The Reactionary Right is Not a Monolith

[new at Inside Story]

Just over a week ago, Vance gave a speech at the “American Dynamism Summit,” which made the contradiction clear. As with any politician’s speech, it is anyone’s guess how much is Vance himself, and how much his speechwriter. But the speech was very clearly all about the awkward relationship between Common Good Conservatism and Let Software Eat The World. When a politician specifically and repeatedly denies that a tension is important, it is excellent evidence that the tension is urgent and worrying. This tension is by no means necessarily a sign of imminent collapse. Previous conservative coalitions, such as National Review “fusionism,” had spotty welding in places, but somehow held together for decades. Still, it is a visible weakness that might be exploited.

The point is this. It is not just that the American right is becoming more extreme, but that its extremism pulls in two radically different directions. One faction yearns to return to the cultural stability of a world in which everyone agrees (or is obliged to agree) on shared values, and the only legitimate arguments are about how best to achieve the worldly version of the kingdom of heaven. The other fantasises about a radical acceleration of the forces of change, ripping society apart in the name of perpetual innovation. Moving towards the one means moving directly away from the other.

Other Writing:

Chapter in an Edited Volume

“Cognitive Democracy,” in Youth, New Media and Political Participation – with Cosma Shalizi – eds. Danielle Allen and Jennifer Light

In Parts I through III, we extended the definition of the political, acquired a richer view of participation, explored how to model and analyze partic-ipation broadly defined, and ascertained what sort of mechanisms to look for to understand public spheres in this context. As those chapters explored the specific experiences of individuals partic-ipating in hip ...
Read Article
Essay

Democracy’s Dilemma – with Bruce Schneier

How can democratic societies protect—and protect themselves from—the free flow of digital information? The Internet was going to set us all free. At least, that is what U.S. policy makers, pundits, and scholars believed in the 2000s.  The Internet would undermine authoritarian rulers by reducing the government’s stranglehold on debate, helping oppressed people realize how ...
Read Article