Against Sohrab Ahmari-ism

The “postliberal” has transformed into what he claimed to oppose

Conservative commentary has changed greatly over the last decade. The discourse centered around limiting government, hawkish foreign policy, and ignoring civilizational threats is long in the past.

Things began to change within mainstream conservatism around 2019. Donald Trump’s election and the Alt Right’s emergence inspired a desire for a new kind of conservatism. The Alt Right’s collapse made it safer for mainstream conservatives to espouse unorthodox views without association with the disreputable ideology.

One of the well-known moments in this change was the “Against David French-ism” essay by Sohrab Ahmari. Published by First Things in 2019, the article lambasted the NeverTrumper David French as everything wrong with conservatism. Ahmari condemned French and those like him for being “conservative liberals” who were unwilling to fight the Left. “Conservative liberalism of the kind French embodies has a great horror of the state, of traditional authority and the use of the public power to advance the common good, including in the realm of public morality,” Ahmari declared. The Persian conservative argued we need a more aggressive Right to challenge the Left and wield state power to achieve its goals. 

The essay made Ahmari’s career and established he was no longer a neoconservative. He was now a New Right radical leading the fight against Con Inc.—at least in the view of many other conservatives.

But Ahmari’s “radical” image has been undermined by his recent activities. The self-declared post-liberal now primarily dedicates himself to writing hit pieces on the Right’s alleged racism. Over the last few weeks, he’s written not one, but two hysteric columns about Tucker Carlson’s controversial interview with Darryl Cooper. The first, a paywalled article at the Free Press, condemned the “barbarian right,” which Ahmari sees as a “movement afoot on the online right to smash the notion of equal human dignity—and to normalize eugenic ideas and overt racial hatred and anti-Semitism.” He’s written this same exact column several times before, so there’s no need to pay money to read it.

A week later, he wrote this column once more for the New Statesman, a British left-wing rag. In this article, the Persian scribe said there was an “intellectual sickness on the American right” and finds its embodiment in Tucker Carlson. This sickness is characterized by being “too online” and too bigoted.

Along with these columns, Ahmari has been feverishly promoting anti-Tucker posts from the Con Inc. apparatchiks he once claimed to oppose—including the one and only David French.

Some may lament Ahmari’s current path, but he really hasn’t changed. Ahmari was never “Based.” He simply pretended to be to advance his career. Many of his old articles resemble his current ones. Before 2019, he railed against Trump and the “illiberalism” that was creeping in on the Right. He does the same thing now, but pretends he’s the true “anti-liberal” when he denounces racism. He knows he’s losing influence within the New Right constellation and is lashing out. 

David French-ism is no longer really an issue. French, the man, is practically a Democrat now. His version of conservatism has been discredited and abandoned. What’s more at issue now is “Sohrab Ahmari-ism.” Ahmari-ism represents both the writer’s moronic ideology and his rank opportunism. It’s a major problem for the “New Right” and it must be discarded if it wants to be a serious political force.

Ahmari has changed his politics several times. As an adult, he has been a Marxist, a neocon, an integralist, a pro-Trump social democrat, and now a Trump-critical populist. His ideology may be something completely different after the election. But for the past five years, he’s stuck to some variant of social democracy with Catholic characteristics. Ahmari wants the Right to become more economically populist and champion unions, government regulations, and other policies associated with the Left. It would still be socially conservative, but the “pro-worker” focus would serve as the Right’s new animating passion.

Ahmari believes his form of populism is what defined Trump’s 2016 campaign and motivated many of his supporters. This thinking reaches some ridiculous moments, such as him arguing in the New York Times that J6ers were upset over Door Dash not being unionized. This belief also dismisses the identitarian aspect of Trumpism that was actually at the heart of his 2016 campaign. Trump made his name calling illegal immigrants rapists and vowing to keep Muslims out of America. While he did show concern for workers and failed to respect GOP orthodoxy on economics, that wasn’t at the core of his campaign. Studies show that Trump’s supporters care most about the identity issues, not economic populism.

However, Ahmari promotes the delusion that Trumpism is all about Ahmari-ism. He attacks  Trump for abandoning this stance, even though it was never actually the former president’s thing.

“For many of the conservatives who embraced it—myself included—the Trumpian moment promised a more populist, pro-worker GOP. Yet the latest iteration of Donald Trump has dashed these hopes,” Ahmari complained in one of his recent “anti-racist” columns. 

The Persian post-liberal isn’t alone in this outlook. Many conservatives, such as those at American Compass, have tried to steer Trumpism away from identitarianism to economic wonkery. These supposed populists didn’t really succeed in this effort, but they did get op-eds in the New York Times and friendly profiles from mainstream outlets. 

There is a benefit to being seen as a “respectable” Trumpist who simply wants a reformed industrial policy and doesn’t tolerate alleged bigotry. However, this has little connection to the actual Trump movement. GOP voters embraced Trump because he addressed core cultural concerns that the party previously ignored. The Donald challenged Republicans to take a harder line on immigration and other matters that could get them accused of being racist. The pretentious preening of Ahamari-ists has little resonance here.

The opportunism is inherent to Ahmari-ism. The former neocon switch’s to the New Right was a great career move for him. Before, Ahmari was a little noticed writer. After “Against David French-ism,” he established himself as a leading thinker on the Right. He gained more influence than he would’ve ever had sticking with his old ideology. There were many NeverTrumpers who did a similar transformation in the second half of Trump's administration. Much of what constitutes the New Right were at one point NeverTrumpers, from Ben Domenech to Josh Hammer. Even Chris Rufo, who does phenomenal work, was anti-Trump in 2016. 

Converts are expected when a movement gains power. Some, such as Rufo, have contributed greatly to the cause. Others, such as Ahmari, have only leeched off MAGA to promote themselves. Many of these types would completely change their politics if something else replaced Trumpism. The point is not to advance any kind of “pro-worker” conservatism—it’s to advance the careers of Ahmari-ists. If populism is the best avenue to do so at the moment, then these types embrace it. 

Sohrab Ahmari and what he represents has worn out its welcome. It’s not what the Right needs or even wants. The future of Trumpism is one that centers itself on the interests of the historic American nation, no matter whether they’re workers or lawyers. It will address the identity issues head on and not cower over accusations of “racism.” It would be more like Trump and less like the NeverTrump pundits who claim to represent his views. There’s no real future for Ahmari-ism outside the pages of the New Statesman.