The well-known baseball adage, “You can’t tell the players without a scorecard,” holds true today, particularly in the realm of politics. This saying resonates even more since Curt Flood paved the way for free agency over fifty years ago. Flood’s defiance against being treated as mere property by St. Louis Cardinals owner August A. Busch, Jr. marked a significant turning point. While Flood himself may not have benefited, modern players owe him a debt of gratitude every time they see their salaries deposited—rightfully so.
Today, navigating the political landscape is as challenging as identifying baseball players without a scorecard, especially among conservatives. Laura K. Field (LKF) addresses this situation in her book, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. Released by Princeton University Press earlier this month, LKF, a former academic with a PhD in government from the University of Texas, provides insight into the philosophical and political underpinnings of modern conservative thought. The preface recounts the pivotal moment that led her to disentangle herself from conservative intellectualism, a decision she backs with compelling reasoning. Throughout its 406 pages, including extensive endnotes and index, Furious Minds remains both excellent and fair.
The central question posed in Furious Minds is, “How did Donald J. Trump unite the Right?” Since the 2016 election, Trump has been instrumental in this unification. While some have predicted the downfall of MAGA, that notion seems premature. The MAGA New Right demonstrates an unyielding ambition and plans to leverage its power. After all, they currently dominate the field.
This narrative of ideological radicalization reflects the mutually reinforcing evolution of intellectuals, politicians, and their movements. The men of the New Right [primarily men] recognized in Trump a unique opportunity, encouraging him and his supporters while inviting others along. They appreciated his alignment with some of their extremist views and his willingness to employ any means, including unconstitutional ones, to seize and wield power. They aimed to exploit genuine societal issues and liberal weaknesses to impose a homogenizing moral and political vision across the nation, seeking to regress pluralistic liberal democracy and even modernity itself. Many were also formulating their own visions for the future: new laws, educational frameworks, constitutionalism approaches, traditional communities, and technological utopias.
This is an accurate portrayal. Some believed in Trump; others merely saw him as a means to an end. These individuals readily capitalized on the ineptitude of conventional liberals from both the Right and the Left, whose political solutions consistently cater to the affluent elite. Their interests on either side of the divide between hard-right and soft-left are never in jeopardy.
So, who exactly are these figures, and what informs their ideas? According to LKF, the New Right, while possessing a defining core, is far from monolithic and consists of three substantial factions. “The Claremonters idealize the American founding; the Postliberals advocate for a particular, religion-infused vision of the ‘Common Good’; and the National Conservatives uphold the myth of the traditional American nation.” Additionally, the Hard Right Underbelly presents itself through a captivating self-referential nihilism.
The theoretical foundations of these groups can be traced back to Richard M. Weaver’s influential work, Ideas Have Consequences (1948). Weaver, hailing from Weaverville, North Carolina, dedicated his entire academic career to teaching at the University of Chicago. He represents a source of the “Ideas First” political philosophy prevalent within the New Right.
While ideas hold immense significance, they are contextual. For Weaver, his frame of reference was the rural American South of the early twentieth century—much more profound than the common, oversimplified view of the South as merely a backward region. [2] Other philosophical influences on the New Right include Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, who authored the seminal work of modern conservatism, The Closing of the American Mind (1987), garnering both acclaim and critique from opposing sides:
The New Right generally aligns with Weaver’s perspective; however, they also demonstrate its confusions. Too frequently, New Right thinkers resort to abstract intellectual concepts to justify nativism and rootedness. Often, moral doctrines overshadow practical, virtuous actions. Highbrow abstractions can eclipse clear-cut real-world truths—such as election outcomes, military interventions, or the demographics suffering abuse and oppression. In many cases, the term “intellectual abstractions” is overly generous, as we often discuss myths, ideologies, and outright falsehoods.
This critique extends to the supposed left, astutely articulated by Barbara Ehrenreich and later echoed by Musa al-Gharbi in We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. The Professional Managerial Class identified by Ehrenreich closely resembles al-Gharbi’s “Symbolic Capitalists.”
An extensive analysis of each faction identified by LKF awaits a more extensive review, such as those found in the London Review of Books or the New York Review of Books. However, we will explore two pivotal figures representative of LKF’s analysis: Postliberal Patrick Deneen from the University of Notre Dame, and Adrian Vermeule, also a Postliberal and professor at Harvard Law School.
