What IS This Conservatism That Elites Enlist Dummies To Use To Hold Back Social Progress?

The face of American conservatism is not Burke, Maistre, Kirk or Dugin

In a discussion of his book, The Political Right and Equality: Turning Back The Tide of Egalitarian Modernity, Ben Burgis asked progressive lecturer and author Matt McManus to take him on a little tour through the halls of right-of-center intellectuals, noting that “there’s one thing that unites every variant of right-wing ideology: the belief that society will improve if we give up on the dream of a world where people are equal.”

They began with Aristotle— who has been an influence on many right-wingers— and concluded with Russian fascist Aleksandr Dugin. McManus explained that “the basis of the Aristotelian worldview is this notion that society consists of ordered ranks and we need to appreciate that everyone has a role to fill within society, and each rank needs one another. But it’s by no means the case that all the ranks within society have the same kind of dignity or status ascribed to them. Aristotle is very explicit about this where he stresses that women possess a certain degree of deliberative reason, which means that they’re not entitled to the same kind of political rights and privileges that men are. Down through the centuries, this idea of conceiving of society as an organic whole consisting of differentiated ranks set by nature really evolves and transmutes in a lot of interesting ways, but remains pretty constant.”

OK, I’ll bite. After all, a conservative, anti-equality case could be made that people born into great wealth are not equal to normal people— that they’re dumber, lazier, offer less to the general good, are more selfish and greedy— and that they absolutely should not have the same kind of dignity or status ascribed to them by society that normal people get. It seems reasonable that they’re not entitled to the same kind of political rights and privileges that everyone else is. They would probably protest but since they’re dumber, greedier, lazier and more dislikable, their protests might not go too far.

What’s more, the foundational thinker of conservatism, Edmund Burke, wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France that, “whenever you set man over man, it is very important that you attach sublime qualities or sublime capacities to this person, because if they do not seem to have these kinds of sublime qualities, then it’s going to be very difficult for people to regard themselves as this individual’s subordinate.” Can there be any question that scions of the wealthy shouldn’t even be allowed to participate in politics or even vote. Could it be any more obvious, in this conservative world view we’re looking at that if an inheritor of great wealth tries to bribe a politician… well, it should be a capital offense.

“[I]n Dugin’s case,” said McManus, “I think it absolutely is warranted to call him a fascist. My definition of fascism draws very heavily on Roger Griffin, who essentially argues that we need to understand fascism as a form of what he calls ‘palingenetic ultranationalism.’ What this basically means in plain English is that fascists project this myth or ideal of the ultra-nation, which usually doesn’t conform to the specific national boundaries, which they feel themselves constrained by. The ultra-nation gives meaning and vitality to life, and it’s supposed to elevate ordinary people above their own mundane existence by allowing them to participate in something that’s greater than them. Palingenesis refers to this idea of rebirth or resurgence.”

The basic idea is that our grand ultra-nation has been wronged, has been defiled, has been humiliated. And this is largely at the hands of liberal and leftist forces, both internally and externally. We’re absolutely on the knife’s edge of falling into a period of irredeemable decline, but if we give ourselves to the fascist movement, then the ultra-nation can be restored. Our people will once more be elevated. We’ll crush the decadent, democratic leftist, communist, and liberal forces that oppose us.

In Dugin’s book Foundations of Geopolitics, what really comes through is this idea that Russia is in a period of decline. It’s lost its empire to the Americans, who have advanced and humiliated Russia in every conceivable way. And what’s worse, Russia is at this very moment internalizing the value system of the enemy, liberalism and capitalism.

Both of these are very foreign to Russia’s way of organizing things. That’s one of the reasons why the country has kind of lost faith in itself. And what it needs to do is resurge in important ways by establishing this Eurasian Union or Eurasian Empire, however you want to connote it, in alliance with various other reactionary and anti-liberal forces around the globe— including white nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists, all kinds of good people. And once the Eurasian Union or the Eurasian Empire has achieved enough power, it’ll confront the decadent liberal, socialist, materialist nations of the Atlantic world. Rivers of blood will be shed. They will all be condemned to hell.

Amazing when you think of someone like Lauren Boebert coming out of these traditions. She certainly isn’t an intellectual and her appeal is never to anyone’s intellect, only emotions. Her place in politics is defined by extremism, nativism and a willingness to use violence to achieve goals. You think Boebert could understand Reflections on the Revolution in France, a complex and sophisticated philosophical treatise on the dangers of radical change and the importance of tradition?

McManus also mentioned the poetry of TS Eliot. I’m only familiar with The Waste Land, which might make you immediately think of Congresswoman Boebert— at least when it comes to the importance of personal responsibility and the dangers of moral relativism:

What have we gained by keeping the law?

What have we lost in our greatness?

Come, see the violence and the deceit.

Come, see the blood in the gutter.

Come, see the bones in the desert.

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Eliot was arguing that the world is in a state of decay because people have lost their sense of morality. He was urging people to take responsibility for their own actions and to uphold certain moral standards.

The poem concludes with a line from the Upanishads: “Give. Be compassionate. Control yourself. Peace. Peace. Peace.” He was urging his readers to follow these three principles in order to restore order to the world. Largely because of selfish narcissists like Boebert, Trump and Traitor Greene, we’re living in a world that’s increasingly divided and where people are more likely to judge others than to take responsibility for their own actions. In the poem Eliot tries reminding us that we all have a duty to uphold certain moral standards, regardless of our position in society.