advancing personal
freedom, then focusing our efforts to reclaim control over civil society. The
various institutions of civil society have been so thoroughly infiltrated by
the left that it could be considered an 'all hands on deck' effort just to
wrest back control over the media, the religious institutions, big tech, and
especially the universities.
With this said, it's absolutely true that free markets are not an
end in themselves, but a means to an end, and not a foolproof one either. The
positive economic results we attribute to free markets are actually gained by 'monopolistic
competition,' a situation where products and services are competitive but
not in a state of perfect competition on account of product differentiation.
Seeking such a scenario should be the goal of government, not a state of pure
competition nor a state of completely free markets leading to anti-competitive
monopolies or 'too big to fail' companies. There are also externalities,
largely but not entirely environmental in nature, that are not addressed by
markets and so require some degree of government involvement.
Libertarian economics also fails to recognize the profound
difference between domestic and international markets. In domestic markets, the
best analogy for a government is as a referee, making certain that all participants
play by the rules but not actually participating in the game. In international
markets, the US government is not a referee, but serves a role more akin to a
general manager. The government may not be participating in the market
directly, but has a vested interest in making sure that in the global balance
of power, which is largely determined by economic might, the US comes out on
top. It cannot be neutral with regard to winners and losers in the global
struggle for economic power. Libertarianism simply fails to recognize this
reality.
Nor does libertarianism adequately address the border, or even
have a coherent defense of the existence of the nation-state. In short,
libertarianism has some problems. But it also serves an important role is reminding
us all that freedom is one of our core principles and, barring certain specific
scenarios regarding the security and viability of the nation, the government
ought to be prioritizing the freedom of its citizens in all its actions.
Repudiating Identity Politics
Here is an area where almost all national conservatives will find
themselves in a rough agreement.
Demographic factors are a part of our identities, and we need not
expel any notion of their relevance, becoming effectively 'colorblind.' The is
no need for absolute colorblindness; it is an unnecessary and even unwelcome
deviation from our natural mode of existence. But on the whole, we want to
argue ideas regardless of their source. We should be cognizant of the way the
biases and objectives of the source color the ideas, but this cognizance does
nothing to validate or falsify the idea itself. This focus on ideas as such
helps to purify our discourse of the constant contaminants of veiled or
outright bias or disregard, and can inoculate us against social balkanization
into warring demographic tribes.
This issue has been thoroughly discussed for years by most corners
of the right, so there is little to add to it. I would only make the point that
the other major trend in right-of-center politics, the rise of the Intellectual
Dark Web, can provide the nationalists with a natural set of allies in the
struggle against ubiquitous identify politics and its gurus, the social justice
warrior left.
Affirming our Religious Heritage
The Democrats' positions on border security (none) and the
viability of socialism and even, on the activist fringe, the viability of communism,
grows more extreme seemingly by the day. Should they win in 2020, they will
have a hard time walking back from their radical positions, which are actually
becoming more and more accepted by the mainstream, particularly in the media
and universities, our central idea factories. Should they lose in 2020, who
among us thinks they will have moderated their ideas by 2024, or 2028? I for
one can envision a broad swath of more and more radical leftists controlling
every aspect of our civil society and vying for government power for as far as
the eye can see. It will only take one far left President to drop all border
enforcement, and if the radical left gains control of both houses of Congress
and the White House, get ready for the third world invasion and a serious civil
strife we may not survive as a unified nation-state.
I hope I've illustrated how dire the situation is.
I heard it vocalized by attendees of the conference that what was
needed was a religious awakening. The notion seems to be that we will turn
ourselves back toward God, and therefore recognize the value of the nation in
its current form, with its attendant government and culture, and our love for
our fellow citizens will blossom, and we will finally start to get it right.
I have serious reservations about this.
I'll be the first to admit that the US has a deeply Christian
history that should be respected as a critical and foundational component of
our national tradition. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking some sort
of religious awakening is going to save this nation. I am an atheist, and I'm
sure my position is inherently somewhat biased as a result of this. But I have
a perspective on this from outside Christianity or Judaism that might prove a
bit more clear-sighted as regards the state of the nation and what is truly
needed to save it.
In 2014, 70.6% of the US population identified as Christian. This number is down from 78.4%
identifying as Christian in 2007. Back in 1990, 81.6% identified as Christian.
So in short, almost 3/4 of the country claims to be Christian, and that's only after a notable decline over the last thirty years. Can
we possibly think that that last 29.4% of the population that isn't Christian is keeping the US from thriving?? That if we can just convert that last
portion, we can turn this ship around? I know there is more to it than simply
converting non-believers, that there is a component of a religious awakening
that involves nominal Christians to begin to attend church more regularly, to
pray more, and to be more religious in all facets of their lives. But
let's be honest. The New Deal was almost 90 years ago. The Great Society, over
50 years ago. Was church attendance lower at that time? Why, back in 1990, were the 81.6% of
the population who were Christian not able to set us on the right course?
Look at the election of Donald Trump. How many among us can truly
say that he is a deeply religious man, or that his election in some way
signifies a return to religiosity? To say such a thing is to recklessly misread
both the man and the moment. No, Trump's exhortations toward the Christian and
Jewish communities are pragmatic maneuvers aimed at shoring up support among
necessary constituents or, in the most generous interpretation, a weak sense of
religious obligation. Voters did not elect Trump because they wanted a Godly
man in the White House. They voted for Trump because he is a fighter, and he is
focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is winning at all costs.
