THEY'RE GOING TO PUT US IN CAMPS

Sorry, I can't let this subject go.

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent read the New York Times Magazine piece I wrote about last night -- "ambitious," he calls it -- and he set out to interview members of the "genuine intellectual movement taking shape behind" what he regards as a "challenge to the GOP" being led by Tucker Carlson and Peter Thiel's candidates for the Senate, J.D. Vance and Blake Masters. Sargent, who's usually smarter than this, takes these folks very, very seriously as Deep Thinkers.

Sargent asked his interviewees:

If you got your dream president and Congress in 2025, what are the first things they should do?

The interviewees don't seem as if they're mounting a serious challenge to the GOP at all. The threat they pose is to the Republican Party's usual enemies -- especially immigrants and people who don't live in traditional heterosexual nuclear families.

First, there's National Review's Nate Hochman a "national conservative."

His chosen president and Congress would dramatically reduce legal immigration, cutting way down on asylum seekers and refugees. He’d pursue industrial policy such as government incentives for multinational corporations to end manufacturing abroad and punitive actions toward companies that do business in China.

But this nationalism would be paired with robust state power to fight the culture wars. Hochman favors continued state bans on the teaching of critical race theory, and he wants the federal government to aggressively incentivize the formation and health of “traditional” families. That includes policies many Republicans oppose, such as paid family leave and near-universal tax credits for children without work requirements for parents.

I love the "But" that begins the second paragraph. It suggests a stark contrast where what follows is actually more of exactly the same. Yes, Hochman hates immigrants and the Chinese -- but, shockingly, he's also a right-wing culture warrior!

The only thing here that's a mild challenge to Republican orthodoxy is the support for paid family leave and child tax credits. But it doesn't matter. There won't be a Republican majority for these policies anytime in the foreseeable future, and once Republican congressional leaders regain majorities in the House and Senate, they'll use the Hastert rule and other procedures to ensure that no bill ever comes to the floor unless it has a majority of Republican support, even if the bill's sponsors could put together a majority by making common cause with Democrats. So, for instance, future Speaker Kevin McCarthy won't let a small number of "national conservative" Republicans and a large number of Democrats get together to push through a paid family leave bill. It just won't happen.

Meanwhile, we have immigrant-bashing, China-bashing, and the valorization of "traditional" families. That last one will come up a lot, as you'll see.

Next, there's Gladden Pappin.

Pappin, a post-liberal, told me it should be “the policy of the United States” — of the federal government — to “enable the traditional family” to “flourish at the heart of society.” This would include a “nationally instituted family wage” and the state “defending” the “traditional” family in other ways.

Sargent knows what's on your mind as you read this.

You’d think this might lead in an ugly direction, such as going much further in criminalizing certain types of sexual conduct deemed to undermine “traditional” family formation.

Yes, you would, wouldn't you? But not to worry!

... when pressed, Pappin insisted he doesn’t envision coercive policies. Instead, the underlying idea is that people are naturally inclined toward such family formation, so the state should incentivize them to get there.

Oh, I see. People are naturally inclined to find a heterosexual spouse and lots of kiddies, with wifey staying home as God intended. And if you don't want that? No incentives for you! You're a second-class citizen!

Next?

... consider Saurabh Sharma, whose organization, American Moment, is a training ground for policy talent for future administrations. Its top priority is that “the American family, rooted in faith and tradition, is the bedrock of this nation and must be supported.”

This typical conservative extolment of the family is fused with aggressive nationalism. Sharma would implement a 10-year moratorium on all legal immigration to allow immigrants currently here to culturally assimilate, and aggressively bring back global supply chains.

At the top of the piece, Sargent tells us, "This movement is complicated and has various strains," but it seems to have only one strain: a strain that hates immigrants and regards LGBT people, working women, and the childless as bad Americans.

So there's Patrick Deneen:

Deneen wants a president and Congress to model family policies on those of Hungary, which invests extensive resources in incentivizing “traditional” family formation.

Hungary! Drink!

Deneen wants “substantial” federal and state support for mothers of young children, and if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, that would be even better: An end to abortion rights would be seen not just as inherently good, but also the foundation for the state to aggressively promote larger families.

No more abortion, so you sex maniacs will have to either keep your legs closed or have lots and lots of babies! We've moved past Viktor Orban all the way to Ceausescu.

But this is still America, right? There can't really be a legal crackdown on those who live in non-traditional ways, can there? Folks, meet Adrian Vermeule.

An integralist, Vermeule doesn’t identify as a member of the right or a policy expert. He envisions a “common good constitutionalism,” a jurisprudence granting great leeway to deploying the state toward realizing the “common good.”

Judges would be more prone to uphold, say, bans on certain speech and conduct that lawmakers decide would serve the common good. In Vermeule’s vision, judges would grant public authorities a “substantial zone of deference” in determining what morally benefits the whole populace and in legislating against what they deem “corrosive social practices.”

"Corrosive social practices": I'm sure this sounded better in the original German.

This is not an intellectual movement, and it's not a challenge to Republicanism -- it's incipient fascism, and it's been a logical endpoint to Republicanism for more than half a century. Maybe it won't lead to extermination camps for those who reject the "natural," "traditionalist" path and who stubbornly continue to engage in "corrosive social practices," but I hope we never find out.