Unity, Truth, and Guiding Society From Within

The Right's passion for a deep understanding of natural order also drives its disunity and inability to seize power. But this may be its advantage in the long run.

In some ways, the Right is more internally divided than other ideological groups. Of course, it depends on how broad a net you use to define ideological groups like the Right, Left, etc., but in one sense, the Right is divided right down to the individual man.

Why is this? The Right, as I see it, is largely composed of people concerned with the natural order of things. To be even an ordinary man on the Right is to acknowledge the existence of this natural order. We understand that reality is not what we wish it to be, but what it actually is, and it is therefore something to be discovered with the intellect. We see that there is a hard truth about the world, and so it is not our place to wonder fantastically about a perfect society, but to concern ourselves with how societies really work. A corollary to this is that we cannot simply receive this truth from others and accept it as we would accept another person’s vision of an ideal. So every thinking person on the Right feels the urge to discover this truth for himself and unintentionally sets out to create his own personal political philosophy.

But truth is a complex thing, and even if there is only one truth, no two people will approach it in exactly the same way. If the Right is composed of a million little philosophers, it is no surprise that we have a million different philosophies.

A million philosophies

This is wonderful for our intellectual lives as individuals, but a political movement composed of a million independent philosophers is not really a movement. It is more like a laboratory for disunity. We on the Right all seem to have our own unique perspective about the foundations of society, the legitimacy of governance, and so on.

Let us put it this way: While one side of the political struggle is endlessly concerned with the philosophy of power, the other side has already taken up that power, deemed itself legitimate, and wielded it against its enemies.

For the Left, all of the unsettled minor details to be debated are found in the final application of power, not in the seizing of it. As the self-proclaimed bringers of “progress,” they are naturally unified in their belief that they are entitled to power. The “good people” deserve to be in power, and they’ve evidenced that they are the good people because they favor things like children getting free educations, poor people being given money, and, of course, ending “hate.” The debate is not over whether they should be in charge, but over the mechanics of achieving these dreams. This is certainly not an insignificant quibble for them, but it is easy to see how this puts the Left at an advantage. Put us in power first, and then tell us your million progressive philosophies for how Utopia should look once we begin building it.

On the Right, we have a kind of splintering because we differ on such fundamental things as the sources of authority. One thinks majorities have the right to rule by democratic vote, another thinks authority is appointed by God, for another it is the existence of natural elites, and another thinks it is the organic will of society that determines the boundaries of political authority. And there are a thousand variations in between. We reject as our leaders people who are otherwise opposed to all the evils the Left are currently unleashing on us because we have peered with our own eyes into the depths of social theory and beneath the translucent veil of reality and seen the truth—the very special and hidden truth that only we have discovered—and find all others insufficient and unfit to rule as a result.

Doomed to Neoconservatism

That the thinking people of the Right are incapable of organizing around “close enough” principles to form a consistent Right wing political movement just means that the political support to be had on the Right will be gathered up by a nearby movement of less ponderous people.

In my view, neocons are effectively those who display Right-wing aesthetics, using Left-wing tactics, to deliver results that aren’t exactly Right or Left but keep themselves in power in the role of the only viable opponents of the Left. In using Left-wing tactics, they do take power without endlessly debating what it is. Their Right-wing aesthetics means they justify this taking of power with blithe references to “democracy,” the “constitution,” and other inoffensive and vaguely patriotic sounding terms. But their commitment to Right principles is ultimately absent. They will support all of the same Utopian goals that make the Left feel morally superior, merely requesting moderate but non-binding budget restraints.

Meanwhile, the principled Right are still debating whether the Constitution is even a legitimate source of authority, and they remain nowhere near exercising anything like power.

A case for optimism, of sorts

However, perhaps there is something good about this dynamic. Those on the Right who question the wisdom of the forms of government we see in most places today are essentially correct, after all. The conceit of the modern nation state that it represents the democratic expression of the one true will of the people is ludicrous on its face. Basing all one’s hopes on the ability to use such a system to bring about the next glorious iteration of society is a doomed cause.

Perhaps, then, there is no long-term profit in seizing this type of power in the first place. The practical nature of power in the world today is only of this democratic egalitarianism type, and it is predisposed to lead its societies into ruin. Why put yourself in charge of a doomed system? If the principled Right is to escape the other end of the collapse with its credibility intact, perhaps it ought not be at the reigns when the collapse comes.

Or, perhaps the relative disunity among the Right today is just a symptom of applying our insights to the new data of a collapsing democratic world order. Maybe it just takes time and consideration to build a consistent, unified theory around these new data. The current state of affairs is unprecedented and unfolding in absurdity after unanticipated absurdity, and it may just be that the jury is still out on what all of this ultimately means.

Whatever the explanation, the current political playing field is set up for soft-voiced flatterers and those willing to shovel largesse at the loudest voting blocs. It is not a place for the leadership of men who inspire things like respect for a greater meaning, self-sacrifice, and commitment to right living in others.

The place for such men, today, is in their homes, their workplaces, their churches, and their city squares. Power in society is not limited to the offices of governments. These men may not live to see the eventual collapse and rebirth of society, but those whom they inspire might. It may be up to them to lead now in their more humble roles, in order to raise up a new generation behind themselves who can take hold of power in the next version of society and lead it into something good.