The Pros And Cons Of Rufoism

Is it really different from standard conservatism?

IM-1776 recently published an entertaining exchange between Chris Rufo and neoreactionary guru Curtis Yarvin. The two primarily talked over each other and traded amusing insults. Both have very different concerns. Rufo wants a practical politics that addresses specific issues; Yarvin aims for a grand philosophy that isn’t that concerned with ordinary politics. Hence, the debate heavily focuses on historical arguments from the 1770s…

What’s most important about the debate is that Rufo outlines his principles and thinking. The activist aims to be the William F. Buckley of the New Right, the man who sets its boundaries and its focus. His importance makes it critical for us to understand what he’s actually about. Rufo does great work, and there are many positives to what he advocates for. But there are issues with his ideology and his goal to police the Right.

Rufo is basically a standard conservative. He made this clear in his manifesto for New Right activism published earlier this year when he wrote that he stands for the principles of “natural right, limited government, and individual liberty.” That’s no different than what the conservative movement has espoused for 70 years. He further aligns himself with the old conservative movement by declaring “individualism” as America’s national identity. That’s something even Paul Ryan would agree with. 

Rufo was a NeverTrumper in 2016. He quickly returned to that mold after Trump left office, eagerly supporting Ron DeSantis and wanting the former president to leave politics. This is a common trait among the old guard.

Rufo claims distinction from the conservative establishment by emphasizing action and wanting to destroy the status quo. However, most conservatives in recent history have not sought to preserve the status quo and there are plenty of examples of conservatives taking action against the Left. The gun rights lobby, the pro-life movement, and the Moral Majority are a few examples. So this distinction isn’t much of one at all. 

The real difference is that past activism hasn’t focused on the issues Rufo and many within the Online Right care about. They were more worried about tax policy than anti-white racism.

That’s where Rufoism demonstrates its strength. It is primarily concerned with identity issues, such as anti-white indoctrination in schools and racial quotas in business. Rufo has had results with this activism. Red states passed bans against DEI and critical race theory in part due to the activist’s work. He’s currently exposing the widespread plagiarism found among diversity bureaucrats in universities. Rufo is also better on a lot of important issues than the old conservative guard, as seen in his support for immigration restriction.

While Rufoism has the same principles as the conservative movement (hence, National Review and other old guard institutions praising Rufo), it is superior in what it focuses on. It also makes for a much better alternative to the Insane Clown Party. Increasingly, the tendency to indulge every stupidity imaginable dominates conservative media. Ridiculous and frivolous conspiracy theories, MAGA rappers, snake oil dealers, and numerous other absurdities overshadow real issues. Conservative influencers amplify the noise because it’s guaranteed to deliver high engagement. It’s even found among some elected lawmakers, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert. The ICP dispenses with any real principles outside of entertainment. It turns politics into a carnival where issues don’t really matter. All that matters is low-brow amusement. While this tendency can guarantee a large audience, it’s also anathema to voters. It’s especially off-putting to intelligent people worried about actual problems. There are many elites who have had enough of wokeness, but they don’t want to join the conservative circus. Rufoism offers them a better alternative.

However, Rufoism presents its own weakness. 

On the intellectual front, his framework is the same as an intern packet from a conservative non-profit. Just read this exchange from the Yarvin debate:

My conviction is that there is a logical structure to human nature and, consequently, a structure of political order. The American founders were not ordinary politicians, but men of extraordinary vision and virtue who solved the core political problem posed by classical political philosophy and thereby created the most secure, free, and virtuous republic in history, with unprecedented innovations in commerce, technology, and the arts. You ridicule the category of “problems to be solved,” but pragmatism is the Anglo-American political spirit.

People don’t turn to the “Dissident Right” for Reagan-era talking points. There’s a desire for big ideas to address the fundamental problems of American society. Reaffirming colorblind individualism, which has been the norm for years, is neither a powerful idea nor a long-term solution. It’s just the same old conservatism in a new package.

Only one group truly supports colorblindness–and it’s the one group Rufo really doesn’t want to acknowledge–race. Whites are already colorblind individualists. They just wish all the other groups would embrace it as well. Yet, other groups want to retain and emphasize their unique group identity. A majority of every other group feels their racial identity is important. Asians, whom Rufo seeks to win over, aren’t thrilled with affirmative action in college admissions, but that’s their only real qualm with the DEI regime. They don’t care about historical erasure or demographic change. It’s even hard to get them to change their attitudes toward crime, despite suffering from its ill effects. Asian advocacy groups blamed black-on-Asian attacks on “white supremacy.” They are only for colorblindness when it benefits them.

Colorblind individualism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s the result of the unique culture brought here by a particular people. Random individuals didn’t invent fair play, meritocracy, and equality before the law from nothing. It came from the Anglo-Protestant tradition that Europeans assimilated into in America. It’s no wonder whites are the only ones who believe in it. It’s our culture, but ignorant of its roots. 

Rufo hopes new Americans will cast aside their old world prejudices and embrace this country as their central identity. They will still make their traditional dishes and celebrate their ethnic festivals, but they will primarily be American. They will not see themselves as any different from their citizens. 

That’s a quaint idea that doesn’t work out well in real life.

Indians, in particular, make a mockery of this idea. They are one of the most ethnocentric and nepotistic groups in the country. While many of them may mouth the platitudes of colorblind individualism, they still uphold the caste system and favor their own kind. The majority of Indians want more Indians in the U.S., thus they favor liberal immigration policies. India’s government hopes to utilize the American-based diaspora in the same way Israel relies on American Jews to support its interests. Indians may succeed in American life, yet they will not ditch their tribalism.

Along with Rufo’s shallow ideology, he wants to play gatekeeper.  While he does adopt much of the language and style of the Online Right, he wants to rigidly police its boundaries. He recently asserted that “right-wing identitarianism” and other radical ideas “are a threat to a functional, popular conservative movement.” In essence, the Right must stick to the same basics as the past. Anything significantly different from the old formula must be shunned.

It should be noted that Rufo’s concern for popularity can be discarded in certain circumstances. He defends talk about banning birth control despite that idea having less popular support than the long-gone alt right. Democrats currently hope positions such as this deliver them victory in 2024 as it did in 2022. Rufo is much more willing to adopt this unpopular position than to state critical race theory is anti-white racism. 

Rufo hopes that we can solve all our problems with basic conservatism updated with some BASED terminology. But this doesn’t solve the Great Replacement or any of the other long-term problems afflicting America. We can’t hope to return to the idyllic meritocracy of Cold War America with the demographics of multicultural America. 

Big ideas are needed here. They won’t be the stuff of campaign fodder, nor will activists like Rufo need to embrace them. But they must be discussed and eventually embraced if we want to think seriously about the future. Trumpism illustrated that the tired conservatism of the past no longer addresses the issues of today. It’s time for the Right to move on to something new.