The Meaning of Political Philosophy
Editor's Note
The cold civil war in which we are now embroiled is a conflict between two irreconcilable understandings of what this nation is and ought to be. This conflict, and its dangers, are very real, and will continue to play out in the political and material realms. But it is at root a philosophical struggle. This makes the command of political philosophy a vital need for the generals and soldiers on the winning side. Tom recently interviewed the political philosopher Glenn Ellmers on this and a range of other pressing topics. Their conversation, conducted via correspondence, is available below.
Klingenstein: What is political philosophy?
Ellmers: It has two parts: the philosophic study of politics, and the political study of philosophy. The second one means that the human things are always the gateway to thinking about abstract ideas like truth, being, the nature of reality, etc. We can leave that aside. The other meaning — the philosophic study of politics — involves bringing some understanding of “the big picture” to the issues and controversies of the day.
For example, if we want to know why the United States seems to be in a crisis, why we are so divided, it helps to know something about human nature, about what the great thinkers have said about justice and morality, about natural rights and where they come from, and about the relationship between the individual and society. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in old books on these questions. The hard part is figuring out how to apply this wisdom to a practical plan of action.
Klingenstein: Why does it matter? How does it affect electoral politics? That is, why do we need political philosophers?
Ellmers: Anyone who has been paying the slightest attention knows that America has not been this divided since the Civil War. We’ve come a long way since the golden age of Reagan, and we have to move past nostalgia and acknowledge the new reality. Our differences are no longer about simple matters like taxes and regulations (although those things matter). We disagree not only about the role of government, but about whether America is fundamentally good or fundamentally bad. Yet even those subjects don’t get at the root of the problem. I’ve argued that the Left — the intellectual class that promotes woke ideology — has come to reject the very idea of human nature. This is about as fundamental as you can get.
There is a long and interesting story about how the Left got to this point, which can be traced to modern philosophy becoming more and more radical. Again, it is extremely useful, practically speaking, to study these matters. The point is that, apart from the apolitical or undecided people in the middle, we have two diametrically opposed factions in the United States today — whose differences are basically theological. One side still believes in traditional morality and the importance of the family, in the founder’s Constitution, and the idea that we are born into a world we didn’t create and can’t completely control. That is a world governed by the laws of nature and nature’s God, which means we are limited and guided by human nature, which is fixed.
The woke Leftists reject all that in the name of complete individual freedom and total personal autonomy, without any limits imposed by God or nature or anything else. The role of the government, for them, is to facilitate the ability of everyone to meet their own subjective view of personal fulfillment. The whole architecture of racial grievances, group preferences, and white privilege is directed to removing the barriers imposed by racism, western colonialism, toxic masculinity, etc., which stand in the way of complete personal autonomy.
This deep, theological division is not confined to the United States. Look at the recent opening ceremony at the Paris Olympics. It included a mockery of the Last Supper, with drag queens and transvestites standing in for Jesus and the Apostles. And there was a rider “on a pale horse” — a clear celebration of death from the Book of Revelation. This had nothing to do with sports or athletics, so what was the point? Why do the Olympics have to become a celebration of radical sexual autonomy?
How you respond to this will depend on which basic view of the world you have. And this division — between the older morality and the new celebration of unbounded personal expression — can be seen all over the world. There is an emerging global elite, motivated by a radical ideology, that wants to eliminate the rule of the people in every nation. This is the great battle of our time.
By the way, this isn’t just a matter of symbolism. Laws, policies, regulations — even the possibility of getting into a foreign war — all follow from which view of the world is in control of the government and the leading institutions of society.
Klingenstein: I assume everyone carries around a political philosophy but doesn’t know it, and so doesn’t know how it affects their view of things.
Ellmers: Yes, I think that’s right.
I already laid out some of the basic differences in the two “philosophies” or basic outlooks. I think people on the Right are generally more self-aware, more conscious of their assumptions, for a variety of reasons. People on the Left are in more of a bubble, because so much of the media, popular culture, schools, and other institutions of “acceptable opinion” are dominated by woke orthodoxy. Liberals are much less exposed to contrary points of view, compared to conservatives.
Related to this, the whole leftist outlook is premised on the assumption that their views are simply the default truth, and so they don’t even need to defend or explain their opinions. They are convinced they are on “the right side of History.” As “progressives,” they are enlightened, while conservatives are simply evil or backwards. Bill Buckley had a great line years ago: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
More recently, the sociologist Jonathan Haidt has shown that whereas conservatives can easily make liberal arguments for a given policy issue, liberals don’t know or can’t articulate what the conservative position is; they are literally unable to put themselves in the shoes of someone with a contrary viewpoint. This difference has its roots in certain aspects of modern philosophy, such as Hegel’s belief in the rational state and the End of History. So again, political philosophy is very helpful.
Klingenstein: Claremont folks, unlike most in the conservative movement, favored Trump early. They still are more favorably disposed than most conservatives. What is it about Claremont thinking that explains this?
