This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This comment is better than my original post by leap and bounds. Thank you.
I'll do my best to offer a similarly effortful response.
On David French
You asked;
I do think that, if asked, French would say that liberalism from about JFK to George H.W. Bush was "working." He'd crow about this or that policy and perhaps bemoan the decline of mainstream church attendance more than your average political commentator, but the conclusion would be a general approval that "the liberalism of my youth" worked in terms of resolving political arguments and was based on "shared values." He would point to Trump / MAGA, wokeism, an the progressive left of today as obvious evidence that we're so much worse off and that we need to go back to suit-and-tie, groovy Ivy League liberalism.
As others have pointed out, going back is impossible, so French's remedy is nonsensical. I'd take it a step further. French's appreciation of the liberalism of yesteryer is itself not only misguided but fails to appreciate the system that led us to our current state of affairs. To me, it's like saying "Man, I know I'm an alcoholic. I wish I could just go back to my late 20s and early 30s when I was drinking every day and nothing was wrong!" Rewinding the tape doesn't mean we get to change how the movie unfolds.
On The Rage Against 20th Century Liberalism
I agree with your critiques of Ahmari and Drehrer. In a previous post I even presaged some of the same things you said about Drehrer. I cited Ahmari 1) because I was having a little fun with the original post (always try to!) and 2) The (broadly inclusive) New Right is not yet at the point of offering real solutions, but has done a good job of pointing at the problem. The most comprehensive works on it are what Deneen has written and the criminally underreported The Age of Entitlement by Christopher Caldwell. The latter does the most comprehensive breakdown of how and why the Baby Boomers are not only greedy etc. but have an incoherent political worldview which gives you things like a real estate hustler from Queens being the champion of the West Virginia coal miner, and trans twelve year olds as the rallying cry of retired Berkeley-grad grandmas. Ahmari's hyperbolic critiques of French - flawed as they are - are still a principled expression of frustration. I'm not electing him to be the intellectual core of the New Right, but I'll take him over the weird post-post-post-irony nonsense of Nick Fuentes and your average "Republican Group Chat" Z-llenial. 6 7? 6 7? Am I doing this Right?
On a Solution
There's not yet an emerging consensus for "wat do?" on the new right. Right now, this is largely due to the fact that Trump and MAGA take all the air out of the room and the various sub-factions (Deneenists, Frenchists, Ahmarists, etc.) are trying to figure out how to square-peg-that-round-hole to ride MAGA coattails after the departure of Trump or, in the case of French, decamp entirely to a kind of conservo-liberalist island. I think we can, however, point to some major elements that will, in some way, be foundational parts of whatever a post-Trump right looks like.
Techno-industrialist revival. Vance (noted Thiel acolyte) being VP solidified this for me. If, however, you spend the time to go through the list of folks who ended up in the Trump Admin after 2024 (and I mean folks way, way down the latter. Not secretary level, but like "deputy under other whatever for x") you'll see lots of folks with obvious connections back to the Silicon Valley right - Palantir and Anduril types being significantly represented. Also, a LOT of GWOT veterans (specifically special operations) who then picked up MBAs a Stanford / Harvard. These people are in the places they need to be to truly redirect the industrial policy based of America to something that is a) responsive to a kinetic event with China and b) poised to produce a much higher volume of physical goods instead of software, IP, and financialized products. Now, will they be successful? Totally different question, totally different post.
Pro-natalism. Strong pro-natalism. Again, made obvious with the Vance pick, but also supported all over the place by even totally secular or atheist folks who can do the simple math of demographics are realize there aren't enough Americans. With immigration being what it is because of what it was under, mostly, Biden, no one on the right is going to be making the argument that we can solve the demographic shift by importing people.
Strong traditional gender identities. Hanania, I believe, had a recent article on observations about hanging out with liberal vs conservative women in DC. One of the major takeaways was that conservative women dress ... women-ly. Skirts, heels, tight tops with low necklines, makeup, jewelry. Liberal women wear flats, oversized blazers, those weird big-box pants, little to zero makeup, subdued hairstyles. On the other side of the coin, half of the MAGA appeal (at least) is that men can and do men stuff. There's a vaguely military aesthetic, but mostly it's about male coded activities; lifting, combat sports, general bro'ing out. This is part of the reason, I think, Trump picked up more male latino and black votes in 2024. The key here, however, is that the New Right - beyond the heavily religious new right of TradCaths etc. - isn't going to ask women to completely go back to being SAHMs. Without a strong religious fealty, women today, even extremely and truthfully conservative ones, cannot commit the social suicide of actually "only" being a Mom. Even if it isn't traditional careerism, they'll want to be out of the house a lot. Here is not the place to comment on why that is or if its good. All I'm saying, in this context, is that The New Right will be totally fine with women doing whatever they want, so long as they do it as very obviously women.
** On Getting There **
So let's say I'm right and the three points above are the only "reliable" proto-planks of a New Right platform post Trump. How do we actually get there?
That's the danger. There's no real consensus. It's all being held together by the force of personality that is Donald Trump. Once he is off the stage (and, no, he cannot be some sort of shadow president following a potential Vance win in 2028), there's going to be some kind of War of The Roses. I put money on the Thiel people just because they run real deep, have lots of money, and aren't reflexively anti-intellectual and, frankly, bizarre, the way the OG Steve Bannon and current Stephen Miller wings are. The Trump children will have a lot of influence and I think it's key to remember that Barron Trump was and is, allegedly, the social media guru within the White House.
The other option, of course, is that the Democrats win in 2028. This would require them to not fuck up an election. Color be doubtful. If a compromise Dem candidate wins -- let's just say Mayor Pete, even though that is impossible - the David French's of the world will rejoice. But nothing will happen and nothing will get done. You'll have some sort of MAGA redux in 2032. The democrats need to violently eject the progressive part of their party to remain relevant - but they won't do that. I truly am utterly perplexed by this.
** My Very Online Solution **
I'll spare you a full blueprint, because I don't have one, but the crux of it, specifically, gets down to repealing the Civil Rights Act. Look at it's legislative history and you'll see how horrifically it's morphed over time to become a orwellian "general fairness" law that is close to nonsense and so can be weaponized at will. Of course, if any Senator apposes appealing it, they're walking directly into the woodchipper of "the racisms!"
Without a CRA, identity politics and the politics of resentment become electoral losers because you can no longer make the case to specific voting demographics that you'll be able to help them specifically. You wouldn't be able to. Politicians would have to, instead, make the case that their policies have the best chance of being broadly beneficial. I think you might even see a general decline in gerrymandering.
And this is where I run out of steam. I hope this response to your excellent comment was at least a C-.
More options
Context Copy link