How the left nurtures radicals while the right eats its own
How the left nurtures radicals while the right eats its own
The modern American political landscape shows a perplexing imbalance. The 21st-century progressive movement has a mainstream core that secures most practical political wins but also embraces a more radical set of leftist beliefs. Leftists often identify as open communists, violent Antifa members, or revolutionary queer activists, yet they remain accepted within the movement. Rather than facing cancellation, these radical elements are frequently elevated by the mainstream and given prestigious positions in critical institutions like universities. Leaders and ideas from the radical vanguard easily flow into the mainstream, energizing the liberal elite.
In contrast, the American right abandons or actively destroys anyone who steps outside its mainstream. The range of acceptable opinions within conservatism is narrow, and aspiring members must adhere strictly to a limited set of pre-approved ideological statements. The right rarely cultivates young talent or supports institutions that could nurture emerging intellectual movements.
Alarmingly, the greatest threat to an up-and-coming right-wing figure pushing the boundaries of acceptable opinion often comes from within the conservative movement itself, as members seek to eliminate competition and earn plaudits from the corporate left-wing media.
Every viable political movement has an acceptable mainstream and a more radical vanguard. The mainstream serves as the forward-facing element of the movement, presenting the most popular and acceptable positions while securing practical political victories. Everything in the mainstream should be practiced, polished, and presentable. Optics are key, and reputations are closely guarded. The mainstream may at times seem too careful or calculating, but this is good and necessary. These are the political operatives meant to sell the platform to the masses.
The vanguard operates in a productive tension with the mainstream, acting as the heart and mind of the movement. Because the vanguard does not face the public directly, it can explore new and challenging ideas. It includes the most passionate activists, who are often willing to try new tactics and lines of attack. Maintaining a pristine and presentable reputation is less critical for the vanguard, allowing it to take more risks, as its members generally do not face the same scrutiny as mainstream figures. Due to the experimental nature of its ideas and tactics, the vanguard cannot earn a living in the same way as mainstream political actors and therefore relies on institutions to shelter and fund its work.
The dialogue between a movement’s mainstream and vanguard is critical to its survival and success. The vanguard requires a mainstream to fund its works, advance its agenda, and do the practical work of securing political victories. While the mainstream may be great at presenting a practical and professional exterior, it is bad at cultivating new leaders or animating ideas. The mainstream relies on the vanguard for both intellectual and emotional energy.
In American politics, the left fully embraces its vanguard. No one gets publicly canceled for being too left-wing, and no promising progressive talent is ejected from the movement for his or her radical past. It simply doesn’t happen. Even a former radical left-wing terrorist like Bill Ayers can become a beloved mentor with a prestigious, well-paying university job. The leftist vanguard’s radical ideas regularly flow into the progressive platform, strengthening the mainstream. The mainstream supports the vanguard, and the vanguard, in turn, revitalizes the mainstream.
On the American right, no vanguard is allowed to exist. William F. Buckley Jr. established a narrow set of acceptable ideas, and, until recently, these were the only positions allowed within the conservative movement.
During the post-war consensus, being truly right-wing was seen as dangerous, leading to the old right’s purge and replacement. Free trade, endless wars, and a watered-down version of social conservatism formed the fusionism that pushed out traditional right-wing thought. Although Pat Buchanan’s politics proved wiser than the neoconservatism of the Bush dynasty, he had to wait decades for those views to be vindicated amid Conservatism Inc.’s relentless failures.
The most dangerous threat to promising young right-wing talent comes not from leftist media or smear organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Instead, it comes from mainstream conservatives who fiercely protect their positions of privilege.
Just as with the arrow of time, entropy is the critical factor. The Right builds, whereas the Left dismantles, subverts, deconstructs, undermines and divides. The latter is the easier task. When it is all ruined in the end, the Left does not care that the Good has not been achieved, they will simply resort to tyranny to create a miserable form of order.
The problem here is in the term and the definition “conservative“. The “conservatives“ do not know what it is they are trying to conserve because they have no fundamental, core set of beliefs, values, and virtues that they are willing to defend to the end.
The “progressive” doesn’t have that problem.
If we are to survive much less to win, we need to abandon “conservatism“ entirely and focus on core principles that define us as what we are, which include - the belief in the inviolability of individual, unalienable rights that come from God, not government, or the mob, and the direct consequence of that - in absolutely minimal and limited government. Always.
Unless we do that, we will lose.