The Triumph of the Political
Post-Libertarianism at the End of the American Ideology
I was recently invited by Paul Gottfried to contribute to an anthology of essays titled A Paleoconservative Anthology: New Voices for an Old Tradition. Since it’s been published by an academic press, it is unfortunately ridiculously priced.
My essay was drawn out of my own background within the libertarian milieu. The title comes from the fact that many on the right are coming away from libertarianism as a result of a maturing understanding of the essence of the political. The thesis of the essay is that libertarianism was an attractive option for so many because it was the logical fruition of a non-political approach to society. Liberalism in the 20th century took up a rhetoric of having discovered norms that were beyond the purview of the political. And libertarianism was able to call out all the various hypocrisies of the liberals who held this view, pointing out that only its own vision of the social order could indeed be supra-political; a theory of government and order beyond politics.
And yet, as the culture revolution of the postwar era enters irreversible straights there is an increased awareness that it is not politics that should be overcome, but rather an actual political enemy. Such a situation requires that the observer choose a side; man is thrust into a situation where he must distinguish between friend and enemy and the libertarian position of transcending these categories merely results in defeat.
The American ideology has failed. It failed to prevent a takeover by a cultural, post-Marxist Left. And libertarianism, for all its strengths in demolishing the tenants of the American ideology, actually perpetuates several of its problems. In the essay, I mention three different angles of this realization: the contributions of James Burnham on the nature of power; the contributions of Carl Schmitt on the nature of the political; and the contributions of Antonio Gramsci on the nature of a culture war.
Here are a few paragraphs from my conclusion:
The meaning of America in the twentieth century, as its defenders understood it, was that it represented universal values and the zenith of human political development. America was presented as a social order in which each person could find his or her destiny. Old conflicts over religion, inherited power, and ethnicity no longer mattered in this transformed world.
And yet, somewhere along the way, the liberal regime became a fierce repressor against all who dared seek paths that deviated from the endeavors of a regime that claimed to be tolerant. Political Correctness has now become the most extreme form of this repressive activity. The liberal regime is not at all “liberal” in any meaningful sense. It has fallen prey to a dangerous postlib- eral ideology, and those who seek to recover elements of the older American patrimony have become the “fascist” enemies of woke America.
The political has triumphed. Liberalism was unable to maintain itself and to prevent its own capture. It only operated for as long as no serious opponent captured it as the champion of a more expansive liberalism.
Some libertarians and post-libertarians might like to believe that the moment is so bleak that we must deviate from our ideals until we can manage to get back on track. But one becomes a true paleoconservative, a true man of the Right, when one comes to terms with the fact that the defenders of social order must always face political enemies, the iron laws of power, and aspirants for cultural hegemony. The “temporary” nature of specific political problems and struggles is a constant element of human life.
The post-libertarian convert to paleoconservatism believes that just as he must fight the rabid Left today, so he might have done earlier to prevent the present desperate situation from developing. Politics is forever an aspect of the human experience and to deny this does not change the reality. Libertarians often express their simple desire to just be left alone. But in the real world of the political, as summarized by Auron MacIntyre, “the side that wants to win will always beat the side that just wants to be left alone.”
Table of Contents for the book:
Introduction, by Paul Gottfried
Chapter 1: What Conservatives Could Learn from Paleoconservatives by David Azerrad
Chapter 2: Revisiting the Clash between Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives by Keith Preston
Chapter 3: Sam Francis: A Foundational Thinker of the Right by Pedro Gonzalez
Chapter 4: Jeffersonian Constitutionalism: The Heart of Paleoconservative Legal Theory by Williams J. Watkins
Chapter 5: Paleoconservative Jurisprudence by Stephen B Presser
Chapter 6: The Triumph of the Political: Post-Libertarianism at the End of the American Ideology by C. Jay Engel
Chapter 7: Richard Weaver and The South by Joseph Scotchie
Chapter 8: A Paleoconservative Dialectic by Grant Havers
Chapter 9: Human Nature: A Biosocial View by Alexander Riley
Chapter 10: How Conservatives Should Practice the Historian’s Craft by Mark J. Brennan
Chapter 11: Myth of the Reagan Revolution by Carl F Horowitz
Chapter 12: Rethinking “National Security” by Wayne Allensworth
About the Contributors