The contemporary American political landscape presents a puzzling imbalance. The 21st century progressive movement has a mainstream core that secures most practical political victories, but at the same time it also embraces a set of more radical leftist beliefs. Leftists often openly identify as communists, violent Antifa members, or revolutionary queer activists, and yet are accepted within the movement. Far from being rejected, these extremists are elevated by the mainstream and often given honored positions in important institutions such as universities. Leaders and ideas from the radical vanguard easily filter into the mainstream, energizing the liberal elite.
In contrast, the American right discards or actively destroys anyone who deviates from the mainstream. The range of acceptable opinions within conservatism is narrow, and aspirants must strictly adhere to a limited set of pre-approved ideological statements. The right rarely nurtures young talent or supports institutions that might nurture emerging intellectual movements.
The Right desperately needs the energy, leadership and cultural influence that only its vanguard can provide.
Surprisingly, the greatest threat to up-and-coming right-wing figures seeking to push the boundaries of acceptable opinion often comes from within the conservative movement itself, with its members seeking to eliminate competitors and win praise from left-leaning media corporations.
A viable political movement has an acceptable mainstream and a more radical vanguard. The mainstream acts as the spearheading element of the movement, presenting the most popular and acceptable positions while ensuring the actual political victory. Everything in the mainstream must be practiced, polished, and presentable. Appearances matter, and reputations are closely guarded. The mainstream may sometimes seem overly cautious or calculating, but this is good and necessary. These are the political activists who sell policies to the masses.
Vanguards operate in productive tension with the mainstream and serve as the heart of the movement. Because vanguards do not directly face the public, they are able to explore new and challenging ideas. Vanguards contain the most passionate activists, and they are often willing to try new tactics and methods of attack. Maintaining a clean and presentable reputation is less important to vanguards, and their members are generally not subject to the same scrutiny as mainstream figures, allowing them to take more risks. Due to the experimental nature of their ideas and tactics, vanguards cannot earn a living in the same way as mainstream political activists, and are therefore dependent on institutions to protect and fund their work.
The dialogue between a movement's mainstream and its vanguard is crucial to the movement's survival and success. The vanguard needs the mainstream to fund its work, advance its agenda, and do the practical work of securing political victory. The mainstream may be good at presenting a practical, professional appearance, but it is not good at developing new leaders or galvanizing ideas. The mainstream relies on the vanguard for both intellectual and emotional energy.
In American politics, the left fully embraces the vanguard. No one is publicly rejected for being too left, and no promising progressive is excluded from the movement because of his radical past. Not at all. Even a former radical-left terrorist like Bill Ayers can land a prestigious, well-paid academic job and become a beloved leader. The radical ideas of the vanguard of the left regularly find their way into the progressive platform, strengthening the mainstream. The mainstream supports the vanguard, and the vanguard energizes the mainstream.
The American right is not allowed to have vanguardists. William F. Buckley Jr. established a narrow band of acceptable ideas, and until recently, these were the only positions permitted within the conservative movement.
Patrick J. Buchanan during the 1992 presidential campaign.Photo: Steve Liss/Getty Images
The postwar consensus was that being truly right-wing was dangerous, leading to the purge and replacement of the old right. Free trade, endless wars, and a diluted social conservatism shaped syncreticism and pushed traditional right-wing ideas aside. Pat Buchanan's politics proved more enlightened than the neoconservatism of the Bush dynasty, but it would be decades before those views were legitimized in the continuing failure of Conservatism Inc.
The most dangerous threat to promising young right-wingers comes not from the left-wing media or smear groups like the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center, but from mainstream conservatives desperate to protect their privileged status.
Most mainstream conservatives, whether they acknowledge it or not, understand that cancellation is a power wielded by the left, which often seeks to usurp this power in order to pit them against their right-wing vanguard and eliminate competitors.
Mainstream conservatives frequently dig up old position papers, personal messages, and past friendships to portray talented political activists as too extreme. While no one has ever lost their job in a conservative organization for being a former leftist, many promising careers have been destroyed because they held views on immigration, nationalism, or foreign policy that were deemed too extreme.
This has resulted in much of the activism that was previously the work of its vanguard activists moving to the online right, often referred to as the “anti-establishment right.” The activism and energy that fueled Donald Trump's Buchananian populism had to develop entirely outside of mainstream conservatism, and today the infrastructure of mainstream conservatism is struggling to absorb and redirect that energy, often with mixed results.
Political theory, literary trends, art, music, and other cultural elements essential to political movements have been built online or in small communities. These efforts are under siege from conservative establishment institutions. The moment people stray from Reagan-era orthodoxy, they are viewed as dangerous by the very people who should be helping them forge new paths.
Mainstream conservatism needs to make peace with its vanguard. The New York Times will never like you, and that's okay. It's time to listen to and even support the exploration of ideas that may not immediately align with your own. America is undergoing a critical period of social and political upheaval, and the conservative movement in its current rigid form is ill-suited to lead. The right desperately needs the energy, leadership, and cultural influence that only its vanguard can provide. If conservatism Inc. continues to prioritize protecting its privileges, the left will continue to dominate.