Ellmers: Well, we are students of American history, and so we are aware of how tumultuous and often violent American politics has always been — starting from our founding in a Revolution, then the Whiskey Rebellion, the extremely nasty election of 1800, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Civil War of course, the bombings by communists and anarchists in the 1920s, and other such episodes. So we are less likely to be alarmed or surprised by things. The hysteria about Trump as the Orange Hitler mostly comes from people who live very sheltered lives in comfortable suburbs, and have almost no conception of how chaotic politics usually is — around the world, and in our own history.
We are also students of… get ready for it: political philosophy! We’ve studied in some detail the origins of the modern bureaucratic or administrative state, where it came from, how it rejects the principles of the founders’ constitutionalism, and what a serious threat it poses, both politically and intellectually. Trump is the only politician since Richard Nixon to confront this problem directly. (Reagan was, necessarily, preoccupied with winning the Cold War.)
Put these two together, and I’d say the scholars at the Claremont Institute are less likely to blow Trump’s vices out of proportion, and more likely to appreciate his important virtues.
Klingenstein: Is our regime totalitarian, emerging or otherwise? What makes it so? How far along are we? Can we fight back?
Ellmers: I think the essay that Ted Richards and I wrote for your website, and the several excellent responses that you published, cover this pretty well.
Klingenstein: How much can Trump fix it?
Ellmers: Very hard to say. Showing up, as they say, is half the battle. Or, as you have noted, the first step in winning a war is to know that you are in one. Trump knows this. He has to keep making the case to the American people that they are true sovereigns, and the arrogant ruling class is illegitimate. The outrageous incompetence of the Secret Service, which failed to prevent the attempted assassination of President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, is a good way to remind people that our so-called experts have no expertise. These bureaucrats are mostly blowhards, grifters, and phonies.
I agree with Trump’s decision not to talk any more about how he was almost murdered, but incoming Vice President Vance should… a lot. In fact, I hope that Trump will continue to do what he does best as president — using his wit and populist rhetoric and negotiating skills to good effect — while the vice president’s office acts as the day-to-day juggernaut that ruthlessly dismantles the administrative state.
Klingenstein: Will Trump win? What does it depend on? If you were his political consultant, what would you advise him to do?
Ellmers: I think he will win by a significant margin — too big, as people are saying, for the Democrats to steal. My friend Jim Piereson, writing in The New Criterion, has predicted that Trump will win the popular vote by six points, take all the swing states, and get 339 electoral votes. That sounds right to me.
He seems to have been changed somewhat since he nearly took a bullet to the head. I would encourage him to remain upbeat and positive.
Klingenstein: What will happen if Trump is elected in 2024?
Ellmers: Again, hard to say. Of course the Left will launch its resistance campaign, but I don’t think anyone knows how much support it will have outside the radical fringe. Some of my friends think I’m too optimistic, but I suspect that some energy and panache has gone out of protesting and rioting since the 2020 Summer of Left-wing Love. There will still be violence by Antifa and others, but I don’t think it will have the same mainstream support. And we should not discount the anger the hard Left will direct at the Democrat party. The media and the Beltway establishment really screwed up this election by lying about Biden, and I think the radicals will not take kindly to having their agenda thwarted by the complacency and arrogance of the Democrat’s leadership.
Klingenstein: Is Vance MAGA? Is he the right choice for VP? He abhorred Trump before he lauded him. Does this make you hesitate?
Ellmers: It’s extremely important that Trump 1) went outside the decrepit establishment and picked someone who will help him fight the Beltway blob head-on; and 2) picked someone young and energetic who can carry on the MAGA agenda. That means Trump is thinking long-term. It was a good choice.
Klingenstein: What would Lincoln think of Trump?
He would appreciate Trump’s sense of humor, his tremendous courage, and his impressive stamina and determination. He might also give Trump some good advice about rhetorical self-control. (Lincoln was a master of knowing what not to say and when not to speak.) I think he would be amazed at what a tough challenge Trump faces, which is in some ways more difficult and more complicated than the situation prior to the Civil War.
Klingenstein: Is there a way in which the current disruptions in American politics are good or necessary?
Ellmers: They aren’t good, but they may be necessary. We can’t continue the way we’ve been going. No country can survive on this trajectory. But we have reached a point where it isn’t even possible to have a reasonable discussion about the common good.
A substantial portion of Americans — no one knows exactly what percentage — has become totally irrational. They are on a holiday from reality, and it is useless trying to reason with them. Another segment of the population goes along with all the woke nonsense because it’s fashionable, or because of social pressure to conform. I don’t know what will happen to the true believers when their delusions fall apart, but it won’t be pretty. As for the others, their attachment to various woke pieties could evaporate very rapidly in the face of a serious crisis, such as a financial crash, a disruption in the food supply, or a foreign war. People will forget all about their “pronouns” the moment the electricity grid has a meltdown, or access to food or medical care becomes rationed.
Klingenstein: I think the central idea of the current revolution is group quotas. Is that right?
