Part 3: Are You One Of Us?

An Ideology for the Right

In Parts One and Two the case was made for why the Right needs to dare to advance a comprehensive ideology. 

Especially if you’re steeped in Classic Conservative tomes and Libertarian critique—all of which made most sense in the immediate context of the Cold War— you have been conditioned to believe that explicit and comprehensive ideology is a non-starter for the Right. We’ve been told that ideologies are rigid and limiting, that they become dangerous and fanatical, and that they are at odds with “the spirit” of what it means to be on the Right.  

There are strong and obvious answers to these and closely related arguments to show why these objections are wrong. A dedicated treatment of them is in order in the future (in particular, the perhaps appealing but deeply flawed belief that a strong authoritarian Man-of-Power! will emerge and all will be well as he paves the way for the return of a natural aristocracy. But, I digress).

It is admittedly unsettling to discover that the thought of the most influential and deeply admired minds from our side who forcefully rejected ideology, from Burke to Kirk to many today, never actually offer a clear unifying actionable alternative to counter the flawed ideologies that have dominated for over 200 hundred years. The sobering truth is that the American Rights’ traditional, non-ideological position has never been and will never be capable of victory (I would encourage you to read Part Two in this series).

Words Mean Things

Ideology, as a word, is part of the problem.

It carries a lot of baggage to be sure but it is also too loosely used, interchangeably describing both broad worldview concepts, as well as, detailed political systems. But, curing for precision only makes it worse with the Academy unhelpfully believing there is bewildering complexity and important shades of distinction when looking at what makes a people tick. This leads to creating new sub-disciplines and areas for study inviting endless deep diving into the interesting but arcane nuances…the philosophical, the attitudinal, the “organically developing paradigms,” “reality tunnels,” etc.

This is not helpful. The Right excels at analysis but misses the point that you must compete and win the struggle for someone’s mind and these minds are distracted and concerned not about dense ontological arguments but immediate and personal things, like why all the signs in their big box stores are in Spanish. 

Here then are four simplified distinctions concerning ideology to help illustrate what the Right is missing in its failure to capture the imagination and restless energy of the majority of any population, a majority which is naturally predisposed to traditional morality, hierarchy, order and a preference to be with one’s own people. 

Complete Functional Ideology

Accounts for the social, political, economic, moral, and religious dimensions. It addresses and advocates action for each of these explicitly or with enough sentiment and internal logic to explain the real world in a way that seems truthful in these core areas so that a reasonable person can engage with it and say, “Yes, this seems true, it makes sense, I can make a sound judgement on many things all by myself.” Islam is a Complete Functional Ideology and is why it is always incompatible and ultimately subversive in any non-Islamic culture: it has something to say about everything and, crucially, makes a strong case why at each point. 

This is what the Right lacks.

Incomplete Dysfunctional Ideology

Claims to be a comprehensive system but in spite of rhetorical and emotional flourish, it is missing one or more essential dimensions entirely, has underdeveloped positions, or more often, never gets to praxis, the practical implementation of theory. Anything you pejoratively dismiss as an “ism” is almost always going to be an Incomplete Dysfunctional Ideology. 

Worldview (or Weltanschauung)

An overarching and coherent set of ideas, beliefs, values about God, man and the world. The Right does this well but a worldview is not a complete ideology. When any mere worldview that doesn’t first issue from an ideological base is pressed on how specifically it will counter a challenge, let alone a direct assault, the arguments default to “We Just Need Tos” as in: “We just need to restore a strong traditional culture…We just need to fix our demographic problem…We just need to present an appealing vision and then springing from our shared brotherhood we will all obey out of love, out of respect, and for the common good.”  Worldviews should capture and express the ideological not stand in place of them. 

Political Platforms

The great majority of what you encounter are nothing more than platforms. A platform only has teeth if it flows from a Complete Functional Ideology. A platform alone is not sufficient and will fail because it assumes the defense of its planks are self-evident or it fails to make the case for any particular position. 

Political platforms serve as  “political apologetics” and should be an onramp into a deeper engagement, somewhat analogous to how each point in the Apostles Creed can be explained and defended because a coherent and detailed faith is supporting it. What is the catechism Right platforms point to? In marketing language, the platform is only the top of the funnel. What comes next for the interested prospect? 

Beyond Politics: A Meeting of the Five Families

There are hundreds of National and Populist Right Parties. In Poland alone there are dozens. Factions and the need for coalitions is inevitable. But in proliferation, factions are a symptom of irreconcilable disunity that time and again devolve into hyper-focused fleeting issues because there is nothing bigger to hold them together. They neglect entirely the need to first define a non-negotiable durable ideological foundation for a people, one that parties and movements can identify with, consolidate around, and build upon. This is the ideological goal, not the creation of a political party.  

There are no mainstream examples showing good ideological formulations; popular movements are either platforms without depth or worldviews and philosophies without praxis.

The most interesting efforts, of course, come from dissident factions, and there are many. We all know the spectrum. The handful selected here may seem idiosyncratic but it is intentionally limited showing only those that have made the hard effort to get beyond the manifesto stage.

Be inspired, add to the list. Approach without factional bias and don’t get distracted or triggered by the figures associated. Each has merit, each lacks.

What is needed and called for is a gathering of our best and brightest, weapons left at the door, gathering in fraternity and with common cause to craft an ideology for the Right that local, regional, and global allies can support and adapt for their local needs. The only thing stopping this from happening is pride and pettiness.

Portland Declaration

If you only read the Introduction and Epilogue, you will be better off for it. Written in 1981, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was widely respected but his jack-ass peers refused to engage and take up the challenge of developing this work.

League of the South

American Freedom Party

Curt Doolitle and the Propertarian Institute

Curt has said his work is not ideological yet it nevertheless checks most of the boxes of what a thought through ideology should address. Our side would be wise to look at the practical and detailed effort here.

Patriotic Alternative

Mark Collett must be commended for actively trying to shape a complete ideological position for an otherwise standard political platform formulation.  

Texas National Movement 

This is included because it is a smart movement that is gaining traction and an example of something that would arguably be more effective if it had an ideological base to reference. Should they gain it, the underlying problems Texas is burdened with are going to be just as real on Day One of their independence.

2016 Republican Platform

What not to do. This is a textbook example of abstracted cliches with emotional and rhetorical flourish that ultimately fails because it lacks precision and honesty.

The Left

Familiarize yourself and the most striking thing about Leftism is how alien it is to the Western mind. It is embarrassing and shameful that we continually lose to this.