The article highlights a crucial, often overlooked, aspect of American political discourse: the disconnect between the right-wing intellectual elite and the broader American public. While criticisms of liberals being out of touch are common, the author argues that a similar, if not more impactful, detachment exists within conservative circles, particularly in the age of Donald Trump. This detachment stems from the creation of distinct "bubbles" within conservative thought, warping their perception of America.
The first bubble arises from the underrepresentation of conservatives in influential knowledge-producing industries such as journalism, academia, law, and technology. Conservatives in these fields often feel marginalized and perceive a heightened level of social power held by the left, leading to a distorted view of the overall American landscape.
The second bubble emerges as a reaction to the perceived left-wing dominance, fostering insular spaces where conservatives primarily interact with each other, reinforcing their shared sense of being under threat. Prominent examples of these spaces include Fox News and the Federalist Society, alongside various informal gatherings, think tanks, and online communities.
While ideological movements engaging in internal discussions are not inherently problematic, the author cautions against the dangers of groupthink and the tendency to caricature opposing viewpoints within these closed-off environments. Such tendencies, the author contends, are increasingly prevalent within the right-wing bubble, leading to a skewed understanding of the country.
This skewed understanding manifests in a narrative prevalent among right-wing intellectuals that American culture and society have become fundamentally hostile to conservatives. This narrative frames the embrace of Trumpian authoritarianism as a defensive response against a perceived all-powerful cultural left seeking to erase conservatives.
The author emphasizes that this narrative diverges significantly from the reality of America, where evangelical Christians constitute the largest religious group, the Supreme Court holds a 6-3 conservative majority, and Donald Trump secured the presidency twice. Yet, this distorted image has taken root among right-wing elites, fueled by their experiences within left-leaning professions and amplified by the echo chambers they have created.
The article argues that while this right-wing "doomerism" may have initially seemed like a fringe phenomenon, it is now shaping policy in critical areas under the second Trump administration. This influence is evident in sectors ranging from immigration to education to science and foreign policy, where right-wing actors are implementing policies rooted in their distorted worldview.
The author points out that journalism and academia, the primary fields for professional political commentators, are indeed dominated by liberals and leftists. Conservatives in these fields may experience feelings of discomfort or being unwelcome. However, the author cautions against the leap some conservatives make, equating the ideological culture of the university with the ideological culture of America as a whole.
The author specifically cites Patrick Deneen’s book, "Regime Change," as an example of this flawed reasoning. Deneen, a prominent Trump-aligned intellectual, argues that American society is being corrupted by left-wing forces originating in universities. He characterizes universities as institutions advancing a new form of despotism, shaping the worldviews of the managerial ruling class, who then disseminate these ideas throughout various sectors of society.
The author acknowledges Deneen’s personal experiences of feeling alienated within academia, including his denial of tenure at Princeton and his departure from Georgetown. However, the author rejects Deneen’s portrayal of America as a "giant faculty lounge," arguing that it is a caricature that does not reflect reality.
Despite its analytical flaws, "Regime Change" has resonated with many like-minded thinkers on the right, including Michael Anton, who views those who acknowledge the perceived damage caused by the left as being on the "right" side of the divide.
The article underscores that there are concrete institutions and networks, such as the Claremont Institute, where individuals share this sense of being under cultural attack by the left-wing elite. Within these spaces, extreme views of America as being controlled by a liberal plot are not dismissed as caricatures but are instead seen as accurate descriptions of contemporary life.
In this environment, it becomes normalized to perceive right-wing Americans as being on the verge of extinction. The author cites an essay by Claremont fellow Glenn Ellmers, who argues that most people living in the United States are not Americans in any meaningful sense and advocates for a "counter-revolution," potentially a violent one.
The author emphasizes that Ellmers’s essay reflects the radicalism that permeates right-wing intellectual spaces and that these ideas are now influencing policy decisions. This influence is partly due to the presence of individuals from the right-wing intellectual bubble in positions of power, such as JD Vance as vice president, Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, and Michael Anton in a top position at the State Department.
The author also cites specific policy examples, such as Hegseth’s focus on culture war issues at the Pentagon, Beattie’s internal inquiry into the political activities of State Department staff, and the preoccupation with defunding and dismantling America’s elite universities. The author attributes the Trump administration’s approach to higher education to Chris Rufo, who believes that America has been poisoned by New Left radicals in the faculty lounge and calls for a "counter-revolution" against the left.
The article concludes by highlighting the dangers of intellectual isolation and the need for right-wing thinkers to engage with a more accurate representation of the country. The author suggests that the distortion of reality within the right-wing bubble is leading to harmful policies and exacerbating divisions within American society.
