The eternal return of the same?

The discussion of the once and future paleoconservatism continues at Taki’s Magazine, with contributions from Daniel Larison and Richard Spencer. Larison seems to think that the new will be much the same as the old, while Spencer seems to identify with a sort of rambunctuous and generally nationalist individualism that perhaps can fuel an oppositional movement. My question continues to be what this is all going to be about. If self-expression and getting what you want is your basic theory of value, and rationality at bottom is a matter of means and ends, then why won’t we always get back to where we are right now? Let every man, woman, transsexual and whatever establish his/her/hir own reality in a social order designed to let each do so. (In a comment to Larison’s post Evan McLaren raises a point suggested by Gottfried’s writings in general that I didn’t make explicit enough in my last comment: if recent American conservatism has been unprincipled and easily manipulated because it hasn’t represented any particular social interests, then how is that going to change in the new paleoconservatism? The Revolt of the MARs didn’t pan out, and it can’t ever pan out, because Middle American Radicals don’t have stable elites.)

Leave a Comment