In the 1955 National Review mission statement, William F. Buckley makes a brief mention of “the irresponsible Right.” The use of such a phrase suggests Buckley well understood that no movement can be effective in its broader vision if it does not have the means to hedge within the margins of philosophical and intellectual fellowship.
The success of the modern conservative movement in the 20th century and its culminating event of Ronald Reagan’s election owes itself considerably to the work Buckley and others did as gatekeepers of the movement. They broadened the tent to build a wider and stronger coalition while excising and banishing irresponsible and perfidious forms of right-wing ideology.
Populists often deride gatekeeping as “pearl clutching” because they want a right-wing popular front. They argue the circumstances are so dire, and the policy designs of the Left so destructive, that we must adopt a “no enemies to the right” posture.
But no political effort can maintain the discipline and cohesion necessary for civic victory without the ability to maintain philosophical coherence. Gadflies may ensure the coalitional river does not pool and stagnate, but gatekeepers are the ones who ensure the river flows to the actual desired destination.
Without gatekeepers, the whole point of a political effort gets corrupted toward completely different ends.
There was a time when gatekeeping was a straightforward task. Build institutions, discuss and write about ideas, and determine authoritative voices and support them. This was the pattern started by National Review and taken up by so many others. This led to the success of the early conservative movement in the 20th century. But today holds different challenges.
For better or worse, information has now been hyper-democratized. Individuals can hear, read, and believe as they choose on virtually every topic. They can all find someone who will give them exactly what they want. Confirmation bias is now one of the most lucrative business models around. Fame, fortune, relevance … you can have it all if you just give people exactly what they want.
In such circumstances, how does an intellectually serious effort rise and gatekeep itself to maintain consistency, discipline, and legitimacy? How does conservatism maintain itself as something similar to itself in Buckley’s time?
First, we must recognize the failures of those we once took to be the next generation of gatekeepers. Then, we must reckon with the fact that the digital age has created a “year zero” moment in history, a point marking a new beginning in building a movement from the ground up and engaging with rank-and-file members of society in an entirely different manner.
The political ground shifted in 2015 as a seemingly large and affluent conservative movement suddenly switched gears to embrace a host of ideas and behaviors I had thought were outside of conservatism, while jettisoning many clear and precious precepts I thought were beyond question. And, one by one, the gatekeepers succumbed to the zeitgeist. Whatever gatekeeping was attempted either fell flat or was not even attempted.
A surge of populism suddenly held sway over everything. And rather than attempt to maintain coherence, discipline, and consistency, the reply from so many of those I had respected as gatekeepers became, “There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.”
But this sudden devolution of political philosophy is not merely the result of civic cowardice. The reality is that in the online era, there can be no gatekeepers, at least not in the old form. We cannot have a conservative movement in the digital age if we depend upon the old formulation of a few conscious conservatives leading the way for the natural conservatives to follow. If we are going to have a conservative movement in the digital age, we must have a movement where we are all, top to bottom, conscious conservatives.
The role of gatekeeper in this age cannot be one that merely hedges in the margins. It must be one where the very mind of every member of the movement is a philosophical battlefield. These days, you cannot simply tell people what to think. They will rebel and seek out friendlier voices that don’t challenge their assumptions.
Instead, we must endeavor to teach people how to think. We must give them the rhetorical tools to know when they are being patronized, lied to, manipulated, and misled. We must have a movement where intellectualism is not simply for the highbrow and high-minded but the purview of the grassroots and rank-and-file.
REPUBLICANS IN TROUBLE GO ALL IN ON TRUMP SUPPORT
If the political figures of the day cannot be trusted to gatekeep conservatism, then we must be concerned with engaging the American mind at the most basic and fundamental level. The gatekeepers of the movement must become the people themselves. We must alter and adjust the incentive structures so that a principled conservative movement exists beneath, beyond, and separate from those who failed to be our gatekeepers.
Today, a conservative gatekeeper cannot merely be a philosopher and an idealist but must become a teacher who imparts the missing ingredients at the core of the civic rot of our country: reason and rhetoric.
Justin Stapley is a graduate student at Utah Valley University, where he studies constitutional governance, civics, and law. He is also the state director of the Utah Reagan Caucus and writes the Self-Evident Newsletter. @JustinWStapley
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
