Ross Douthat of the New York Times has been nibbling, lately, at NRx’s red pill, and has recently written both a column and a blog-post on neoreaction that seem at least partly sympathetic. For a man in his position, that is, as Orwell reminded us, a “revolutionary act”: to the extent that the movement has been mentioned at all elsewhere in the mainstream press — and it has gained enough momentum recently that it has had to be mentioned — it has only been to “point and splutter”, and to anathemize it, dogmatically and falsely, as “white-supremacist” heresy. Mr. Douthat, on the other hand, seems at the very least to be able to handle this hazardous material without the usual risk of anaphylaxis, or even, perhaps, a perceptible histamine response. (One suspects that he is actually developing a taste for the stuff, and is saying less than he thinks. I can hardly blame him on either count: he’s a smart guy.)
Today we have a good response to Mr. Douthat’s overture, from Mark Christensen of Social Matter. It is more than just a specific reply, though, as it covers a lot of the fundamentals of neoreaction (and so I recommend it to curious readers).
Here are some excerpts.
On the rejection of human universalism:
Reaction proper has always taken human biodiversity as one of several factors which impact civilizational order and evolution. If Douthat is asking whether reaction can accept the “Liberal Creationist’ belief that human evolution stopped 10,000 years ago (at least from the neck up), then the answer is obviously no. However, it is worth noting that reaction differs from some parts of the alt-right, in that it sees race as merely one of the elements which sovereign power must work with, rather than as a sufficient condition for a healthy society. The answer to global ethnocultural diversity is a global diversity of political regimes. The liberal idea that Sweden and Syria ought to have the same form of government is ideological derangement.
On the illusion of popular sovereignty in present-day America:
…Douthat’s pondering on whether reaction can abandon its illiberal view of political order requires a more in-depth response. Presumably, when Douthat means despotism, he is referring to rule by a non-democratic elite and the embodiment of sovereign power in a ruler or group of rulers unconstrained by constitutions, rule of law, or axiomatic moral principles. If they abide by certain norms or customs, this is voluntary. When pressed, their power is limited only by nature and by competing political powers, either within the state or outside it. The ruler or rulers are ultimately guided by personal judgement and how they choose to navigate the realities of rule and politics, rather than by legal systems of regulation.
The reactionary answer to outrage at this view of political order is simple: “please present an existing alternative.’ Now, most Americans would state that the Republic”“however corrupted by Big Money or Big Government or what have you”“is ultimately based on the Constitution. No part of the Republic’s governing bodies have total sovereignty, and they are restrained by the limits of the constitutional framework. There even exists a body whose job it is to make sure that make sure that the Constitution is being followed: the Supreme Court. But this body is the subject of strange disputes.
Republicans and Democrats have bitter struggles over whether the presiding judges will be conservative or liberal. It seems that when conservatives read the Constitution it says conservative things, and when liberals do it says liberal things. But then the Constitution in and of itself is not the foundation of the Republic; rather, the judgement of the Supreme Court is! The nation of laws is ruled by those who interpret what the law is. This even applies to seemingly unequivocal parts of the document. The rights to life and due process, for instance, are interpreted in ways consistent with the USG’s security requirements.
Obviously, reactionary theory begins with a rejection of some aspect of modernity as, at best, a dead end, and more accurately a grievous error in need of correction. But in favor of what, exactly?
The reactionary tradition … sets forth a drive towards order, harmony, and the organic hierarchy which derives from seeking excellence through discipline. This conclusion is what divides the reactionary from the liberal, and what lies at the center of the reactionary aesthetic.
Were the reactionary position to gain substantial ground, institutions which have long based their legitimacy on serving the cause of democracy and revolution would immediately lose it, since these claims would be exposed as lies and manipulation. Men such as Nicolas Gomez Davila, the later Heidegger, and Julius Evola attempted to live according to a philosophy of life which embraced duty, inner discipline, and transcendence.
This code reflects the values which aristocratic classes formalize at the high points of civilizational achievement. Roman senators praised virtus and popularized Stoic philosophy, the knights of Christendom learned chivalry, the Japanese samurai classes developed Bushido. The common function of these elite codes was to inculcate in the elite classes an ethic which would lead them to rule responsibly and thus maintain their position in the social order. Of course, in all cases there existed those who deviated from these principles and instances where those principles failed or were ignored. But it should be noted that their goal was precisely the development of a personality which could understand the purposes of these codes and reliably judge when exceptions might be necessary to fulfill them.
This is a crucial point: the very essence of the tradition that reactionary thought seeks to articulate and to preserve is discipline. What is discipline? Its most essential quality is the subordination of the self to something higher. (It shares this meaning with the word “disciple”.) It is only through discpline — the discipline of the craftsman, the scholar, the scientist, the artist, the healer, the warrior, the monk — that we can defy gravity, that we can raise some part of ourselves above the basest aspects of our nature. This is at the heart of the reactionary’s emphasis on hierarchy: if there is nothing above us, why bother to ascend? In the thermodynamic terms I am fond of here, discipline is profoundly anti-entropic.