Deneen is the author of Why Liberalism Failed (2018) and Regime Change (2023). My interest in understanding liberalism’s fundamental flaws led me to read Why Liberalism Failed, although I found it lacking. Nonetheless, it proved enlightening. As LKF describes, Deneen asserts:
Liberalism’s inherent individualism has shattered political life and ravaged the natural order. According to Deneen, the liberal longing for freedom ultimately spirals into despotism through cycles of “deracination,” “depredation,” and “disintegration.” This vicious cycle of individualism and statism fuels state tyranny. Unlike Bloom, who presents his arguments as cautionary (and quite logically so), Deneen deems his conclusion as an inevitability. This embodies a deterministic “Ideas First” viewpoint: we are doomed by the very thoughts that shape our lives, with liberalism defined so rigidly that it becomes unchangeable.
There’s a kernel of truth in this. Liberal politics was supposed to mediate conflicting worldviews after the turmoil of Early Modern Europe while safeguarding individual rights. Yet, it has undeniably fostered disintegration in specific facets of social life and community, particularly when considering the neoliberal framework. Perspectives vary regarding the economic policies that evolved into this framework. LKF captures this sentiment well:
Deneen views the dizzying social, political, and technological transformations of recent decades as chaos and instability. In contrast, many, particularly those benefiting from progressive social reforms, witness reconfiguration rather than destruction, often wondering when conditions have actually improved. Reflecting on my grandmothers’ world, I can’t help but critique thinkers like Bloom and Deneen. [3]
Similarly, Regime Change builds on these ideas, amplifying Deneen’s sentiments. The title implies a renunciation of our liberal democracy, however flawed it has been, especially during the Age of Citizens United, when money equates to speech. Deneen argues for a concept he dubs:
‘Common-good conservatism,’ advocating a revival of Aristotelian ‘mixed constitutionalism’ along with something he terms ‘Aristopopulism,’ which posits governance by a superior elite class. One proposed postliberal alteration Deneen promotes is the establishment of an overtly Christian state, with state-sponsored religious observances and public religious initiatives.
The notion of a “better class of elites,” as defined by Deneen or anyone else, is precisely what we do not require. Deneen’s vision of a political science professor at Notre Dame suggests principles as constitutional as Trump’s implicit aspiration to a third term as President, despite the stipulations of the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951:
No individual shall be elected President more than twice, nor shall anyone who has held the office of President during a term to which someone else was elected President be eligible for re-election more than once. However, this provision does not apply to any person currently holding the office at the time this article was proposed by Congress, nor does it hinder any current officeholder from serving for the remainder of their term.
Furthermore, Deneen seems overly concerned about the declining institution of marriage, viewing it solely as a sacred bond between a man and a woman. It’s been a while since I read his two highlighted works, but I don’t recall him acknowledging that marriage also serves as a civil mechanism governing the relationship and legal responsibilities between spouses—like inheritance, medical decisions, and power of attorney. My apologies if I missed that point. This viewpoint reeks of willfulness paired with a certain meann-spiritedness, which seems endemic to the New Right. Ironically, equal levels of solipsism exist on the left, albeit without the intentional malice.
Adrian Vermeule, Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, converted to Roman Catholicism in 2016, identifying as a Catholic Integralist. LKF describes, “Catholic integralism advocates for the integration and unity of church and state, countering the contemporary separation often upheld in modern Catholic political thought.” According to Kevin Vallier in All the Kingdoms of the World: On Radical Religious Alternatives to Liberalism (Oxford University Press, 2023):
Catholic integralists contend that governments should uphold both temporal and spiritual common goods. They assert that God entrusts two powers with this duty: the state for earthly matters and the church for spiritual ones. Given the church’s superior purpose (salvation), it may guide the state in adopting certain policies, such as enforcing church law, occasionally requiring state support to further its aims.
Though we cannot delve into JD Vance today (as he is not disappearing), it’s noteworthy that the new edition of All the Kingdoms of the World now includes an introduction that highlights the political ascendance of JD Vance and the rise of religious anti-liberalism in America, with the current MAGA Vice-President being a recent Catholic convert.
Professor Vermeule’s Common Good Constitutionalism (2022) aims to “reestablish American constitutional law on its genuine foundation” rather than through “originalism” or the “living constitution.” [4]
For Vermeule, the conservative originalist perspective imposes undue restrictions, requiring expansion, while the liberal mode is overly individualistic and mandates constraints. He argues that Common Good Constitutionalism strikes the right balance, providing both scope and traditional grounding: to assess the constitutionality of a law or action, the question becomes, “Does it serve the common good?” and there’s your verdict.
