Our recent dialogue involved the controversial decisions concerning Donald Trump’s cabinet appointments. Daniel McCarthy and I have a splitting point from the outset, in relation to his assertion that the conservative sphere could profit from having more figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard due to their ‘skepticism’. Their positions are not really ones of skepticism, but more accurately, they are oddballs. While Kennedy doesn’t question every absurd fad about New Age healthcare and conspiracy theories that land within his horizon as he should, Gabbard could certainly apply more critical thinking towards her appraisal of the foreign policies presented by figures like Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin’s many emissaries from the American right.
The point made by McCarthy that the rise of conservatism in the 20th century was fuelled by populist skepticism is noteworthy. I am reminded of the inaugural issue of the National Review, which included, among numerous opinion pieces, an anti-psychotherapy content written by ‘Of Thee I Sing’ author Morrie Ryskind captioned as ‘They Would Never Get Me on That Couch’. An interesting figure in the realm of anti-elitism was without doubt William F. Buckley Jr. – a man who could be found playing Bach preludes on a harpsichord whilst enjoying winters in a chateau located in Gstaad, entertaining everybody ranging from Princess Grace to Iggy Pop.
However, this extravagant man was indeed the very person who made an infamous assertion about his preference for being governed by the initial 2,000 individuals appearing in the Boston telephone directory over the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty. One can safely say that despite its deeply ingrained evangelical and often times premonitory impulses, American conservatism has developed more as a counterculture than as a revivalist movement. Traditional conservatism across most nations is usually aimed at preserving social consensus and its primary institutions, such as the British Tories’ regard for the monarchy.
American conservatism, on the other hand, emerged post World War II and made its mark by actively confronting the accepted norms. It is, therefore, akin to a rebellious teenager within a broader spectrum of worldwide political ideologies. It is noteworthy that Buckley was not a big fan of Donald Trump, whom he rightfully labelled as a ‘narcissist’ and a ‘demagogue’ in an essay in 2000. One cannot, however, ignore the eerie similarities present in their trajectories, both politically and ideologically.
Both Trump and Buckley managed to make their initial mark in politics not by outperforming Democrats, but by becoming a nuisance for Republicans who they perceived as not being radical enough. Trump’s charm for the aggrieved and competitive right was largely attributed to his disdain towards moderate figures, such as the ex-Florida governor, Jeb Bush. Here lies the bonding factor of disdain and competitiveness, showing how they are inseparable.
This union of two forces, the antithesis and the apocalyptic, leads to a compelling dynamic. In the years leading up to the 1980 electoral victory of Ronald Reagan, the top-selling non-fictional book was not ‘The Conscience of a Conservative’ or ‘The Road to Serfdom’, it was ‘The Late Great Planet Earth’, a book that sensationalized the end-times, penned by Hal Lindsey.
This makes me ponder the ironic fact that modern American conservatism considers itself a champion for ideas like nostalgic devotion to ‘I Love Lucy’, anger towards ‘globalists’, and aversion to ‘cosmopolitans’, yet it seems to be removed from its traditionalist and historic roots. Unlike its British analogue, American conservatism lacks institutions such as a national church or monarchy to serve as anchors.
Distinctive figures in American conservatism such as John Adams, who could be regarded as one of its founding fathers, presented an intricate political philosophical framework that arose from a well-rounded classical education. In contrast, most of today’s evangelicals and political conservatives do not have a whole and educated ideology or an intellectual basis as their religious life to ground themselves. The path that leads from the Puritans of New England to current populist megachurches seems vast and unsteady.
These individuals have become a brand of ‘conservatives’ who lack the fundamental principles of conservation. Instead, a form of radicalism has set in on the right, continually shifting from fad to fad as quickly as they shift from one adversary to another, with the constant factor being their opposition.
It is this opposition coupled with their core principle of contempt, rather than ‘skepticism’, that enables Kennedy and Gabbard the platform to rise as stars within the right-wing.