Why You Should “Punch Right”

There are very fine people on both sides

In the comments to my article on the Dissident Right, Anthony Davis left a reply that reads in part:

Dave sees you as ending up like a Steven Pinker, treading water while being ultimately unable to advance any projects past a certain point due to dominate leftwing control, while continually enacting out your part in a psychodrama, by undermining who you see as low status right-wing figures, who are the people trying to find a way to exist outside of the dominant left-wing frame you are a participant in (and whose "punch right" norms you are reinforcing, and reinforced in your post).

And Dave, of course, being one of those people trying to find an alternative way to be in the world, would like you to stop.

I responded like this.

The reason I attack right-wingers who are dumb, and some not so dumb, is that I was once one of them and I feel that many people who follow me are sympathetic to dumb collectivist right-wing ideas. So I want people not to adopt those ideas, and can potentially influence them.

The "punch right" thing makes no sense because, again, I don't agree with these people. Should I pretend to be pro-life? Or not attack pro-lifers, even though I think it's an awful view to hold? Why should I have a philosophy of not criticizing people who I think are wrong because they call themselves "right" instead of "left"?

He replied with another comment, which again is quite long so I’ll just quote the last few sentences.

Absolutely do your own thing, and stand by your beliefs, but just as a white liberal male will never have a place in DEI America, regardless of how much self-deprecation of white masculinity he engages in; you and your ideas will never have a place in progressive America, regardless of how much self-deprecation of right-wing American thought you engage in. You are (for better or for worse) positioned where your ideas attract people "sympathetic to dumb collectivist right-wing ideas" and that's not likely to change regardless of how much you try to punch them a little to the left for holding dumb ideas.

You end up with a delegitimized right, and an emboldened left sharpening it's knives, that believes in canceling you (and every other right winger) for your crimes against their ideology. That's what Dave is concerned about.

Go here if you want to read the entire conversation.

Unlike the original piece by Dave Greene, in which it was hard to discern an argument, here I think I understand more where the guy is coming from.

The argument is leftists don’t like me, which is true, many want to cancel me, and my ideas will have no place in a left-wing America. Therefore, I have an obligation to not delegitimize the right and just work on helping it win.

I’m responding to these comments because I think they illustrate how Dissident Right or NRx thinking is often muddled. There are several assumptions here worth questioning, among them,

1. There will one day be a time when the American right or left achieves complete victory.

2. The left cannot influence the right or vice versa. All each side can do is hope to beat the other in a zero-sum contest.

3. “Right” and “left” have consistent natures, so much so that I don’t have to worry about what these terms will mean in 30 years.

4. My politics should be based on who will “have a place” for Richard Hanania, whatever that means

First, let’s set aside the idea that my politics should be based purely on material self-interest. It’s not even clear that a right-wing victory would be best from that perspective. Sometimes a political triumph by one side leads to more money and resources going to their opponents, in the way that many liberal organizations became flush with cash in the Trump era. The rise of wokeness created the job category of anti-woke influencer. This is not at all unusual. There was perhaps a time when there was an existential threat to free thinking intellectuals in that leftists were trying to censor the internet, but then Substack was founded and Elon Musk bought Twitter, and total cancellation is no longer a serious possibility for almost anyone who is not a complete lunatic, besides Uncle Jared unfortunately. Sometimes there are problems that exist and then get solved, and this was one of those cases.

But anyway, I don’t think anyone is telling me I should pick my views based on material self-interest alone. If the comment above is referring to the influence of my ideas rather than career success, the argument isn’t much better. There is not going to be a day of ultimate victory for the left or right. No matter what, we will live in a country in which both sides will have a great deal of influence indefinitely into the future. This is because what we call conservatism and liberalism reflect beliefs and modes of thought that appeal to many of your fellow Americans, and have institutional leadership and support.

Given this fact, we all have a shared interest in working towards a world where each side is the best version of itself, and some important norms continue to hold. We can see throughout history that right and left change over time. The Democrats and Republicans are different parties than they were 20 years ago, and both will undergo many more changes in the years ahead. I therefore consider it worthwhile to, for example, try to reduce the influence of pro-lifers within conservatism, particularly in a world of rapidly advancing biotechnology. At the same time, if the left cares about redistribution, I see it as a worthwhile project to try and get them to focus on direct transfers over market distorting policies like support for labor unions. An America where it’s Paul Ryan versus Jared Polis is better than one where the fight is between JD Vance and Elizabeth Warren.

In fact, some of the figures in American life I find most odious, like Catholic traditionalists and Josh Hawley, are considered to be on the right. If in the coming years they gain the upper hand within conservatism, I don’t know what the point of “winning” would even be.

It’s true that I have more influence on the right, and this in fact does impact what I decide to write about. This is why I publish many essays on things like why pro-life is bad politics and the Dissident Right gets a lot wrong about the world. There’s less reason to criticize leftists, who are not as likely to read me anyway. That said, my influence on leftists is not zero, and there’s more to what I’m doing than seeking to directly impact people specifically working in politics or government. Good ideas can reach individuals in business, tech, media, and the arts, and one doesn’t create a healthier culture by only criticizing those who are on one side of our main political divide.

One last point, and this is something I think Dissident Right types are temperamentally ill-suited to understand, is that a zero-sum mentality can make both sides worse off. Each tribe is constantly reshaping its identity in reaction to what the other is doing. I’m convinced that it was all the gloating about the browning of America that empowered alt right ideas and cleared the path for Trump’s 2016 campaign centered around white grievance, and Republicans adopting identitarian views on immigration worked to make wokeness worse after he was elected. My point now isn’t to tell people what they should think about immigration, rather it’s that this story only shows how there is always a dynamic process unfolding through which what is happening on one side influences the other. The implication here is that one question conservatives need to ask themselves is what kind of liberalism or wider culture they are helping to create through their own actions, like when they come to openly support corruption. The same is of course true for the other side. When reading Dissident Right or Trumpist types, I’ve noticed a tendency to portray everyone they consider to be on the left as a rabid monster constantly charging at the same speed and in the same direction. This is maybe the correct attitude towards Portland antifa activists and Critical Race Theorists, but not Hollywood or the Democratic Party.

Finally, a note on vibes and aesthetics. When I hear arguments not to “punch right,” I interpret that as a call for everyone to become an apologist for stupidity, corruption, and weakness. The people listening to Alex Jones should determine whether I broach the topic of vaccines as long as they’re “on the right” in some fundamental sense. I’ve always been disgusted with individuals in academia and journalism who know better but go along with wokeness. Yet the same people who are able to clearly recognize moral failings in their opponents demand their own version of conformity and going along to get along. We have seen where such an attitude leads through what has happened on the left. Only criticizing one side is actually the safest way to build an audience, and I have a deep dislike of how certain people have made a virtue of not “punching right” and pretending that they are taking some kind of brave stand when it is in their self interest not to anger anyone their ideas might appeal to.

Going out of your way not to offend members of your own coalition is fine in politics. But for an intellectual to behave the same way is a betrayal of the entire enterprise. If you want to do politics, go do politics. I’ve never begrudged those who do. My calling is to tell the truth.