The New Right vs. Conservatism

A New Rightist makes his case

Note: For context, you may wish to read or re-read my essay, Conservatism vs. Brokenism

Ben R. Crenshaw writes,

The New Right is not concerned about classical liberalism or what might or might not be illiberal. The New Right is interested in two things: first, the substance of America, in both her colonial period and her founding; second, the nature of good government and prudent statesmanship in order to rescue our country from those who have torn it down as well as from the older conservatives who have failed to conserve. The New Right believes these two goals are ordered: good government is the means to recovering the substance of America, but this might require suspending parts of the Constitution, violating its “principles,” and demolishing beloved precedents.

He both implicitly and explicitly argues against Jonah Goldberg, whose essay I featured in the earlier post. It seems to me that Crenshaw attempts to steel-man those with whom he disagrees, and I give him kudos for that. He writes,

Goldberg declared that “any understanding of conservatism as a political project that rejects classical liberalism” is one that he will repudiate. This includes “imposing your ideas through raw power” or turning one’s back on free speech, freedom of association, due process, free markets, individual rights, and so forth. Bahnsen, for his part, continued to beat the same drum, warning that those who “embrace illiberalism out of expediency will get neither a win, nor anything beautiful.” The reason conservatives should continue to defend classical liberalism is that it has a political vision that requires transcendent truth. In contrast, the New Right is dangerous because it believes in “extreme governmental central planning in markets,” practices grift, and is racist to boot. In the end, Bahnsen calls on the New Right “radicals” to articulate a “limiting principle” for their movement that will hold in check the pragmatism of ‘the circumstances and times have changed’ mentality.

Crenshaw argues that the Old Right cannot truly wear the mantle of the American founders.

The founders’ “liberalism” could accommodate religious establishment, foreign policy isolationism, free association to discriminate, the criminalization of abortion and homosexuality, blasphemy and blue laws, tariffs and economic nationalism, and a host of other ideas unthinkable and anathemized by conservatives. In other words, the founders weren’t liberal in any contemporary understanding of the term.

He left out that the founders could accommodate slavery. I would say that the New Right and the Old Right are free to disagree about what to treat as sacred about the Constitution and the founding period, and what to discard. But then neither side should claim to have the One True Interpretation of America’s creed.

Continuing to steel-man, Crenshaw writes,

Older and more cautious conservatives often complain that the New Right not only is not principled—willing to wield power as a cudgel to punish their political enemies—but in particular, they lack a “limiting principle” for their behavior. This is the source of the ‘other shoe’ argument: without a limiting principle that you discipline yourself to observe—despite all temptations to the contrary—and in good faith expect the opposition to as well, you are merely opening a Pandora’s box of future evil in exchange for short-term gain. Once the other side ascends to power, they will your weapon of choice against you. No one wants this, right?

He argues that thinking in terms of rules and limiting principles makes conservatives fight with one hand tied behind their back, while the Left accepts no such constraints.

To think in terms of “limiting principles” is to unnecessarily place oneself under a set of rules that are bygones, and that serve only to police conservatives among themselves. The Left knows this and, for a long time, has used an appeal to high-minded principles as a mechanism for controlled opposition. …They don’t care about the separation of powers or due process or natural rights, but they know conservatives do, and so they make a theater show about how Trump is an authoritarian fascist tearing up the Constitution and how Republicans ought to muster their own Brutus to stab this would be American Caesar in the back.

I would counter that the purpose of putting limits on yourself is not only to encourage the other side to reciprocate. It is to safeguard against your own fallibility. The problem with authoritarianism is not just that the other guy might misuse power. It is also that you might misuse it.

Crenshaw writes,

This is the Original Founding Vision of America, and it includes the following truths:

1. That good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided.

2. That the welfare of the (American) people is the greatest (political) good.

3. That the welfare of America is outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution—toward which every stricture, institution, and clause of the Constitution was meant to facilitate, achieve, and defend.

Forget James Madison.

Older conservatives who elevate the separation of powers or due process, or the Bill of Rights as the highest principles of the American order have an ill-conceived idea of America. They are wrong. These are the means to greater ends, and so they are not the unmovable principles of American politics. When practiced and applied well, they are good and salutary means, and we should be wary of hastily abandoning them.

Yet the Left has already destroyed almost every constitutional “principle” cherished by conservatives.

I would say that the question is whether constitutional principles have been destroyed or merely violated. The former is irreversible; the latter is not.

The New Right comes across to me as sour and pessimistic. I think that if you look around, you will see a lot of positive things about American institutions today. Compare them to what you see elsewhere, not to your idea of perfection.

My own pessimism is centered on the state of higher education. Even there, one finds some things that are working well. Just not enough to make we want to keep throwing money and students at it.

Another reason that I am not signing up for the New Right is that they are soft on the issue of fiscal responsibility. As Yuval Levin of the Old Right put it,

All the brash talk about DOGE slashing spending has been adding up to very little. The tax and spending proposals that Republicans are crafting this spring are in fact recklessly profligate. And no one dares to touch the entitlement programs that are the actual chief sources of the government’s fiscal challenges.

On that issue, it is the Old Right who are willing to make a stand. While the New Right lets these “hardliners” twist in the wind.

Perhaps this discussion naturally bleeds into the question of how to think about Mr. Trump. Listener writes,

break the issue into two pieces: 1. The Situation & 2. His Response. Looking back, this framework exposes the same result over and over again. In every case, the vast majority of ink spilled in various forms of media is either cheering or disparaging His Response. When the commentary comes from his detractors, it is often filled with incredulity at how dumb His Response is. When the commentary comes from his supporters, it is often driven by how unacceptable The Situation is.

But in the case of the budget, I would say that his response is not up to the unacceptability of the situation.

substacks referenced above:

@

The Unacceptable Revolution