No Thanks
I have often wondered what Richard Spencer means by the term “alternative right.” His defense of Stacy McCain’s “puerile, splenic rantings” leads me to the conclusion that it has a lot to do with attitude and style. He likes “ballsy” and hates “wishy washy.” That leads him to endorse R.S. McCain; and even more dubiously, Mark Levin.
Spencer considers it “priggish” for Conor Friersdorf to have noted, er, “got his panties in a bunch” over Levin’s loutish raving. I commented on the matter last week, but I wasn’t particuarly outraged—anyone with two seconds exposure to Levin knows what kind of person he is. I listened to an exchange Between Levin and David Frum which makes it clear that Levin is incapable of speaking substantively for two consecutive seconds. One couldn’t have a debate or discussion with Levin—one can goose-step in unison with him or face his insults.
If that is what being an “alternative” is, I’ll pass.
Though Richard came up with the term “alternative right” I’ve never thought of it as a label specific to Taki’s Magazine, Richard Spencer or any individual, but a comprehensive and useful designation for parts of the conservative movement that are both outside the mainstream, yet also philosophically connected, however loosely, primarily due to common ideological ancestors, whether of the libertarian or traditional conservative variety.
Though I run the risk of being overly simplistic – the mainstream right might occasionally give Russell Kirk or Ludwig Von Mises lip service. The alternative right actually takes them seriously.
Takimag undoubtedly fits under the banner of “alternative right.” So does TAC. Plus, it’s a less clumsy term than “paleoconservative,” still encompasses “Old Right” without being limited to it, and denotes a certain type of “libertarian,” as not all of them are necessarily Rothbardians.
But you’re right – if Mark Levin is the definition of “alternative right,” I’ll pass too. But the opposite is true, and Levin is a reminder of why so much of the mainstream right is worthless.
hear hear
It seems to me there’s a gordian knot that is tying us all up in knots and that is the whole “lowbrow vs. highbrow” or “snob vs. populist” debate. We’re torn between criticizing the legitimate problems with conservatism in genreal and yet being disloyal to the “tribe” or the “team” even if that team is dead last in the standings right now and headed for another losing season like the Washington Nationals.
It should not be a question of entertainment value or manners or style or background or what have you. It’s about what’s effective. Here’s a good example. Joe McCarthy from my home state fo Wisconsin used to say “you never use lace-hankerchief tactics in a lumberjack fight” which is true. And for a while it worked. Then people began to ask whether there really were 250 Communists in the State Department as he claimed and he couldn’t provide an answer and eventually went down.
And yet, there were Communists spies in the State Department and throughout government, or at least had been before McCarthy made such charges in 1950. But because he made such wild and reckless charges, he hurt the cause for which he claimed to speak for, that is the government of the U.S. had been infiltrated by people who were more loyal to a foreign dictator than they were to their own country. Thus, instead of the Communists for being seen as the traitors that they were, “McCarthyism” became the villian.
People who fight without any modicum of smarts may very well be brave fellows but they also get killed. We used to call them “berzerkers” back in my Dungeons and Dragons days. They fought well but they always lost. Was is not Patton who said that the object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor bastard die for his country?. No would call him a tea-cosy.
The problem with modern conservatism is not the tribe, its the chiefs (Levin being among them) and criticizing them for their lack of brains is hardly disloyalty or some kind of sissy behavior. Are we going to forever continue to bring knives to gun fights just to prove how stout we are, or perhaps someday are going to make rational arguments that might actually persuade someone we may very well be right instead of telling them they should go kill themselves? The latter may bring in good raitings but the former might win elections.
[...] #18: Stooksbury and Poulos on Spencer. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)All about [...]
To the extent the “alternative Right” embraces the likes of Mark Levin, it isn’t an alternative to anything. Establishment Republicans like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, or latterly Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, have harnessed resentments of the kind stoked by Levin and his admirers to propel themselves to power since the days of Spiro Agnew.
Mr McCarthy, your article on “The Age of Jackson” was illuminating!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy59.html
Spencer bothers me. He is ok with the Jacksonians. He likes articles on race science because it angers liberals. These things in combination brings to mind the progressive movement and all the horrible things that have come to pass in the last two centuries because of it. We are living in Jacksonian America that has been influenced by Darwinism. I’d rather live in a Jeffersonian America.
Justin Raimondo pointed out recently over there that they shouldn’t be playing footsie with white nationalist. I agree with him. I think the actions of the “alternative right” undermines the moral arguments of those associated with it.
Glad you enjoyed my Jacksonians essay. Coincidentally, this past weekend I gave a talk on how the Jacksonian frontier spirit — the idea that freedom means expansion, and specifically “our” expansion regardless of what happens to “them,” whoever “they” might be — has been a destabilizing force in U.S. foreign and domestic policy since colonial times. There’s something to be said in defense of the frontier ethos, too, but it certainly needs to be constrained by some countervailing spirit in society, and I would call that contrasting ethic “conservatism.”
“it has a lot to do with attitude and style.”
I agree with this.
“It seems to me there’s a gordian knot that is tying us all up in knots and that is the whole “lowbrow vs. highbrow” or “snob vs. populist” debate. We’re torn between criticizing the legitimate problems with conservatism in genreal and yet being disloyal to the “tribe” or the “team””
And this.
“The problem with modern conservatism is not the tribe, its the chiefs”
And mostly with this.
I think this is an important dynamic that is being overlooked by some rightist critics of movement conservatism. Like a brother, we can knock them upside the head, but don’t let someone outside the family (a liberal or moderate) try it or they are in for a fight. Levin is a good example of much that is wrong with the conservative movement, but his listeners are closer to friend than are Frum’s blog readers. We gain nothing if Frum prevails. A case could be made otherwise if Frum was a foreign policy realist, but he is not. So with Frum you get all the bad (soft on social issues, moderate and move left babble, demonize Southerners and Christians, etc.) without any of the good.
Whether we like it or not, converts to an alternative authentic conservatism are going to come from those who currently consider themselves conservatives but are embracing a false conception of it. The “tribe” has to be treated like a missionary field and not like an enemy to be totally destroyed.
[...] sure I’d had the final word on Mark Levin, but with Daniel and Richard Spencer [UPDATE: and Clark Stooksbury] now falling on — and firing across — opposite sides of the Levin fallout, the [...]
Until we learn that true conservatism means nothing more or less than promoting sound living principles and wise governing policies, and to be truly liberal is nothing more or less than to be generous and creative, with the wisdom and common sense of being in harmony with the former, then we will continue to have strife.