Ellmers: Well, Tom, you and I have had several interesting conversations about this. You are right that race is central to the whole Leftist outlook and its political agenda. But I don’t think it captures everything. As I mentioned earlier, I think the rejection of human nature is the key theoretical or philosophical principle for them. That is what unites late-term abortion and gender reassignment surgery for kids, radical environmentalism, social engineering to achieve perfect racial and gender equity, endless government programs to cure poverty, defunding the police, the complete breakdown in law and order in places like San Francisco, and all the rest. But I admit that this is not easy to explain, nor can it be captured in a memorable phrase or slogan.
Klingenstein: Some think America is mostly an idea. Others think America is mostly a particular culture. Vance seems to fall in the latter camp. True? What are the political ramifications of this distinction?
Ellmers: America is both creed and culture, and I think if you read Vance’s convention speech carefully, that is what he said. America is based on an idea, but it is not only an idea. Larry Arnn had a nice piece in the Wall Street Journal recently explaining this very well.
Klingenstein: East Coast vs. West Coast Straussians. Does this distinction matter? Harvey Mansfield, an East Coast Straussian, is a god in the conservative movement. His limitations?
Ellmers: In some ways, it matters less and less, as we now get into the third and fourth generation of Strauss students. There are still important differences or disagreements about what Strauss taught and what he was trying to accomplish. Those debates will continue, and I think they are healthy.
Klingenstein: Why did you write your book on Jaffa? If one had one Jaffa essay to read today, what would it be?
Ellmers: Jaffa was the first, and still the most important (in my view), scholar to apply the serious study of political philosophy to understanding America.
As for a favorite essay, I can’t pick one. Can I mention three? His long essay on Aristotle’s Politics is a classic that will always be instructive. “Can There Be Another Winston Churchill?” is both deeply philosophical and a great cause of optimism, reminding us that nothing in human life is predetermined. Jaffa’s essay on “Shakespeare’s Moral Universe” is a masterpiece, which also contains great political lessons.
Klingenstein: You wrote on Foucault. Why is he important? One essay to read?
Ellmers: Foucault shows us how to think about social science in the modern world — a world in which the ruling class is no longer shaped by Aristotle, Shakespeare, and John Locke, but is dominated by the thought of Nietzsche and Heidegger (or, rather, their second– and third–rate imitators). Although he is hard to read, Foucault shows what modern, anonymous, technocratic tyranny looks like, how it operates, and the insidious ways it perpetuates itself. His Tanner Lectures from 1979 are a good place to start.
Klingenstein: Can you explain quickly, and in lay terms, how the tension between Hegel and Nietzsche (rational state vs. postmodernism) helps us understand and think about what’s happening today?
Ellmers: Hegel defended the idea of the cosmopolitan, rational state, run by specially trained experts. That’s one major influence on the Left. The other is Nietzsche, who famously proclaimed the “will to power.” Nietzsche was the grandfather of postmodernism and even an inspiration for our passionate tribal politics.
These are contradictory impulses, which I discuss in my book The Narrow Passage. One review of the book called this the tension between “Fauci-ism” (after the guy who thought the CDC should give orders to the president) and “Floyd-ism” — since George Floyd was the inspiration for the anarchic riots that tore down statues and monuments. The problem for the Left is that, if you want to rule people without their consent in the name of superior technical education, it’s hard to simultaneously attack science as white hegemony. At some point, people will notice that the postmodern rejection of truth doesn’t jibe with “follow the science.” I don’t know when this will become clear to people, but it is a problem for the woke ruling class.
Klingenstein: What did the founders think of Trump-style populism?
Ellmers: They were opposed to demagoguery, but Trump is not a demagogue. He could have an easy, comfortable retirement playing golf all day. Instead, he is risking his life and putting in grueling days on the campaign trail. He has nothing to gain personally, so the only explanation is that he really wants to save the country from imminent collapse. The founders admired and exemplified such self-sacrificing patriotism and thought the country depends on it.
As for populism, that’s become a loaded word. But don’t forget that the whole point of the American Revolution was to establish the sovereignty of the people. We are not supposed to have a privileged aristocracy in this country. If populism means the people have the right to alter or abolish government, rather than the government altering and abolishing the people, then the founders were populists.
Klingenstein: I’d like to ask you about prudence. Is it ever prudent to favor the imprudent? Is Trump prudent?
Ellmers: Prudence may sometimes look imprudent. It is the virtue par excellence of statesmanship, and statesmanship is very hard to judge in the moment. Lincoln and Churchill were extremely controversial in their time (and, to some degree, still are today). The most prudent course of action can often only be appreciated in hindsight. I’ll just add that the classical definition of prudence is doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way. That means only the person making the decision on the spot, who has all the relevant information, can judge what to do. Bottom line: I give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
Klingenstein: Some conservatives have morphed into never-Trumpers, though. Bill Kristol is most prominent among them. How come?
Ellmers: I have nothing to say about Bill Kristol that is fit to be printed.