The modern Left’s antipathy to hierarchy, then, can also be understood as an antipathy to discipline, and therefore to order, and to excellence. Think of discipline, dear Reader, and you will have imagined everything that this is not.
Read Mr. Christensen’s article here.
18 Comments
Douthat isn’t terribly conservative and only types mild, within-the-Pale criticisms. He’s unable to maintain his own brand a la Mark Steyn, so he’s dependent on the NYT for his sinecure. This is not the profile of a thinker, but a salaryman. Given his practical limits, Douthat is unlikely to write anything remotely controversial.
The quoted piece is heavy on alt-right namedropping (Davila, Heidegger, Evola . . . at this point, why not throw in Nietzsche?) The problem with philosophers is that, in the modern age, they’re exposed as less detached thinkers, more as egomaniacs (e.g., Nietzsche). I imagine exceptions exist. Asking philosphers to come up with your definitions of conservatism is odd, because conservatism is group loyalty, growing out of family life.
Back to Ross: he’s fighting the battle on the left’s intellectual terms. This is the equivalent of running up the white flag before the battle starts.
I think you’re being a little too hard on him, pangur. There are lots of salarymen out there, and he’s one of the few who are even flirting with this stuff other than to signal their loathing of it.
If NRx had a fifth column within the Fourth Estate, the only way it could exist at all would have to look pretty much like Douthat. The man probably has a family to support, after all — and unlike so many in the dissident Right, he doesn’t hide behind a pseudonym.
My view of Douthat is colored by my assumption that the NYT is not a paper of record, but a vanity rag for boomers (Times subscription numbers reflect this). Boomers are, as a group, epistemically closed; Douthat’s tiny ventures into wrongthink will go unnoticed (as they have to date). I’m not saying he’s a bad guy, I’m saying that if want exposure to good writing and good thinking related to these ideas, the NYT is not the place to do it. The Right needs to persuade moderates, not NYT subscribers.
As for hiding behind a pseudonym — well, you yourself gave the reason that many people do that, Malcolm. With the left trying — often successfully — to get people like us fired, why risk it?
As you say, I certainly understand why dissidents use pseudonyms.
I’m just saying that I’m glad to see such a thing in the New York Times. We can’t expect much.
From Boswell’s Life of Johnson:
On my Twitter feed, Douthat recently came in for a drubbing. Some folks I follow linked to this article or to others like it.
(and so I recommend it to curious readers). That would be me. I find myself reading this and similar and then re reading other NRx writers in an attempt to “line the ducks in a row”. Still working, it may take a bit. I’m also looking forward to more of the undertaking. I sense many adherents are younger, maybe in their 40s.
That You Tube video with that undisciplined creature shrieking has gone viral. To avoid saying anything about her that might sound cruel or ill mannered, we use an expression down here that covers it all without saying it all…
Bless her heart.
[img]https://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/files/images/2015/2/11/140228_2749623_Weekend_Update_Segment___Will_Ferrell_anvver_2.jpg[/img]
“To avoid saying anything about her that might sound cruel or ill mannered”
She’s a mud-fat, dumb, worthless self-parody.
Not saying anything cruel about people who cry out for mockery to be wielded on them like a scalpel (and who, by the way, hate you)? Why? Pillory these degenerates until it hurts them.
Critique?
http://www.vdare.com/articles/patriot-leo-cons-breaking-with-conservatism-inc-academe-over-donald-trump
Pangur, this poor creature is being used and treated like cannon fodder. Her behavior is what she must do to find acceptance within a group that would never have her as a member otherwise. She is being mocked aplenty on the web. Personally, I don’t do cruelty. I am capable of doing many things and have done a few of them in my life. Just not cruelty to someone like this.
Christensen concluded that the reactionary tradition is one that the Liberal tradition can’t abide. Isn’t that where we are? Locked in a life and death struggle of how to save ourselves from ourselves? Maybe we will live long enough to figure out how best to live long enough to have made it all worthwhile. The Douthat piece was bold for him and where he is, the Christensen response should be of comfort to Douthat if he finds himself unemployed
Robert,
This creature is not poor, in my opinion. She is a fucking idiot. Just because she is fat, ugly, and stupid does not mean she deserves to be pitied. There are lots of people who are fat, ugly, and stupid who do not draw attention to themselves by also being obnoxious, rude, and masochistic in public.
Fuck her and fuck the horse she rode in on. It is time to stop coddling the self-destructive morons who keep trying to hijack our public forums.
“Fuck her and fuck the horse she rode in on.”
Not the horse, too! That poor beast has surely suffered enough!
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Henry and Jeffery. Gents, I understand but I tend to save the heavy duty fire power for targets that will do the most good. Yesterday was the annual Kentucky Derby and horses were front and center. Seems like a theme has emerged regarding their treatment….;)
Oh, alright. Not the horse, too. Let it not be said that I have no compassion for our beasts of burden.
Henry you are a fine man.
The feeling is mutual, Robert.