Writing in the New York Times before the shock defeat of Roy Moore, David Brooks had some harsh words for the Republican Party:
“The Republican Party I grew up with admired excellence. It admired intellectual excellence (Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley), moral excellence (John Paul II, Natan Sharansky) and excellent leaders (James Baker, Jeane Kirkpatrick). Populism abandoned all that — and had to by its very nature. Excellence is hierarchical. Excellence requires work, time, experience and talent. Populism doesn’t believe in hierarchy. Populism doesn’t demand the effort required to understand the best that has been thought and said. Populism celebrates the quick slogan, the impulsive slash, the easy ignorant assertion. Populism is blind to mastery and embraces mediocrity.”
In the circumstances, one can hardly blame Brooks for his uncharacteristic anger. Yet the implication that there is nothing more to Trumpism than populism is wrong. Believe it or not, the President has some heavy-duty intellectual backers.
Admittedly, they’re easy to miss. Trumpism is at odds with other, better-known schools of conservative thought. For instance, the Republican mainstream may have reached a political accommodation with the barbarian in their courts, but not an intellectual one. Elsewhere, the neoconservatives are wary of Trump’s isolationist tendencies; while the libertarians are diametrically opposed to his agenda on trade and immigration. The more thoughtful sections of the religious right also have good reason to doubt this most worldly of men.
But that does leave one school of thought in his corner, the so-called ‘West Coast Straussians.’
Leo Strauss was a 20th century political philosopher who fled Germany for America and taught at the University of Chicago. His conservatism – if it can be called that – stands in contrast to the conservatism of Edmund Burke. Burke emphasises the organic growth of living tradition; Strauss emphasises the purity of principle – above all, those articulated by the Founding Fathers of his adopted nation.
That’s a hugely inadequate summary, of course, but we need to get on with the story – and we do so courtesy of Jacob Heilbrunn in the New York Review of Books:
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe