Man does not live by bread alone. A nation does not live by policy alone.
In an interview with Argentinian author J. L. Borges on his show, Firing Line, William F. Buckley Jr. draws upon his Spanish proficiency when Borges comments on the lack of a word in Spanish for the physical English phrase: I loom over, producing the word “asomo.”
Asomo means to look out or to loom over. William F. Buckley Jr. was a man who spent his whole life looking out over and looming over the right-wing, defining it intellectually and ideologically. His perceptiveness and vision is needed today as the right-wing stumbles to and fro. Today, if one looms over the right-wing, one will see a ship that has lost its course.
A problem afflicting the right wing is the lack of intellectual direction and a coherent worldview. The only ideology that can be said to unite and animate right-wing politics at present is MAGA, which cannot be said to be a worldview, rather a disposition– yet MAGA has absorbed the energies of the right wing without defining a clear ideology and worldview. It is a vague right-wing populism. Adaptable, yes. Accessible, yes, but unable to define an identity–unable to define a cause.
What is the right-wing? It is conducive to our ends to first state the origins of the term. The term “right-wing” came to the fore during the days of the French Revolution, where the nobility and aristocracy sat on the right within the Estates General. Opposing them were the representatives of the Third Estate–the commoners–who sat on the left. What is the significance of this for our purposes? The right-wing came to signify an adherence to tradition, permanence, continuity. It was a term to denote those who stood for prudence, for ancient wisdom, for those who sought to conserve. In contradistinction, the left-wing became associated with reform–with revolution. As the deputies of the commoners became stirred by the clamour and agitation of their constituency, social revolution sprouted. It was this dynamic that became the primary paradigm of the politics of the modern world. The persistent spirit of the Enlightenment, rationalism, and liberalism sought to transform traditional society, defining the conservative-liberal dichotomy, in varying degrees, for centuries to come.
Though America was born from revolution, it was founded not for the destruction of an order, but the restoration of one. Unlike the French Revolution, it was not a project to create a new society according to philosophical precepts. Rather, it was the affirmation of the old, a society which was injudiciously impeded upon by the British Empire. Self-governance, property, the rights of the citizen–these were not creations; they were reinvigorated, upheld, and indeed secured by the founding. The revolution did not liquidate, but it conserved. Indeed, some thinkers and founders were more liberal in that they desired a more expansive democracy. On the whole, however, the majority of the founders wished to create a stable republic rooted in the ways of their heritage. Founding fathers like John Adams saw destructive potential in the impulses of the mob and their revolutionary convulsions. He was one such thinker who presciently foresaw that democracy untethered can and will devolve into mob rule, abrogating the very liberties it was conceived to enable. It is in the thought of Adams and other similar founders that American conservatism was borne. This conservative spirit was ever-present throughout American politics, indeed a cloud by day and a fire by night, which revealed how democracy can be built, yet how the passions and tyrannies of interests may be restrained. It elucidated how liberty must be undisturbed, yet at the same time weaved a sense of duty into the cultural texture of our nation. Conservatism, often thought of as bourgeois snobbery or a reactionary contrivance, was in fact the ideal mother of American democracy, without which it would not have been a brilliant “city on a hill.”
