There’s a common New Right belief that movement conservatism is “controlled opposition” that exists primarily to gatekeep and police the right bounds of acceptable political beliefs in America. That is, conservatives are allowed to exist because they purge people that the left really disapproves of.
Aaron - thanks for writing this. I apologize in advance for increasing my engagement on a high conflict style piece. I read and appreciate everything you write just the same!
This reminds me a bit of your ideas around the foundations of modern conservatism as its ideas were funded by the intra-conservative conflict between "old money" oil monopolists and "new money" independent oil companies.
I was introduced to the word "kayfabe" by listening to Eric Weinstein's podcast and I think it's appropriate in this domain. So many issues, like say, "cancel culture" are like an iceberg. What is visible at the level of the general public is real but just a side effect of the real mass underneath. You might think of the Vermont principal who was fired for a Facebook post that expressed ambivalence about BLM, or the California electrical utility worker who was fired for being photographed while absent-mindedly making the "OK" sign with his hand out his car window. I would that much of what lies underneath is elite power jockeying.
One might think that The Dispatch or The Atlantic or the New York Times have the mission of delivering independent analysis or reporting as journalistic institutions. And some articles do indeed satisfy that aim. Increasingly, though, it seems like the journalistic parts are kayfabe.
The explainer about the Inflation Reduction Act isn't actually about analyzing the Inflation Reduction Act - the purpose is to communicate to the elite which opinions are authorized for respectable elite people to hold about the Inflation Reduction Act.
So it is here. The Dispatch isn't actually publishing an article about populism and elitism. It's about intra-elite jockeying. The "New Right" is to David French what the independent oilmen were to Big Oil.
Does anyone actually believe in free speech? I was disappointed that even FreedomFest disinvited Fuentes due to pressure from "libertarian" organizations (even FIRE for goodness sake) https://cancelproof.substack.com/p/canceled-from-freedomfest
This is not to excuse French. I don't know much about the guy but the biased sample I have is solely him attacking right-wingers and Christians. I don't know what makes him conservative. [Rod Dreher seemed extra cucky when he defended French's "blessings of liberty" statement about drag queens. Somehow there's a distinction between calling drag queen story hour a blessing of liberty vs. calling the ability to host a drag queen story in a public library a blessing of liberty?]
Setting aside those issues, I don't know why French was so enamored with Dent's frankly boring piece. But I suppose French and Dent have consumed enough soy such that they savor gossipy stories in the same way that middle school girls do. "Omigosh, David, did you hear what Nate Hochman said about Nick Fuentes?" And like middle school girls, they are overly concerned about who's going to whose parties, probably miffed that they didn't get invited. So the only thing they've got is to complain about what hypocrites others are for going to these parties. Who cares?
The aggravating factor for Vichy Conservatives like French is that the Left does the exact opposite. The Left has a clear “no enemies to the left” policy. Conservatives are so eager to seem virtuous in the eyes of their Leftist betters that they jump at the chance to throw a colleague under the bus. It’s maddening—like a nerdy kid jumping in with the school jock to bully his fat friend during lunch. Really underscores how utterly the Left actually is in our elite institutions.
Can you explain why you think the idea that movement conservatism is controlled opposition that acts as gatekeepers for the left is overly cynical? National Review, prior to their failed pathetic attempt to stop Trump in 2015 bragged about acting as gatekeepers. Ben Shapiro also seemed to relish the role.
A few of them recognized some of the flaws with this and stopped cooperating with the left, but French and Goldberg never did.
My advice for any young men considering trying to get a career writing about politics would be don't go to work for an organization that will cave when the left the attacks you. I think this has already started as you can see a significantly declining quality in the young writers these outlets are getting. I had read a few things from Hochman, and while I wasn't impressed, it was above average for Conservatism, Inc. This cancel pressure obviously worked on him, as he gave The Dispatch comments bashing Fuentes and saying he lied to and flattered Fuentes in order to get him to debate on the call.
The people working in movement conservatism are unimpressive, Darren Beattie, Pedro Gonzalez and Auron MacIntyre among others, are more insightful and talented. My question is who is continuing to fund these legacy publications and what are they expecting for their money? The big corporations funding National Review certainly aren't supporting a conservative world view.
"What they will virtually never do is say that something of which the left does approve is unacceptable, cancellable, or outside the bounds of legitimate discourse. This is the root of the view that conservatism is controlled opposition." The entire piece is valuable but this is exceptionally well-put, thanks for posting.
