“ What defines the New Right and the National Conservatives isn’t their traditionalism. It’s their belief, their assertion, that traditionalism dictates a fundamental dismantling and dismissal of classical liberalism. It’s their pointed critique of and hostility to liberty, not their traditionalism, that defines them.”
Correct. The New Right is primarily just economically left-wing and culturally/socially right-wing, but they try to disguise that with two intellectual stolen bases: 1. That they represent “true” conservatism or a “more right-wing” ideology than fusionist conservatives. Which is interesting because many of them are followers of Marx, Marcuse, and Dworkin, rather than right-wing figures. 2. That they have some kind of moral high ground over fusionists and libertarians.
Both of those premises are false. Some on the New Right are mostly conservative but with a populist flavor, but others are basically left-wingers with a couple nominally socially-conservative positions. It’s hard to see how they are “more conservative” when they accept more (in some cases most) of the left’s premises than do fusionists.
Also, attempts to cast the free market as “woke” are ridiculous, especially when some New Right folks are actually allied with the ESG crowd on questions like stakeholder capitalism. To another issue: protectionists will claim that they are virtuous for valuing work, and that free traders support mindless consumerism. That’s totally untrue, even though some people believe it. Protectionism fails on its own merits (i.e., hard to see how “pro-work” policies can be ones that kill jobs).
“ We are not individualists unmoored from traditionalism.”
Exactly! I’m proud to call myself an individualist, which is opposite of a collectivist. Last I checked, American culture has been proudly individualist since the Founding. Collectivism is the Soviet Union and Mao. (Some on the New Right seem to admire Mao, making me wonder what they’re doing calling themselves right-wingers.) An individualism moored in traditionalism is also staunchly pro-family. Collectivism is hostile to the family, because the nuclear family is the greatest threat to the collectivist vision of society. In the family, every individual is an individual, not an interchangeable member of some gigantic collective consciousness. Heck, in Plato’s Republic, what does the pure collectivist society require? It requires the abolition of private families.
“ What defines the New Right and the National Conservatives isn’t their traditionalism. It’s their belief, their assertion, that traditionalism dictates a fundamental dismantling and dismissal of classical liberalism. It’s their pointed critique of and hostility to liberty, not their traditionalism, that defines them.”
Correct. The New Right is primarily just economically left-wing and culturally/socially right-wing, but they try to disguise that with two intellectual stolen bases: 1. That they represent “true” conservatism or a “more right-wing” ideology than fusionist conservatives. Which is interesting because many of them are followers of Marx, Marcuse, and Dworkin, rather than right-wing figures. 2. That they have some kind of moral high ground over fusionists and libertarians.
Both of those premises are false. Some on the New Right are mostly conservative but with a populist flavor, but others are basically left-wingers with a couple nominally socially-conservative positions. It’s hard to see how they are “more conservative” when they accept more (in some cases most) of the left’s premises than do fusionists.
Also, attempts to cast the free market as “woke” are ridiculous, especially when some New Right folks are actually allied with the ESG crowd on questions like stakeholder capitalism. To another issue: protectionists will claim that they are virtuous for valuing work, and that free traders support mindless consumerism. That’s totally untrue, even though some people believe it. Protectionism fails on its own merits (i.e., hard to see how “pro-work” policies can be ones that kill jobs).
“ We are not individualists unmoored from traditionalism.”
Exactly! I’m proud to call myself an individualist, which is opposite of a collectivist. Last I checked, American culture has been proudly individualist since the Founding. Collectivism is the Soviet Union and Mao. (Some on the New Right seem to admire Mao, making me wonder what they’re doing calling themselves right-wingers.) An individualism moored in traditionalism is also staunchly pro-family. Collectivism is hostile to the family, because the nuclear family is the greatest threat to the collectivist vision of society. In the family, every individual is an individual, not an interchangeable member of some gigantic collective consciousness. Heck, in Plato’s Republic, what does the pure collectivist society require? It requires the abolition of private families.