New Right Virtues

Elizabeth Picciuto asked on Bluesky,

This is something I had occasion to think about when writing an FAQ on the Far Right (You can find part one of two here, part two should be coming soon.) I agree with (and have learned a ton from) my FAQ co-author Tom Palmer: understanding Conservative Revolutionary thought is important for understanding a lot of what is going on with the illiberal “New Right”.

But this question prompted me to frame it differently. The result seems useful.

What virtues inspire the New Right?

I’m using “New Right” to encompass NatCons, MAGA, the far-right, and the international illiberal political Right in places like Germany (AfD), France (RN), Russia (Z/Putin), and Hungary (Orban). In case it’s not clear, this excludes groups like right-libertarians and anti-”woke” conservatives that are in the coalition for different reasons.

I think that there are three primary “virtues” of the political New Right. Each comes with corresponding “vices”. Understanding these helps me make sense of why certain policies are (or are not) priorities for the New Right.

1. Strength is virtuous for the New Right. To be strong is to be ostentatiously strong: strength is demonstrated through action. Strength establishes and maintains the hierarchies that the New Right believes should be in place. Strength is also commanding, not compromising.
   
   The corresponding vice is weakness. It’s embodied by “inaction”—things like deliberation (postpones action) or leaving something to institutions (shirks responsibility). It can even apply to compromise and agreement, which imply that both sides have given something—the strong side should simply dictate the outcome.
   

2. Supporting hierarchies is virtuous for the New Right. They try to brand their preferred hierarchies as “natural” no matter how much force is required to bring them about. This “natural” hierarchy is replicated at different levels of society: namely the government and in the home (see Jason Kuznicki’s essential piece on The Domus Mindset). This support should be thorough: publicly declared and privately performed.
   
   The corresponding vice of egalitarianism is embodied by equality that they believe can only come about if enforced, impersonalism (trusting in procedures and rules vs. commands from above), and refusal to support assigned places in the hierarchy (feminism, racial justice).

3. Loyalty to family and nation is virtuous for the New Right. Membership in both is tied to blood. Membership in the nation is established through a prolonged and inherited relationship with the physical land of the nation, to which its people adapt and become distinct. This means that national membership is not readily accessible to outsiders. Loyalty to family and nation means not only preferential treatment for people in those groups, but also their elevation and perpetuation, both of which come from having children.
   
   The corresponding vice of disloyalty comprises both the belief in the equality of outsiders (immigrants) who if not barred outright from membership should at least be disfavoured and the refusal or failure to perform assigned roles in perpetuating and protecting the family and nation (LGBTQ+ people, feminists).

I don’t think that there is consensus within the new right about how these virtues (and vices) work—for example, I do not believe J.D. Vance believes his family brings his loyalty to his nation into question, but some Trump supporters certainly do. But I do think some version of these virtues is espoused across the most influential groups forming the political coalition of the New Right.

Further, these three blend and are mutually reinforcing. To be “strong” is to be masculine men, to enforce hierarchy, and to defend family and nation. To be weak is to be feminine women, subservient, and protected.

“Personalism” triggers every “virtue” when it is paired with nationalism because the it embodies strength in individuals who make commands and codes those commands with support of nation.

Trans people trigger every “vice” because they do not assume their ascribed role in either the hierarchy or in perpetuating the nation/family, they undermine the idea that roles and strength are fixed, and they require social cooperation of others, which is interpreted as undermining and weakening those who should instead put them in their right place.

I encourage everyone to click through to the skeet and see other answers because mine aren’t the only ones. It also seems like she may be writing a thing. I’ll share if she does.

Urban regulation and the extent of the market

At AdamSmithWorks, I wrote about the similarities between certain types of urban regulations, especially land-use regulations, and how they are similar to limiting the “extent of the market” that Adam Smith said limits our ability to become richer. I’m using a podcast episode with the urbanist Alain Bertaud as a springboard. I hope you’ll take a look (and listen!)

More mindful social media

After the insanity of last weekend’s news, I mused about how to think about social media consumption and participation. I think we should think about it like everything else.

Recs

Jonathan Blanks is just terrific in this piece on practical responses to the chaos and pessimism of the moment.

This by Noah Millman is sobering but important: the failed opposition to the far right in Europe under proportional systems makes explicit what is more obscure in first-past-the-post coalitions: old political coalitions are cracking because they differ not only in strategy but in aims. So far all but the far right are failing to deal with this reality.

New today at The UnPopulist, Alan Elrod argues for excluding trans elimination from the boundaries of liberal debate. Debates about trans rights and legal accommodations are a normal part of democratic politics. But, argues Elrod, that’s not what the Trump administration is doing, and what they’re doing should be firmly rejected by liberals.

It’s been eight years since my late friend Steve wrote this important piece about free marketers’ responses to the first Trump administration. Steve argued against simply tallying up good-sounding things against the bad. Instead, he insisted we weigh the importance of the human cost and the likely outcomes of policies. It’s a lodestone. (This piece for small government advocates is a good companion.)

—
Featured image is cropped from this one by Gina Canavan on Unsplash.