Aaron - thanks for writing this. I apologize in advance for increasing my engagement on a high conflict style piece. I read and appreciate everything you write just the same!
This reminds me a bit of your ideas around the foundations of modern conservatism as its ideas were funded by the intra-conservative conflict between "old money" oil monopolists and "new money" independent oil companies.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/christianity-conservatism-and-crude-oil/id1530654244?i=1000506818410
I was introduced to the word "kayfabe" by listening to Eric Weinstein's podcast and I think it's appropriate in this domain. So many issues, like say, "cancel culture" are like an iceberg. What is visible at the level of the general public is real but just a side effect of the real mass underneath. You might think of the Vermont principal who was fired for a Facebook post that expressed ambivalence about BLM, or the California electrical utility worker who was fired for being photographed while absent-mindedly making the "OK" sign with his hand out his car window. I would that much of what lies underneath is elite power jockeying.
One might think that The Dispatch or The Atlantic or the New York Times have the mission of delivering independent analysis or reporting as journalistic institutions. And some articles do indeed satisfy that aim. Increasingly, though, it seems like the journalistic parts are kayfabe.
The explainer about the Inflation Reduction Act isn't actually about analyzing the Inflation Reduction Act - the purpose is to communicate to the elite which opinions are authorized for respectable elite people to hold about the Inflation Reduction Act.
So it is here. The Dispatch isn't actually publishing an article about populism and elitism. It's about intra-elite jockeying. The "New Right" is to David French what the independent oilmen were to Big Oil.
Does anyone actually believe in free speech? I was disappointed that even FreedomFest disinvited Fuentes due to pressure from "libertarian" organizations (even FIRE for goodness sake) https://cancelproof.substack.com/p/canceled-from-freedomfest
This is not to excuse French. I don't know much about the guy but the biased sample I have is solely him attacking right-wingers and Christians. I don't know what makes him conservative. [Rod Dreher seemed extra cucky when he defended French's "blessings of liberty" statement about drag queens. Somehow there's a distinction between calling drag queen story hour a blessing of liberty vs. calling the ability to host a drag queen story in a public library a blessing of liberty?]
Setting aside those issues, I don't know why French was so enamored with Dent's frankly boring piece. But I suppose French and Dent have consumed enough soy such that they savor gossipy stories in the same way that middle school girls do. "Omigosh, David, did you hear what Nate Hochman said about Nick Fuentes?" And like middle school girls, they are overly concerned about who's going to whose parties, probably miffed that they didn't get invited. So the only thing they've got is to complain about what hypocrites others are for going to these parties. Who cares?
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/its-not-hypocrisy-youre-just-powerless?r=oqw3q&utm_medium=ios
The aggravating factor for Vichy Conservatives like French is that the Left does the exact opposite. The Left has a clear “no enemies to the left” policy. Conservatives are so eager to seem virtuous in the eyes of their Leftist betters that they jump at the chance to throw a colleague under the bus. It’s maddening—like a nerdy kid jumping in with the school jock to bully his fat friend during lunch. Really underscores how utterly the Left actually is in our elite institutions.
Can you explain why you think the idea that movement conservatism is controlled opposition that acts as gatekeepers for the left is overly cynical? National Review, prior to their failed pathetic attempt to stop Trump in 2015 bragged about acting as gatekeepers. Ben Shapiro also seemed to relish the role.
A few of them recognized some of the flaws with this and stopped cooperating with the left, but French and Goldberg never did.
My advice for any young men considering trying to get a career writing about politics would be don't go to work for an organization that will cave when the left the attacks you. I think this has already started as you can see a significantly declining quality in the young writers these outlets are getting. I had read a few things from Hochman, and while I wasn't impressed, it was above average for Conservatism, Inc. This cancel pressure obviously worked on him, as he gave The Dispatch comments bashing Fuentes and saying he lied to and flattered Fuentes in order to get him to debate on the call.
The people working in movement conservatism are unimpressive, Darren Beattie, Pedro Gonzalez and Auron MacIntyre among others, are more insightful and talented. My question is who is continuing to fund these legacy publications and what are they expecting for their money? The big corporations funding National Review certainly aren't supporting a conservative world view.
"What they will virtually never do is say that something of which the left does approve is unacceptable, cancellable, or outside the bounds of legitimate discourse. This is the root of the view that conservatism is controlled opposition." The entire piece is valuable but this is exceptionally well-put, thanks for posting.