What does all of this mean for the modern American right? What was the necessity of establishing this overview of political history? If indeed we are to say that the right-wing, and the American right-wing in particular, has always been considered with preserving a certain order or certain values, then one must ask: what is the American right conserving today? What does it endeavor to preserve? When reading through the 2024 GOP platform (the party representing mainline conservatism today), one finds few policy points that are imbued with a truly conservative spirit. Undoubtedly, conservatism may find some of the tenets of the platform as efficacious and agreeable methods, but there is nothing remarkably conservative about them. It is not inconceivable that, had history run its course a different way, a left-wing populist movement would have adopted many of these same beliefs, such as immigration control, protectionism, the call for ending the weaponization of justice. To be sure, many of these policies gained credence among a right-wing electorate, and what animated them was a conservative disposition that identified itself as such. The point is, however, that whatever their incidental features, there is nothing substantially conservative in the politics of the GOP. There is no long-term view nor vision that codifies them. Whatever their merits–which it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss–these policy points are not concerned with the survival of civilization. They do not focus on the quintessential nature of man–on his relation to God, to his country, to his community, and how this must be understood in an increasingly modern world, technologically and socially. It is a manual for election cycles, though our nation’s more eminent conservatives have never thought in passing moments, but generations. Not in presidential terms, but in the rise and fall of nations. Our nation, and this party, are too concerned with policy. Policy is a means, yes, but we are distracted by our occupation with policy as mere campaign ammunition. Hearken to the words of Christ–man does not live by bread alone. A nation does not live by policy alone. It lives by its creed, its cause, its families and children, its youth who are inspired to a fight. Where is the true sustenance for our nation? No one dares stand atop a peak and see where this nation is going, and perhaps ignorance is bliss. Yet it is exactly this duty that William F. Buckley Jr. said the conservative must carry out–to stand athwart history and yell “stop.” Do our conservatives even wish to look, let alone yell? While it may surely be too much to expect a grandiloquent sermon on such lofty matters from an accessible party platform, what intellectuals do we have to turn to? Who are the torchbearers of our cause, the Russell Kirks and John Adamses of our day?
Look at the intellectuals of the right, and you often do not find a crusade, but interests and agendas. Intellectual activity and the formulation of ideas is presently, and as it always has been, concentrated in a few highly motivated ideologues. Yet this clerisy emerges not from moral conviction and authentic thought, but from political machines, lobbyists, and special interests. Exemplifying this reality are the neoconservatives, whose superior organization, brilliance, and determination, led to their infiltration and eventual domination of the executive branch. It was their will-to-power that proliferated their ideas to the point where they became platitudes. As Richard Nixon once said in regards to his economic policies, “we are all Keynesians now.” In the same manner, all within the right-wing are all neoconservatives now. This does not require a confession of a neoconservative creed, as even the ascendant populists and national-conservatives have accepted basic neoconservative tenets, as shall be explored later. Organizations like Project for the New American Century were critical in shaping right-wing discourse and shaping American intervention in the Middle East. What the public cares about largely originated in such think tanks. Thus, those who have the ideas and are determined to disseminate them, quickly supply the demand for issues, talking points, and controversy. In the course of this development, the most organized intellectual groups will dominate institutions, the conversations, and subsequently it will be their formulas which guide policy. Those who boldly direct the powerful vectors of ideas in today’s right-wing, and even in politics at large, do so because they wish to subordinate politics to their agenda. Theirs is not a public audience, but institutional capture. This in itself is not worthy of rebuke. However, the organizations that seek to lead policy and government–regardless of their connections to the Rupert Murdoch media machine, tech oligarchs, and other dubious interests–do not contain the creative and authentic spirit of conservatism. Once again, they are not fit to lead the right-wing because they focus only on the political issues of the day, seldom questioning in a sober manner the purpose and direction of our country. Do they consider their political heritage? The foundations of our republic? Indeed, one may look at The Heritage Foundation, the namesake of which may be a nod at this very identity of conservatism. While the Heritage Foundation may provide comprehensive analysis of our competition with China, for instance, or insightful commentary on certain social issues, has it taken a look at that which eats away at our political order? Do they have the visionary disposition, or even the political capital to provide a solution that is not simply voting for one party in the next election, but a unifying plan for decades to come? Has it, or any institution in the right-wing, had the courage to identify what is needed to address a system that thrives on division, that adopts the concerns of the people such that they may advance their own agendas wrapped in them? When one looks at the continuous settling of the right wing for “good enough” and its languid concessions, one must wonder if this is the same conservatism that contains the genius of Adams or of Lincoln.
