Read on Twitter
It’s interesting to see two types of traditionalists. One is the standard traditionalist which prefers aristocratic elite rule and politics of prudence (and only sometimes procedure). These are best represented by Russell Kirk, Chesterton, and Burke. But...
there’s another type of traditionalist, who I’ll call a neotraditionalist, or neotrad for short. The neotrad, in contrast to the original traditionalist, utilized tradition as a tool of cultural critique against modernity. These are best represented by Lasch, Macintyre, and Novak
The neotraditionalist is opposed to the traditionalist insofar as they dismiss proceduralism, prudence, and reform in favor of direct action, populism, and even revolution. Tradition is the tool used to rally the community for a neotrad, while a “paleotrad” will value tradition
for reasons such as “it’s best to err on the side of caution”, a hatred of mass movements, a Burkean argument about the test of time, and a preference for reform and working in a system rather than creating new systems. The divide isn’t truly binary: there’s a lot of overlap here
For instance, many reactionaries would lie in both camps. De Maistre and Donoso Cortes both have qualities and ideas that would put them in both camps of paleotrad and neotrad. I bring this up to highlight a differences I see in a lot of the RW movement across the world. It’s the
reason why much of the French aristocracy despised Action Francaise (paleotrads hating the populist mass movement of the neotrads), the hatred interwar Conservative Revolutionaries had towards the German aristocracy (neotrads hating the inaction of paleotrads), and even...
NeverTrumpers hating Trump (paleotrad angry at the populism of the neotrad). In essence, the paleotrad sees tradition as a science that naturally develops and also favors old elite rule and scorns the masses (Kirk once wrote that populism is the enemy of conservatism), while the
neotrad sees tradition as an applied science that should be actively countering modernity on the behalf of the people, whose lives can only be improved with the wisdom of tradition, which usually manifests through populism (but also through a charismatic elite ruler). I’m
reminded of the Southern Agrarian Robert Penn Warren (the staunch conservative who championed Southern mores against industrialization) and his loathing of Huey Long, who he derided as a dictator that ignored the Constitution and traditional rights in favor of direct action.
It’s also why I’m intrigued at how Mishima and Houellebecq, despite not being traditional conservatives, are revived by the right wing and reactionaries. They’re neotrads that despise modernity and want genuine community through tradition, but not in the form of old elites.
A lot of this can be booked down to the difference of form, since paleotrads and neotrads can actually agree on a lot of the same ideas and content. And as mentioned previously these differences are blurred in practice, and could even be based on temperament. It’s said that
right wingers have a different temperament than left wingers, but I don’t think that’s true. Anyone can be right wing, but being a paleotrad or neotrad may come down to behavior and temperament in how one approaches tradition. The most successful right wing movements have
a unity of both elements in my opinion. These aren’t necessarily irreconcilable differences either. I may have gotten some of this analysis wrong, since this difference between paleotrad and neotrad is hard to articulate, but it’s noticeable. Let me know what you think
