OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT does not strike anyone, I guess, as an ideas-and-principles person. He himself says he likes to go with his “gut”; people who like him might instead talk about his instincts and intuitions, while people who don’t like him (as I do not) might talk about his whims and impulses. He’s a canny gamesman, we could probably all agree, but he probably hasn’t cracked a book since college, if he did even then.
There are plenty of ideas-and-principles people around him, though—Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, and J. D. Vance come to mind—and plenty more in various think tanks, foundations, and the blogosphere who are making and disseminating arguments for why Trump is the right person at the right time for the U.S.A. Field’s book, which has been cited all over the last place during the last half-year or so, is a survey of a wide array of these folks.
Field has a doctorate in political science—more specifically, in political theory (the three main domains of political science as an academic field are U.S. politics, international politics, and political theory). Political theory shares a long border with philosophy, going back to Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s Republic. Field came up as a Straussian, that is, someone working within the conceptual frameworks created by Leo Strauss, an influential and controversial figure who thought the west made a terrible wrong turn in the early modern era.
Most Straussians would be roughly classed as conservative or neo-conservative, and Field herself might have been classed so before (as she writes in her preface) she had a crucial encounter with the conservative movement’s deeply rooted sexism and patriarchal assumptions.
Field’s own experiences with and takes on contemporary conservatism are a large part of the book, actually. Even though her book is published by a university press (Princeton, no less), it does not seem academic, at least not in the narrowest sense. First person singular pronouns crop up often, and she does not conceal her distaste for some of the ideas held by her subjects. The book is more intellectual journalism than an academic study, we might say.
It’s certainly illuminating, though. Having recently read two books covering adjacent territory—Quinn Slobodian’s Hayek’s Bastards and Matthew Taylor’s The Violent Take It by Force—I noticed that while Slobodian and Taylor end up talking about distinct, non-overlapping groups of MAGA-ites, Field talks about some people discussed by Slobodian, some discussed by Taylor, and a whole lot discussed by neither. She gives us a very wide chunk of the MAGA intellectual spectrum.
Furthermore, she gives us an important clue about what may be holding that spectrum together. The free-market fundamentalists Slobodian writes about may not have a lot in common with the independent charismatic Christians Taylor writes about, and neither group may have much in common with mavericks like the Bronze Age Pervert, but they would all agree that white straight (or profoundly closeted) men should be in charge. And that, Field helps us see, may be the real core of the phenomenon.
No comments:
Post a Comment