Voters are tired of conservatives patting themselves on the back for losing
gracefully, which they have been doing for a century now. They are ready to
win. If that means fighting dirty or getting downright nasty, so be it. The
left has a laser-like focus on obtaining worldly power, while the Religious
Right sees its true objectives in the next world. Right-wing voters are tired
of it. They want to fight for worldly power with every bit of pugilistic fervor
as the left. In fact more aggression than the left. More dedication, more cunning,
more strategy, more downright Machiavellian devotion to WINNING. Enough of the
moralizing, we can work that out after we stave off the impending collapse. A
Great Awakening? We don't have the time for that!
What we need is not a Great Awakening. What we need is to hold the
White House, Senate and House of Representatives by any means necessary for the next thirty years
without interruption while we build the wall, slash immigration, take back the
universities, big tech, the media, Hollywood, Fortune 500 PR departments and
human resources departments, and to hand the left three decades of such
devastating political defeats that they finally recognize the need to purge
their far left flank from the ranks of party power. Nothing less is going to
suffice, and if we decide that we first need to reverse the slow decline of
Christian belief in which the national share of believers went from from 81.6% to 70.6% over the last thirty years, we will lose.
That decline took thirty years, and it's reasonable to expect it to take thirty
years to reverse. We don't have thirty years. One open borders radical
socialist in the White House and it's over. It's a sociological war being waged
upon us by power-hungry leftists, and we should treat it as such. It's time for
us all to be fighters, not in a spiritual war but in a war for worldly power.
If we can't do that we will not be able to save this country.
Now, with all that said, yes, our religious tradition is
important to our cultural heritage. But its importance does not guarantee its truth, and that is a
problem for which I have no simple answer. I have a slow, plodding, complex
answer, but that will take the exploration of my current and future podcast
episodes to work through. It's an important question, but we must recognize
that it is not the most important question. The most important
questions are: what do we need to do to win, and do we have what it takes to
follow through?
Affirming National Heritage
On this and the other remaining affirmations, I agree with
Littlejohn. Our nation, any nation, needs a sort of glue to hold it together.
Hazony identifies this glue as ‘mutual loyalty.’ This is a vital component, but
it is only one part of the glue. A shared sense of belonging to the greater
society is critical, as is a wide array of institutions smaller than the state,
from political parties to churches and corporations, all the way down to the
family unit and even friendships. A robust society of multiple, overlapping
voluntary social institutions allows us to engage with a wide variety of our
neighbors by seeking common participation in these institutions.
A shared sense of heritage grounds a people in the world by
connecting them to their own past and both their own offspring and the future of
their nation.
This affirming of national heritage must still allow for innovation
and questioning, but all such modifications to tradition must be rooted in a
fundamental love of country.
Affirming Community
This love of country must manifest itself as love not only for the
venerable institutions of our nation, but also as love for the participants within
these institutions and those who choose to explore what is possible outside of
them. Respecting the decisions of others as they seek to find their way in the
world is one means of demonstrating an overarching love for our fellow
Americans. This does not imply that we must agree with or celebrate every new
institution, bizarre aesthetic, or destructive philosophy. But a solid
nationalism will recognize that we should approach our neighbors with a sense
of love, respect and gratitude. We should enhance with our words and our actions
a sense of national and local community, while we remain free to retreat from,
or express dissatisfaction or even disgust with, any part of our social environment. We
must remain free people, even as we foster the ties that bind together the
greater community of the American nation.
Affirming Nature and Natural Limits
This is the most important and promising aspect of this new
nationalism, provided it is supported and examined adequately by the thought
leaders of the movement. The existence of a natural order to the universe, with
its attendant discreet human nature and the limits and constraints thus imposed
upon us, is a fundamental component of much of conservative thought.
As
Richard Weaver wrote in his 1960 essay ‘Conservatism and Libertarianism: The
Common Ground,' found in the collection In Defense of Tradition:
It is my contention that a conservative is a realist,
who believes that there is a structure of reality independent of his own will
and desire. He believes that there is a creation which was here before him,
which exists now not just by his sufferance, and which will be here after hes
gone. This structure consists not merely of the great physical world but also
of many laws principles and regulations which control human behavior. Though
this reality is independent of the individual, it is not hostile to him. It is
in fact amenable by him in many ways, but it cannot be changed radically and
arbitrarily. This is the Cardinal point. The conservative holds that man in
this world cannot make his will his law without any regard to limits and to the
fixed nature of things.
This
perspective is echoed by Thomas Sowell in his book 1987 book Conflict of Visions and is clearly supported by science as described in Steven
Pinker's 2002 book The Blank Slate.
While
the left claims to be the party of science, their only attachment to science is
often insofar as it provides a method to break out of the limits imposed by
nature or tradition. More recently, when science has delineated natural limits
within the human psyche which are not so easily dismantled, the left has opted
to disregard science entirely within that discipline. They regard evolutionary
psychology as a pseudoscience; it is no such thing.
This
becomes a strategic avenue of approach in gaining public and scholarly support
for the core principles of national conservatism.
By
adjusting the conservative position on climate science and taking a real
interest in environmental conservation, (a position that is deeply in line with
conservatism’s regard for cross-generational sustainability of culture and general
prudent, cautious disposition) and drawing attention to the outright attack on
science described in Pinker’s fantastic book, the national conservatives can pull
the rug out from under the environmentalist and ‘Party of Science’ arguments
the progressives use to shore up their electoral coalition. This is in addition
to the simple fact that nationalism often sentimentally holds the tangible geographic
space of the homeland in a high, almost sacred regard.
We
should engage in a thorough exploration of the various ways in which the findings
of science, respect for nature as environment, and an understanding of human
nature and the limits of such can underpin the core tenets of national conservatism.
This can do nothing but strengthen our case.
No comments:
Post a Comment