There is a tension within the Right that is rarely discussed in depth. On the one hand, there is a longing for order, tradition and stability. On the other hand, there is a pull towards adventure, the unknown, and things that break the mould. It is not a bug — it is a feature. But it is a feature that the Right rarely embraces or even reflects upon.
The most common contradictions within the Right are usually described as:
- Freedom versus authority — libertarians versus traditionalists
- Free market versus protectionism — market liberals versus the populist right
- Globalism versus nationalism — free trade versus sovereignty
- The individual versus the community — personal freedom versus social duty
But there are other areas where different ideas coexist.
The Right’s love of the family is well known. The small unit — father, mother, child — is seen as the foundation of society. And to some extent it has been, far back in history. Even though the modern nuclear family is a fairly recent phenomenon. Before industrialisation, most people lived in extended families, in multi-generational households, sometimes with employees and servants. The extended family was an economic unit, not just an emotional one.
In parts of the Christian Right, this idea lives on. People talk of the family as a ‘little church’, of the father’s leadership, of the woman’s calling, of children as a gift. There is a beauty in this — a warmth and a sense of security that many lack in modern, fragmented society. But there is also a blind spot. Not everyone fits into the mould. Not everyone thrives within it. And this is where the Right finds itself caught in its own crossfire.
The other extreme — living in a collective — also has deep roots in conservative thought. Monasteries, orders, military units. Männerbund — the male community celebrated by Ernst Jünger and other conservative thinkers. The idea that men need a space outside the home, a sense of duty, a camaraderie stronger than family ties.
In modern times, we see this in the sports movement, the military, but also in groups of friends and pub life. Male networks are on the wane, as women now have access to the armed forces and other formerly strictly male spheres. Most environments are now mixed. The contemporary thinker Bronze Age Pervert (BAP) often describes the gym as one of the few male oases.
Perhaps the nuclear family will still be the choice that the vast majority fall back on? A house, a dog and a Volvo aren’t so bad. Family life is often underestimated in intellectual circles, for it provides love, togetherness and grandchildren who visit when one is old and grey.
The Right’s weakness lies in its tendency to often preach ‘the only right way’. The rhetoric often becomes mechanical and rings hollow. The nuclear family is a positive thing – for many people. But it cannot be the only answer. A movement that values the eccentric, the unique and the freethinking must also make room for those who choose a different path.
Single-person households, shared living arrangements, intentional communities, extended families spanning multiple households, adoptive families, or childless couples who serve society in other ways. This is not a threat to tradition — it is proof that tradition is strong enough to accommodate diversity.
Finally, the most overlooked tension within the Right is probably that the very people who call for order and stability are often driven by an inner longing for the great adventure. It is no coincidence that conservative men (and women) are drawn to the military, to expeditions, to building businesses from scratch, to seeking challenges that test their limits.
Jünger wrote about this better than most. The front-line soldier’s experience of total freedom in the midst of total war. It is a difficult thought to digest, but it points to something real: human beings do not need only security — they need excitement, risk, meaning.
This is the Right’s unsolved equation. How does one create a society characterised by order, yet one that still leaves room for adventure? How does one build institutions that preserve what is good, without stifling the human spark of life?
Of course, the Right encompasses several cultural strands and ways of thinking. But perhaps the branches are so numerous that we can no longer speak of a specific political ideology, even though its adherents may agree on very many (other) things?
What we are witnessing may well be the final decline and fall of 19th-century ideologies? Where individual choice, life circumstances and personal feelings trump pre-ordained manuals and rulebooks. Where honesty with oneself, personal courage and wisdom are far more important than the ideological compass.
