FIELD PROVIDES A classification system in a chart on page 7 of Furious Minds, dividing the scene or movement she is surveying into four groups: "National Conservatives," “Claremonters,” “postliberals,” and “Hard Right Underbelly.” The groupings don’t seem to represent sharply distinct schools of thought, though there are differences in style and emphasis, we might say.
The “Hard Right Underbelly” people are mainly online presences and tend to be wilder and more ferocious in their rhetoric. Field places Raw Egg Nationalist, Mencius Moldbug, and and Bronze Age Pervert in this group. Their outrageousness places them outside the mainstream of the movement in some ways, but they have large followings among the base, and Mencius Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin) apparently has the ear of Peter Thiel, who has the ear of J.D. Vance, so they are not exactly marginal.
“Postliberals” tend to be Roman Catholic with theocratic tendencies. Patrick Deneen, whose Why Liberalism Failed got a nod from Obama a few years ago, is the best known of them, Adrian Vermeule the most formidable. A key idea here is “integralism,” that is, incorporating Catholic doctrine and values into civic laws and institutions.
The “Claremonters” are associated with Hillsdale College and the Claremont Institute. The Founders and the original Constitution, with its varieties of brakes on full democracy, are particularly revered in this group.
The “National Conservatives” tend to take a very hard line on immigration.
The thing is, the Hard Right Underbelly also takes a hard line on immigration, the Claremonters would also like to see church and state get cozier, the National Conservatives like the idea of restoring traditional patriarchal family arrangements, etc. Mutual influence, networking, and ideological convergence mean that Field’s group lines can’t be tidy—she often makes remarks along the lines of “we will see more of him in a later chapter,” so the whole phenomenon is more a rhizome than her categories suggest.
As I mentioned in the previous post on this book, Field disagrees with her subjects on most topics and does not bother to conceal her feelings. Michael Anton, discussed in her book as a “Claremonter,” went on at length about Field’s abandonment of any kind of objectivity in a flame-snorting review in a recent issue of the Claremont Review of Books. I found her book immensely enlightening, but I would be curious to read a book on the same people by someone more sympathetic to their views, just to get an idea how things look from their perspective. I imagine, though, that Field’s take is the one that would sound most true to me. For all of them, making America great again seems to boil down to “put white straight Christian men back in charge of everything.” I would hate to see that happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment