 |
| Hardcover (2025) and trade paperback (2027, "with a new afterward by the author"). Source. |
Laura K. Field writes in her first chapter:
I have been writing about New Right intellectuals since 2019. The most common response I get when I mention this to liberals is something along the lines of “Trumpy intellectuals? Now that’s an oxymoron!” or “Hahaha, I think you mean dumb fascists!” While the impulse is understandable, it’s also mistaken and counterproductive.
Many on the left assume that the only serious reason to support the GOP has to do with finance and tax returns, and that right-wing voters are racists. But people’s motives are mixed, and America’s reactionary intellectuals are armed with more than greed and prejudice. They also have reasons and arguments that they appear to care about, whole epochs and libraries full, ready-to-hand. What the writer Matthew Rose says about the radical right is true of the New Right, too:
Almost everything written about the “alternative right” has been wrong in one respect. The alt-right is not stupid; it is deep. Its ideas are not ridiculous; they are serious. To appreciate this fact, one needs to inquire beyond its presence on social media, where its obnoxious use of insult, obscenity, and racism has earned it a reputation for moral idiocy. The reputation is deserved, but do not be deceived. Behind its online tantrums and personal attacks are arguments of seductive power.
When we went on vacation to Maine this past summer, I brought along Laura Field's compilation and guide to the intellectuals who inform and defend the MAGA occupation of the USA, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. I spent more time with the book than just about any other activity. The result: a book with maybe more highlighting than untouched text.
 |
| "Key people and institutions of the MAGA New Right" |
The book mentions several hundred individuals, publications, podcasts, and organizations, and I'll never remember them all. I had heard of some of them—20% or so, based on a quick scan of the index—but most were new to me. They hold (and clash over) a variety of specific priorities, and indeed change their views at times, but the majority seem to agree on several basics.
Michael Anton, who was one of the first to defend Trumpism in intellectual terms, defined it in September 2016 as “secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy.” This is a useful shorthand that captures some of the fundamentals. The New Right is indeed, with very few exceptions, anti-immigration. It stands against free trade and globalism. And it represents a turn against the neoconservative interventionism in foreign affairs that characterized the first part of the twenty-first century. But if those are the ribs of the New Right’s politics, Anton’s formulation hides the spine, which is a staunch social traditionalism and rejection of liberal pluralism and egalitarianism; in other words, the various New Right policy prongs are organized around a traditionalist (usually white, Christian, and patriarchal) social vision and homogenizing nationalism meant to counter and replace pluralistic liberalism. The New Right views mainstream liberal America—the “woke” America that embraces plurality and equality, including across various formerly marginalized identities—as an all-encompassing, monolithic “regime” of elite oppression (which they often also refer to as the “enemy”). Culture warriorism—which we might define as an excessive emphasis on rhetoric and media performance over policy formulation and real-world political negotiation—plays a major role on the New Right because at bottom this is a movement driven by reactionary social values and principles, not specific policy concerns.
The movement also varies in its political extremism, but a frequent point of agreement is that the New Right must not count on winning elections. One way or another, it must take over and establish permanent rule. There is no place for pluralism in these visions.
Field's ability to deliver intense research, made more readable with lively bits of humor and self-disclosure, and with allusions to classical literature, reminded me of the Quaker classicist Sarah Ruden. I appreciated the ways Field lived up to her Chapter One pledge to approach her subjects seriously and with fairness, conceding the point when New Right commentators made valid criticisms of today's liberal failures and intellectual laziness. She also recounts the role conservatives such as Leon Craig and the influence of Leo Strauss had in her own education.
I don't feel qualified to give her book a full and competent review, though I can testify that it is absorbing reading. The coverage of religious influences—Catholic integralism, Calvinists, the New Apostolic Reformation—is well done. In lieu of a more complete assessment on my part, here are links to a positive review in The Atlantic, a very negative review in the Claremont Review of Books written by Michael Anton, one of the people she wrote about, and her lively reply to that negative review. Enjoy ... if that's the right word.
But wait, there's even more!
Ellerie Brownfain had some helpful comments on last week's post, But wait!... With her permission, I'm posting those comments here:
Your blog post is spot on. It is light and lovely and beautifully written. I especially enjoyed how it begins with the Bible and that joyful refrain of "But wait, there's more!" From there you carry the reader through the whole story of the church to where Friends find ourselves today. That is a great deal of ground to cover with such a gentle touch.
Your "But wait, there's less!" made me smile and then gave me much to think about. I appreciate writing that does both.
I was recently in Germany walking around in Reformation history. So I could not help noticing a few points you may wish to consider.
Your list reads as though each movement waited politely for the one before to finish. They did not. Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517. Within a few short years the Radical Reformation was already underway right alongside him. These movements grew up together like siblings and squabbled like them too. The first Anabaptists were Zwingli's own students in Zurich. They decided their teacher had not gone nearly far enough. Teachers everywhere will sympathize.
Poor Zwingli seems to have been left off the guest list. He came before Calvin and did a great deal of the "less." He became the people's priest in Zurich in 1519 and started preaching straight through the Gospel of Matthew. No set readings. Just the Bible in plain Swiss German. His reform really took off in 1522 over a plate of sausages. Some of his friends ate them during Lent. Zwingli was there and did not eat but he defended them from the pulpit. That may be the only time sausages started a reformation.
From there things moved quickly. The city council held public debates and sided with Zwingli. In 1524 the church walls in Zurich were whitewashed of all images. The organs were silenced as well. By 1525 the Mass was gone and the Lord's Supper became a simple memorial meal served at plain tables.
Luther was not about to let that go. In 1529 Prince Philip of Hesse invited them both to his castle at Marburg. Philip was a Protestant prince with a Catholic problem. The emperor Charles V wanted everyone back in the Roman fold, and Philip hoped a united front might change his mind. So he gave the two reformers room and board and hoped for the best. Luther and Zwingli agreed on fourteen points and parted over the fifteenth, which was the Lord's Supper. The story goes that Luther chalked "This is my body" on the table and kept pointing at it. Friends would say they never found the sense of the meeting. Philip was left without his alliance. One can only imagine how dinner went.
Zwingli's end is a sobering one for Friends. In 1531 he rode out with the Zurich army against the Catholic cantons and was killed at Kappel. His own students the Anabaptists had already refused the sword. So the removal of sacred images might sit more comfortably in your section with Zwingli and Calvin. And the peace testimony has an older family tree than we sometimes remember.
Luther also kept more than we tend to remember. The Lutherans held on to altars and images and vestments and much of the old liturgy. Some of them even kept their bishops.
The early English Baptists did write confessions of faith. The best known are from 1644 and 1689. As you say, "soul competency" came later. It was an American Baptist named E. Y. Mullins who gave it that name in 1908. The English root of that idea is Thomas Helwys. In 1612 he wrote to King James asking freedom of conscience for everyone. The king answered by putting him in prison where he died. Many early Friends came out of the General Baptists who followed Helwys. So in a way they are our cousins.
I was especially moved by your closing. Meeting seekers with open and searching conversation.
— Ellerie Brownfain
Added Friday: A "Big Read" online book conversation with Defying Tyrants author Matthew Taylor on October 8 (two days after the book is released; you get a free excerpt when you register). I commented on his previous book, The Violent Take It By Force, in this blog post: Enthusiasm and politics.
Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor on a secular vision of end times, courtesy of the mega-rich. Serious question: is this a fair article?
The AP's Evelyne Musambi on the "loud" Quakers in Kenya.
"Treat me like a human." Eric Trump and Josephine Johnston on the prescience of one of my favorite films, Children of Men.
Elderchaplain Greg Morgan is Remembering Bruce.
A farewell post "of sorts" from Tom Engelhardt (but not the end of TomDispatch!).
Denmark's Delta Blues Band, "Come On in my Kitchen," featuring Miriam Mandipira.
