The Old and New Right Must Work Together
The right is experiencing an identity crisis, as evident in a recent online debate sparked by a tweet from Vivek Ramaswamy. He argued that top tech companies prefer foreign engineers not due to an American IQ deficit but because American culture prioritizes mediocrity over excellence. Using characters from Saved by the Bell, he suggested that the U.S. values jocks over math whizzes. His vision of a meritocratic society ignited backlash from conservatives who countered that America is about more than meritocracy—it embodies tradition, faith, and national identity.
This debate underscored a deeper question: What is America? Historically, America was seen as a people with a shared heritage; today, it is often framed as an “idea” or propositional nation. If America is only a set of principles, Ramaswamy’s view holds merit. But if it is a cultural and historical entity, then displacing American workers with H-1B employees is a problem. Conservatives remain divided on this issue, revealing a broader schism within the right.
The Old Right
The right consists of diverse factions, but two overarching strands emerge: the old right (pre-war) and the contemporary right (post-war). The old right emphasizes tradition, social cohesion, institutional preservation, and ordered liberty, whereas the contemporary right emphasizes radical individualism, economic freedom, and meritocracy. Understanding this emphasis is key to grasping the right’s internal struggles.
The old right views tradition as inherited wisdom essential for cultural stability. It values organic community bonds over collectivism imposed by ideology. While Marxism sees society as divided by class struggle, the old right sees it as a network of natural relationships rooted in history and shared values. This perspective extends beyond politics into culture, where architecture, art, and historical preservation play a role in national identity. They believe that America’s essence extends beyond policy debates, emphasizing the need to protect the beauty and heritage that define a civilization. Thinkers like Edmund Burke and Roger Scruton inspire this view, advocating for the preservation of culture over radical progressivism.
For the old right, institutions like family, church, and state act as stabilizing forces that uphold the moral order. Policies that strengthen family cohesion and encourage community participation are essential to their worldview. Ordered liberty, as they see it, is not the same as unrestricted freedom; liberty must be exercised within moral constraints. The Founders understood this principle, implementing sabbath laws and, in some cases, religious tests for public office to ensure that governance aligned with the moral character of the people. Rejecting the idea of America as a borderless entity, they believe that mass immigration and globalist policies dilute cultural cohesion. To them, a nation is not simply defined by its economy but by a shared heritage and moral legacy.
The Contemporary Right
By contrast, the contemporary right prioritizes personal autonomy, often at the expense of communal and institutional ties. It views society as a voluntary association rather than a collective with shared loves and history. Economic freedom is the cornerstone of this philosophy, where financial success and market efficiency take precedence over preserving traditional institutions like the family. Rather than seeing government as a protector of cultural identity, they often view it as an obstacle to free enterprise. Inspired by thinkers like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, they champion deregulation and corporate innovation. While the old right critiques forms of consumerism as culturally corrosive, the contemporary right sees consumer choice as an expression of freedom.
This difference extends into how each side views morality and national identity. Unlike the old right, which may support government intervention to uphold cultural values, the contemporary right is skeptical of centralized authority, favoring a laissez-faire approach to social issues. Ethical pluralism is seen as a strength rather than a liability, with individuals free to shape their own moral frameworks. Rather than defining America by a shared cultural heritage, they view it as a set of universal principles, making them more open to globalization and immigration if these align with meritocratic ideals.
Bridging the Divide
Despite their differences, these factions find common ground in moments of political urgency. Both supported Donald Trump’s election, seeing him as a disruptor of leftist dominance. Similarly, the old right-backed libertarian Javier Milei in Argentina recognizing his policies as preferable to leftist alternatives. However, tensions remain. A recent controversy involving a conservative hiring a former adult film actress as a writer exemplified the divide. The contemporary right, emphasizing meritocracy, praised the decision based on her writing skills and ideological alignment. The old right, prioritizing morality, viewed it as a sign of cultural decay.
While the old right and the contemporary right have worked together, their long-term viability as a coalition remains uncertain. The old right warns that without a strong cultural foundation, economic success is meaningless. The contemporary right argues that prosperity fosters individual freedom, which naturally leads to cultural flourishing. Both perspectives highlight essential truths but remain fundamentally at odds.
The Future of the Right
For the right to remain politically relevant in the present, its factions must make some concessions to accomplish various goals. The old right ought to acknowledge that economic dynamism and individual achievement play crucial roles in national strength. The contemporary right must recognize that markets alone cannot sustain a civilization without a shared moral and cultural foundation.
To secure long-term success, the right might need to pursue a pragmatic coalition. Historical precedents show that ideological coalitions can achieve great victories despite internal tensions. The left, despite internal disagreements, unites against common adversaries. Both sides recognize the need to win battles in the present, but their conflicting visions for what those victories should represent will certainly complicate the long-term unity of the movement. If the right hopes to continue to win battles, it will strike a balance between its competing factions, at least for now.
Image Credit: Unsplash
