THE FOUNDATION OF POPULIST REVOLT, by NC Scout

(NC Scout / American Partisan) Frustration is a common theme among conservatives, and has been for some time. Its certainly understandable, as what draws people to conservativism is a desire for stasis. The ‘system’ works in their favor, more or less, and while they may grumble about the goings on of the day to day affairs of the polis, the social equilibrium remains largely unscathed. Much of what one sees online and elsewhere is reflective of this reality and is, for what several personal friends frequently lament, the reason we rarely saw ‘conservatives’ collectivizing in public forms of protest.

It is equally important, while we’re defining terms, to recognize what the term populism means. Almost exclusively a left-wing connotation, populism is, to the laity, when a people have had enough of the status quo. The proverbial system, the social structure and arching hegemony which provided that stasis of comfort to conservatives, is failing. Populism is a direct reflection of cracks in the ruling hegemony; a challenge to the order of things. The fact that populist revolt is present in a social entity is evidence that not all is well in the body politic. Taken to its extreme, populism seeks revolution; an overthrow of the status quo in lieu of new ideas, new blood, new thinking. Sometimes it works, often times not. It is for these reasons we find the would-be Woody Guthries of the world singing their old Wobbly tunes while asking questions conservatives never thought to ask. The vagabonds, the artists, the drifters; all social outcasts that Merton would label Rebels.

Any social order will maintain a certain level of these types. While the bulk of a social body will have ritualists, also known as ‘normies’, or those who simply move along in their day to day lives, inching closer to death, consuming whatever the hegemony suggests for them, there are also Retreatists (social isolationists who begin as Rebels later aging out of viability) and Innovators. The former are mostly useless, much like cattle watching their lives gone by, although they make claim to the opposite. Innovators are the most interesting, seeing pathways to change within existing systems. Innovators manifest themselves as organizers, leaders, those with charisma. When Innovators are mated to Rebel ideology, revolutions occur.

Most left-wing social theorists quickly dismiss any notion of Right Wing populism. Interestingly, despite academia’s feint pleas of objectivity, there is an unchallenged vein openly encouraging Leftist populism alone. Such a position is ironic. The hallmark of Leftist populism of the Baby Boom generation was its over the top encouragement of social rebellion, maintaining an overarching appeal to rebellion that was taken up by the Innovators and bled into the Ritualists. The Leftist thought was to subvert control of the larger social entity, making communist revolution through the institutions inevitable. That much, subverting the institutions, was indeed successful. But the pitfall of unintended consequences was failing to recognize that which makes one a Rebel. Their own embodiment of natural rebellion of the youth in generations past has placed them at the helm of the structure of power; with its evident failures, coupled with a dystopian reality for the nation’s youth, the spirit of rebellion has now turned on them. Not in all cases public, but nearly all in private.

With every move towards censorship, with every door slammed in the face of the free speech they once so proudly claimed to champion, the fomentation of a new and radical form of Right Wing populism is fomenting. Conventional Marxist doctrine clearly defines a dichotomy within the targeted populace as Revolutionary or Reactionary, also known as Counter-Revolutionary. I disagree on the premise that Revolution itself is a Reactionary measure – to the current social condition, to blatant double standards, to a grim outlook towards a future. Revolutionary struggle, may I remind the reader, is generational, not immediate.

This of course brings us to the present state of praxis in the United States. It can no longer be debated that the Left, in fomenting such a grim prospect for a future, have moved much of the traditional support base towards the Right; what was once taken for granted, the divisions along race, class and geographic location, have now been muddied to the point of high toxicity. Even some of the most ardent supporters of the Left are recognizing the current error in strategy. This should not be confused with a shift in ideology, but rather the fact that they are warming up to the idea that they are losing the youth and in extreme numbers. The new counter-culture, the new act of rebellion, is found in wearing a MAGA hat and waving a Trump flag. Never mind the man himself; he’s simply a figurehead, a symbol, of a populist storm born in youthful rebellion. Such things, when stifled enough, tend to turn more radical. Such is looking to become the case.

Often conservatives, comfortable in their stations in life yet concerned about the direction of society lament loudly that there’s never any action, that nothing changes, that the Left seemingly gains ground with no abatement in the great cultural war on for the American spirit. They do so quite from the comfort of their homes, entertained, with bellies full and enjoying the rewards of a social order which benefits them. Citing outward cultural cues they cannot comprehend let alone understand, many simply dismiss the youthful embodiment of Right Wing populism fomenting before their very eyes. It is not surprising. They do not have a frame of reference to understand that this brand of populism is the 1960s counter-culture in reverse. The kids are not alright.

If the foundation of populism is revolt through recognition of inequity among society’s goals, then late Millennials and Generation Z certainly qualify. Raised on propaganda designed to beat down and oppress them, festering in the last decade to open disenfranchisement based on genetic factors outside their own control – straight white males need not apply, as we’re told – the social psychology in reaction becomes embodiment of these facts, across the board, applied to everyone. If everything is racist, nothing becomes racist. The more genders, the stronger becomes the desire for traditionalism. The harder the push for globalism, the stronger the vein of nationalism. The foundation of populist revolt becomes live and loud, seeking to capitalize on the outrage is causes among the older brokers of power. Being constantly force-fed a diet of dystopianism being attributed to they and they alone as the cause, populist culture of protest quickly gives way to populist revolt. It is an age old concept, previously visited often in entertainment aimed at the young. Hollywood has long abandoned the Spicolis and Marty McFly tropes of the 1980s…now you know why.

Conservatives, to a great detriment, are quick to latch on to an answer, any answer, they deem palatable enough to swallow without much digestion. I like what that man has to say, they proclaim, doing little else to further encompass praxis and thus useful action. Someone must lead us! they cry, reflecting on the threat they observe to their comfort. A return to normalcy is what they seek, whatever that is meant to be, turning the clock back to bygone eras in an effort to recapture a time where it seemed the social order functioned at its best. A type of mid-life crisis, applied to a large scale. But in doing so, they’re failing to embrace that very real populism that is manifesting before their very eyes. It is not a return they’re after, its a revolt given way to revolution. Most lack the capability to see it much to their own consternation.

In failing that last point; the non-recognition of a populist revolt in its infancy; Conservatives may be making a critical error. With each dismissal of an already volatile and reactionary youth, the legacy of the works of greats such as William Buckley begin to fade into obscurity. The fiery exchanges between he and Gore Vidal would do much today to process the nonsensical arguments concerning the morality of gender and sexuality. Absent this foundation, Conservatism must then begin anew, losing its soul, having conserved nothing and failed to provide its most basic principle – a coherent answer countering the lies of liberalism. It is not looking to the shortcomings of any one politician, but rather embracing the revolt and revolution by their very presence. Such a position is one of long sight, a long term strategy, and one that outlives those laying its foundation.