Indeed, the “common good”—but is it insightful to challenge whether the common goods advocated by historical figures like John C. Calhoun (Nullification, among other controversies) and James Henry Hammond (Mudsill) could align with the common good as presented by Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, or Abraham Lincoln? LKF asserts that the book effectively explores the contrast between originalism and living constitutionalism. Looking back to Platonic and Aristotelian thought:
Abstract questions like “What is the good?” are acknowledged as multifaceted and complex. While answers may include happiness, flourishing, virtue, and social cohesion, they remain unsettled, with the tensions between individual goods perpetually alive (consider Athens vs. Sparta). In contrast, Adrian Vermeule approaches the question of the good simplistically, treating it as an uncontroversial tenet: the common good is merely “the flourishing of a well-organized political community” for constitutional lawyers.
This notion incorporates justice, peace, abundance, health, safety, and security, echoing Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts from June-July 1776 and the framers at the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787. No one can dispute these six desirable outcomes. However, Vermeule conveniently neglects freedom, positioning it at best as a secondary concern. It seems reasonable to assert that freedom—both positive and negative, depending on one’s perspective of Isaiah Berlin—should rank higher among New Right priorities. When I reflect on “common good constitutionalism,” I cannot help but consider the implications of cost-benefit analysis: Whose good, whose benefit? These questions are deeply contingent on real-world circumstances rather than abstract ideations.
Recent discussions have been rife with speculation regarding the potential unraveling of MAGA, spurred by the Epstein Files, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the failure of MAGA to deliver on promises to improve the lives of everyday Americans (notably evident given critiques even from The Spectator). The new New Right doctrine of NETTR (No Enemies to the Right) now faces internal strains, as evident with the Ballroom Builder calling MTG “Marjorie Traitor Greene.” This discord underscores the tumult within the New Right, which ultimately may not serve MAGA in the long haul. Regardless of the outcomes—recognizing that a week is a lifetime in politics—Furious Minds serves as an essential scorecard for identifying MAGA players, offering far more than what can be unpacked in this brief analysis. LKF provides invaluable insights into the intricate dynamics of American politics in the Age of Trump, with a particularly engaging discussion of the “Bronze Age Pervert” and related topics of interest.
Notes
While I usually refrain from promotional remarks, I must mention that Furious Minds is currently available at a 30% discount using the code “PUP30” on the Princeton University Press website. Alternatively, consider asking your local library to procure a copy if you still have access to one.
[1] No one should endure the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Clause, and Curt Flood is a memorable figure from my Little League days. From the Wikipedia link, Flood “was a three-time All-Star, a Gold Glove winner for seven consecutive seasons, and batted over .300 in six seasons.” He led the National League in hits (211) during 1964 and in singles in 1963, 1964, and 1968. Additionally, Flood excelled in lead-ups, with four times heads-up in putouts as a center fielder and in the fielding percentage category three times. He ended his career with the third-most games in center field (1683) in NL history, trailing only Willie Mays and Richie Ashburn. One could argue strongly for his inclusion in the Baseball Hall of Fame, both as a player and visionary, though such recognition seems unlikely.
[2] An example of this can be found in the Statement of Principles from I’ll Take My Stand (1930), written by the Agrarian poet, essayist, and critic John Crowe Ransom, who later taught at Kenyon College and was affiliated with The Kenyon Review. Subsequently, several Agrarians contributed to Who Owns America: A New Declaration of Independence (1936, OP).
[3] Not so long ago, during my postdoctoral fellowship, my mentor was the first woman awarded tenure in a basic science department at one of the leading medical schools worldwide. This recognition came only when external evaluators inquired, “Why hasn’t she been promoted, given her exceptional research and teaching?” Apparently, such a consideration had eluded the old boys’ network in charge, which included a Nobel laureate. Today, the medical school cohort I work with has a female representation of 63% compared to 37% male. This is a remarkable change compared to the 25-30% female enrollment during the early 1980s. While we’ve made strides, the term “untraditional” still applies for privileged white males.
[4] Deneen’s predictable endorsement reads: “You are holding that rarest of books, one that will influence minds, reshape the debate, and alter the future. Adrian Vermeule has produced the most significant and original discourse on constitutional theory for this generation. Future scholars, legal practitioners, and citizens will likely look back on this book as the turning point against the seemingly unshakeable camps of conservative ‘originalism’ and progressive ‘living constitutionalism,’ as it exposes them as exhausted sides of a devalued liberal coin. Most importantly, this book charts a new and improved course—common good constitutionalism rooted in the classical tradition, but renewed for the revitalization of a faltering yet redeemable republic.”
Indeed, all we must do is join the Catholic Integralist Brigade to restore our republic. One must wonder: do any of these white men recall the historical upheavals of Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe? Religion and politics have never blended harmoniously, at any time or place on Earth.
