As part of my Neither right nor left mantra, another datum.
Most people use “right” and “left” journalistically: to designate shifting bundles of social-political beliefs and attitudes. The bundles are usually not internally coherent. So more analytic thinkers try to bring order out of mush by identifying multiple dimensions of contrast: individual versus collective, liberty versus authority, majority- versus minority-rule, etc. They abandon the simple one-dimensional left-right spectrum and use Venn Diagrams and other arrays better to capture the realities.
And/or they add adjectives to clarify the genus-species relations. For example, conservatives on the right become traditional conservatives, neo-conservative, religious conservatives, and so on. And now we have Trump conservatives.
Here’s an important quotation from this helpful article by Matthew Continetti on what the “Trump right” is:
“Beginning in 2016, intellectuals who favored Trump have been searching for a new touchstone for conservative thought and politics. These writers are often described as populists, but that label is hard to define. Broadly speaking, they have adopted the banner of nationalism. They believe the nation-state is the core unit of geopolitics and that national sovereignty and independence are more important than global flows of capital, labor, and commodities.”
Pulling out the key phrases and their implications:
1. “Flows of labor”: Where and when to apply one’s labor is part of liberty rights.
2. “Flows of capital and commodities”: Where and when to use them are aspects of property rights.
3. “The nation-state is the core unit of geopolitics”: That means the individual is not the core unit of politics and the nation-state merely a proxy or protector of the individual.
4. Integrating the above with “National sovereignty and independence are more important than …”, we get this result:
The nation is more important than the individual, and the sovereignty of the nation is more important than liberty and property rights.
And that is one more reason why I am not on the right, as much as I am not on the left. Both subordinate/suppress liberty and property rights, and both subordinate the individual to a collective (nation, proletariat, race/gender identity, etc.).
National conservatism is perhaps the best label for this post-2016-Trump package.
Yes, there are differences within conservatism and between conservatives and the left. But national conservatism overlaps with national socialism which overlaps with international socialism. And when drawing the Venn Diagrams to clarify who belongs inside which circle, it’s important to remember that there are other positions completely outside the circles.
Source:
“Making Sense of the New American Right: Keeping track of the Jacksonians, Reformicons, Paleos, and Post-liberals.” Matthew Continetti, May 31, 2019.
Related:
“Conservatives Are Not Free-market Capitalists.”
“Conservatives: Get Over the Dark Ages.”
Both are part of my Open College with Stephen Hicks series.
This description of the “Trump right” does not seem to match with most Trump supporters.
First there are two things to consider: individuals only have rights under the framework provided by the nation state. There’s currently no global property rights, or liberty rights, or other, at least not in a way that can be enforced consistently. Those rights are granted to American citizens (and to a lesser extent to other populations living in the US) and within that framework the individual is the core unit. Trump supporters are very much individualists in that regard.
Secondly, while true that there’s a collectivist aspect in “American citizens”, Trump supporters have been very welcoming to individuals who immigrated and became citizens. It’s very easy to find examples of this online, the The_Donald subreddit is full of them for example. The most important to them seems to be citizenship and a love for the country. So it’s not a closed group the same way race is, for example. Not everyone can become a citizen, but everyone can try, and those that succeed sincerely will be welcomed. Another thing of note is that the large majority of them have been consistently anti-war and anti-intervention. The battlefield is on the economics front.
Is it even possible to have a fully individualist global society? I don’t think we can just get rid of people’s need to belong. Even within a country you see some aspects of this between regions, cities, football teams and whatnot. There’s always going to be a need to split the world into different territories for administrative reasons as well. I’m as individualist as you can get, but I know some people are simply not geared that way.
While I am with you in that I am neither of the right or the left, I am also far less worried about this right than I am about the current collectivist left which gives me an original sin as a white man from which I can never repent. If I had to choose between the two, I know what I’d choose. Many people who saw themselves as being on the left became part of this “Trump right” when they noticed how insane the left started to become. We probably haven’t seen the end of it.
First my response to the gentlman’s remarks on rights. Individuals possess certain inalienable rights by our nature, not because they are bestowed on us by any nation-state. Properly, the nation-state should only exist to protect the rights we so possess. You possess these fundamental rights by the very reason you breathe. They are inalienable in the sense that, although your enjoyment of your rights can be impinged, such impingement does not negate the evil of the offense; your rights remain inalienable in that they cannot be justly hindered. You will have an “individualist global society” if and when a strong majority of people world-wide subscribe to this very inviolability of individual rights.
Second, I am a Trump supporter. Only because he is the closest thing to an anti-swamp non-career politician fighting for “America” in in the sense of it representing a last bastion, however failing, of individual liberty. I also support him as an immediate counter to the over-the-cliff fear presented to me by Hillary et. al. whose ideas and likely policies to me are dangerous enough to be irrecoverable from. To me supporting Trump means a step, however side-wise advancing, in fighting for western society. He owes no-one due to his wealth and this is a big plus in his attempts to set things right in terms of how we are disrespected out there as that bastion of freedom. Lots of things I can probably not like about Trump. I am atheist to begin with and I automatically cringe at any mention of the magical-dude-in-the-sky or any other pick-your-stand-in deity. I also don’t care for the nationalist feel to his message, and if he feels so I wish he would couch in properly in terms of what the US represents, i.e. in terms of a place to foster individual liberty…as a nation of individuals slugging it out, out there in the big bad world just trying to maintain, extend, and enjoy our lives in peace and freedom. He needs to openly promote this message. I wish he could come out and just state in so many words that his aim is to make the US respected again by us cleaning up our own act as a nation of liberty lovers…and by way of this, setting a renewed example for the world. I wish. I wish. If wishes were horses, dreamers would ride, eh? Alas, my overall dismay and genuine disgust that politicians have abandoned individual-liberty in their lexicons because they apparently don’t feel it, at least not as a motivating force for their officialdom. At most, I feel that Trump has bought us some time. I feel he has bought me some time personally, to launch my professional battle in the war of ideas. We are a LONG way from being out of the woods as a society successfully based on an aggressive pursuit of liberty. But I remain hopeful for the world my daughter will inherit if enough people speak out. If it burns in your soul, ya gotta open your mouth…you really won’t be able to help it.
I completely understand your ‘I am neither’ stance. I am the same. When you start seeing yourself belonging to this or that group, you only become as conformist as they are, seeing anyone outside your group, under the lens of conformism. Ancient Eastern religion always maintained that taking anything to extreme, will cause it’s ‘destruction’. You should have freedom, but not TOO much, for that degenerates into anarchy. Thanks for your articles!