Moreover, if what within the right wing is truly visionary is a central theme in this article, the MAGA revolution is far too big to dismiss. The Trump victory may have indeed appeared at first to be a triumph of ideals and principles over pusillanimous party politics. An outsider that was a champion of the people, who spoke of “winning, “victory,” and America being made “great again.” This indeed was something different. It was a breath of fresh air for all fatigued by hollow career politicians. MAGA had, however, a fatal weakness. It constituted an energetic reaction, a populist energy, indeed an intense drive, but not a worldview. MAGA had not articulated a truly cogent understanding of the political situation, nor even the means required to achieve its goals (as the disagreeable congresses and district court judges would soon prove). It did not possess a true creed which would allow it to preserve purity of ideals rather than simply focusing on obtaining power and practically administering it. Because MAGA was a disposition, it was, as stated earlier, adaptable. But adaptability is not firmness, it does not conduce the absolute defense of a clear truth. As such, MAGA was prone to the influence of the political and conservative establishment, long since having lost its way. To properly embed itself within Washington, it had to be surrounded by personnel which steered it according to their agendas, and which may have not shared any particular vision. What would have aided its defense is a true ideological tendency. When Adams saw the violence of the French Revolution, his wariness of the impulses of the mob made him all the more wary of an irresponsible mass democracy, even while a notable number of his compatriots saw them as brothers in liberty. When MAGA arrived at Washington, did it have such clear principles which safeguarded its cause, or did it break under pressure as it had only a few slogans to act as their north star? This ineptitude led to compromise, and it could not inaugurate an impassioned and invigorated struggle. Additionally, MAGA’s populist common-man politics may not apprehend immediately, or may even dismiss the need for intellectualism and understanding of the system. Representing the common citizen is of paramount importance. But a movement needs ideals, not simply to rabblerouse. Thus, the right-wing continues to lack a bold and imaginative conservatism which is not a mere nostalgia for the past, nor grievance with certain modern ills, but a holistic and truly visionary plan akin to that of the founders, or even to the founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln. MAGA was a revolution in media, in public consciousness, but not in vision. Indeed, certain taboos were broken, certain cultural victories may have been won, but is all conservatism a negation? Conservatism is not a negation. As it has been demonstrated, conservatism must be the steward of civilization. Lacking this, MAGA continues to remain a generic Republican platform with extra theatrics. A tax cut, to be sure. The end of wokeness, if you would like. But has a new course forward–one that entails the regaining of national purpose, national identity, and the abandonment of craven personnel and special interest–been charted?
MAGA has absorbed the greatest energies of the right-wing, and yet the right cannot truly define itself. The path forward after Trump is murky.
What is to be done then? One can hope that the needs of the right-wing and the nation will produce the intellectuals and the thought leaders necessary to reform the right-wing. On such a foundation, new think tanks must be formed which asseverate permanent ideas, and do not fall into the fluctuating trap of electoral politics. A right-wing that does not merely detract or negate, but has a positive, unifying, and comprehensive vision that will redefine American politics for centuries to come, shifting the political landscape permanently towards accountability, reason, and prudence, is imperative. But to do this, conservatives must not simply look back to the past, though it is indeed a wellspring of wisdom. As it stands, our society is increasingly becoming “post-conservative,” as the very left-wing and endless reforming it sought to temper and oppose has captured its consciousness. Right-wing politicians today accept everything liberals fought for for the past hundred years. On healthcare, social issues, the economy, and even in their rhetoric, it is fought on the liberal’s territory. In this post-conservative world, we must continue to be inspired by the spirit and wisdom of conservatism, while understanding that the fundamental paradigm of left and right is waning. The two currents in modern society have become a distinction without a difference. It is necessary, then, to have a more widely encompassing lens, that does not merely seek to vindicate old right-wing themes and have a final victory over the Democrats, but to embark upon what will truly sustain our civilization and its role as the defender of freedom and liberty at home, and by its example and warranted action, abroad, and look toward the next hundred years. The time has come to prevent something so revolutionary and visionary that it transcends party feuds, and that it captivates the public mind and obtains their hope and trust that a true mandate is achieved.