"The Board recommends that the Committee further review the above allegation concerning Rep. Ogles because there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Ogles’s campaign committee accepted excessive contributions reported as personal loans and contributions from the candidate," the ethics board wrote Thursday. (Read more)
Some may scoff at such a thing as "intellectual Trumpism." I think it is accurate, and I think it is important. Trumpism is a form of populism and populism is essentially a movement of the common people with a grievance who find someone to blame. At times it may be resentment of a racial minority or an ethic group or religious group. At times it may be the rich or capitalist or industrialist or some imagined cabal of secret influencers such as the Masons. Intellectual Trumpism is not populism.
In analyzing the Trump movement some will see the underlying basis of Trumpism as racism or Chrisian Nationalism. I think both of those elements are present in the movement but are insignificant. They do not contribute to foundational principles.
Some will look at the kooks, such as QAnon and conspiracy theorist such as Alex Jones and see that as a basis of Trumpism. The kooks are also there but do not contribute a significant body of ideas that undergird the Trump movement. I imagine most people in the Trump movement see them as a joke and just weird.
Some will see violent-prone groups such as Proud Boy, Three Percenters, or Oath Keepers as important components of Trumpism. They do exist and may be dangerous, but they do not provide a foundational ideology.
There are a large number of highly educated and smart people with an ideology that make up Trumpism. This group of thinkers some would describe as "conservative" but in most regards they have very little in common with post-World War II American conservatism. If one were to label this group some might call them the "New Right," or "Far Right." I don't know that those labels fit. For one thing they are old terms, and I think we are seeing something new. Also, it seems the mainstream media sees a new "New Right" about once every decade. "Far Right" is also overused and has lost any meaning and liberals have applied the term to people like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. "Far Right" is almost a synonym for very conservative. If we need to have a label to describe this movement call it the "Dissident Right." That is the term some within the movement use to refer to themselves.
Some will dismiss a bunch of smart people touting theories as insignificant. I disagree. Ideals have consequences. Without Karl Marx, we would not have had Marxism and Stalinism and Pol Pot. Communism led to the death of up to 110 million people and denial of freedom and human dignity for much of the world's population. Don't tell me theory does not matter. Without John Locke and Adam Smith and Edmund Burke and Hobbs and Rousseau, would we have had classical liberalism? On, the other hand however, there are many intellectual movements that went nowhere. If Trump fails miserably and the public's hopes are dashed or if Trump simply dies, will Trumpism die with him? I don't know. Nevertheless, it seems like something important and concerning is happening. Time will tell how it plays out.
Some will object and scoff and say Trump is hardly an intellectual and how can he be the leader of such a movement. I agree that Trump is not an intellectual. I doubt he has ever read a serious thoughtful book. As president his aides said he would not even read policy papers before important meetings with world leaders. I think with Trump, what you get is what you see. Trump is the person the philosophers hope will bring to fruition the vison they have. That does not mean Trump understands it or is part of it or even aware of it.
So, what do these Trump intellectuals believe? What is their point of view? To boil down to a couple or three paragraphs volumes of essays and books and presentations is difficult and, of course, there are variations of opinions among the individuals. Also, some of what I read is esoteric and while I am fairly well read, I am only a casual student of philosophy. I don't want to pretend I understand more than I do and some of it is complex and difficult to grasp, but in essence the below paragraphs state the kernel of their argument.
Democracy has failed, they argue. America has problem. The American people have become weak and decadent and demoralized, and we lack leaders who will take decisive action to right things. Not only is America experiencing this, but so is Western civilization. Civilization took a wrong turn about the time of the enlightenment. The modern Western emphasis on individual rights is mistaken. Some deny we have innate rights. We are not endowed by our creator with rights as the founders proclaimed; rights are a result of cultural norms that developed over long periods of time. Rights are not universal. Also, they emphasize the supremacy of people over the individual. This ideology is much more a philosophy of communitarianism as opposed to individualism.
In order to fix things, we need a strong leader they say. Some of the thinkers in this movement refer to the leader as a strong CEO and some call for a monarch. Some say we need an "American Caeser." For this strong leader to accomplish things, he needs more power. They look at things like checks and balances and separation of power and independent government agencies as impediments to decisive action. When Donald Trump says he may find it necessary to suspend the constitution or when he speaks about using the military to impose order and combat crime, he is speaking their language.
While conservatives are generally advocates of a strong market economy and free enterprise and believe a corporation's job is to earn a profit for its shareholders, the Trump intellectuals tend to suspicious of contemporary capitalism. They believe that commercial interest should serve the interest of the people. They are especially suspicious of multinational corporations. They are also critical of the role that consumerism and consumption has on culture. Having lots of toys distracts and keeps us content and drains society of its vitality.
When it comes to foreign affairs and America's role in the world, they also think we are on the wrong track. They think we should not be exerting American influence around the world. They are not however idealistic, naive, principled isolationist. Many of these thinkers are enamored of a Russian philosopher and activist by the name of Aleksandr Dugin who argues that a multipolar world with different nations dominating their respective region is desirable and normal. When Donald Trump expresses doubt about our NATO alliance and when he appears ready to greenlight Putin's conquest of Ukraine and when he talks about acquiring Greenland, Panama, and Canada, and setting the stage to justify invading Mexico, this aligns with their view. When Donald Trump makes nice and is complementary of authoritarian world leaders, they see this as a positive thing.
There are a lot of people involved in the intellectual dissident right movement and the movement looks to a previous era of thinkers, many long deceased, for guidance. I am throwing out some names one should be familiar with to understand this movement. These are in no particular order and by including a name below does not mean to imply that they are all on the same page or are in agreement. Also, I am not attempting to smear anyone. Some, I am not sure even deserve to be considered part of this movement but some in the movement claim and quote them, so they are included for that reason. For several of the names on this list, I have only the briefest acquaintance with their work. I know who they are and that is about it.
Here is the list: Steve Bannon, Curtis Yarvin, Alexander Dugan, Friedrich Nietzsche, Leo Strauss, Julius Evola, Carl Schmit, Martin Heidegger, Aleksandr Dugin, Bronze Age Pervert (BAP), James Burnham, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Yoram Hazony, Oswald Spengler, and Peter Theil.
There are other whose names I cannot recall who need to be on this list, I am sure. Some, such as Tucker Carlson promote the views of some of these people but he himself, in my view, is not sufficiently intellectual nor is he a theorist so I am not including him in this list. As Tucker himself says, he is just asking questions. There are other like Carlson who promote the theories but are more advocates than thinkers, so they don't make the cut for the list. Others who espouse some of the views of the people on the list are omitted because they lack the credentials or gravitas to be taken seriously. It is hard to know where to cut off the list. Since this is my own list, it would no doubt differ from someone else compiling a list. Also, I have only put people on the list and not organizations. There are organizations such as the National Conservatism Conference and Clairmont Institue who are supportive of some of the views of the intellectual Trumpian movement, but I am restricting this list to individual thinkers. Who should and who should not be included is a subjective matter.
I may do a Part II to this post and summarize what some of the people on this list contribute to the movement, what they think, and why they are important. I also have come across some articles that shed more light on the movement. I may summarize and link to such articles. Stay tuned for updates.
From Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Dec, 31, 2024- In February 2024, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that debt would continue to rise unsustainably from its current level of roughly the size of the economy to 116 percent of the economy by 2034; this was revised up in June 2024 to 122 percent of the economy by 2034.
Posts
All Comments
