As I read through your analysis of how and why conservatism got a toe-hold in the younger demographic—and then climbed the ladder to a wider audience—one name came to mind: Charlie Kirk. Through faulty logic and pseudo-intellectualism, and a soupçon of religion, he created his horrifying right-wing movement. It was a sexy mix for his manosphere.
This paragraph in your thoughtful essay gave me a real-time example of what a conservative ideologue looks like:
“The fact that conservatives are trained and socialized in a culture designed to produce ideologues rather than professionals often leads to lower-quality intellectual work. But it also makes conservatives natural ideological thinkers, and the movement they lead more equipped to fill ideological vacuums with exciting new ideas.”
Perhaps liberals should delve into Kirk’s appeal and employ his proselytizing strategies. I think someone like James Tallerico— already on the national stage— could deftly coax a wide audience towards ethical liberalism.
This is a great point. For all of Kirk's many flaws, he was unusually good at using ideological appeals to build an actual organization. I think his frequently offensive statements and lack of serious intellectual heft led a lot of liberals to dismiss him as a clown, but talk to conservatives and they'll readily tell you he was an irreplaceable part of their movement. There's a lesson there.
Thank you for a thought-provoking article. Definitely agree that the whole "value neutral" thing is a sham. Helena Rosenblatt makes that point too that the pioneers of liberalism never thought that way. (Where did that notion even come from?)
Couple of points of pushback:
1. I disagree with the point made in the latter half of footnote 1, although I understand why one might be led to believe it. Trump's movement is obviously illiberal. But many normies who vote R still would signal enthusiastic support for "the values of America's founding." Those are liberal values!
2. Similarly, when we talk of "liberal" in the philosophical sense, I question the choice to see liberal and conservative as opposites in the U.S. context. This is a point Hayek makes in his essay "Why I am not a Conservative." As Helena Rosenblatt points out, Edmund Burke did not want to concede the word "liberal" to the French revolutionaries!
On 1), I think you’re importantly right! Wrote about this a bit in my intro to Public Reason post, and quite a lot in my book, but it is extremely important for anti-democratic movements to pretend to be otherwise (perhaps even liberal) in order to hold on to voters like the ones you describe. This piece was about intellectuals rather than ordinary people, though.
On 2), I make the point you’re making in footnote 3.
As I read through your analysis of how and why conservatism got a toe-hold in the younger demographic—and then climbed the ladder to a wider audience—one name came to mind: Charlie Kirk. Through faulty logic and pseudo-intellectualism, and a soupçon of religion, he created his horrifying right-wing movement. It was a sexy mix for his manosphere.
This paragraph in your thoughtful essay gave me a real-time example of what a conservative ideologue looks like:
“The fact that conservatives are trained and socialized in a culture designed to produce ideologues rather than professionals often leads to lower-quality intellectual work. But it also makes conservatives natural ideological thinkers, and the movement they lead more equipped to fill ideological vacuums with exciting new ideas.”
Perhaps liberals should delve into Kirk’s appeal and employ his proselytizing strategies. I think someone like James Tallerico— already on the national stage— could deftly coax a wide audience towards ethical liberalism.
Thanks for the provocative read!
This is a great point. For all of Kirk's many flaws, he was unusually good at using ideological appeals to build an actual organization. I think his frequently offensive statements and lack of serious intellectual heft led a lot of liberals to dismiss him as a clown, but talk to conservatives and they'll readily tell you he was an irreplaceable part of their movement. There's a lesson there.
I couldn’t help smirking and grinning in agreement when I read “lack of serious intellectual heft” I your reply.
Have you seen this brutal takedown by a first year Cambridge feminist? It’s absolutely delicious!
https://youtu.be/N3liIXGJXNs?is=C2L2AOQky3w1WcA0
Thank you for a thought-provoking article. Definitely agree that the whole "value neutral" thing is a sham. Helena Rosenblatt makes that point too that the pioneers of liberalism never thought that way. (Where did that notion even come from?)
Couple of points of pushback:
1. I disagree with the point made in the latter half of footnote 1, although I understand why one might be led to believe it. Trump's movement is obviously illiberal. But many normies who vote R still would signal enthusiastic support for "the values of America's founding." Those are liberal values!
2. Similarly, when we talk of "liberal" in the philosophical sense, I question the choice to see liberal and conservative as opposites in the U.S. context. This is a point Hayek makes in his essay "Why I am not a Conservative." As Helena Rosenblatt points out, Edmund Burke did not want to concede the word "liberal" to the French revolutionaries!
Thanks for the thoughtful engagement!
On 1), I think you’re importantly right! Wrote about this a bit in my intro to Public Reason post, and quite a lot in my book, but it is extremely important for anti-democratic movements to pretend to be otherwise (perhaps even liberal) in order to hold on to voters like the ones you describe. This piece was about intellectuals rather than ordinary people, though.
On 2), I make the point you’re making in footnote 3.