Description:

Review

Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind arrives at the reader as a book with a problem built into its publication history. The first edition appeared in 2011, arguing that the racism, populism, violence, and contempt for institutions that had come to define the American right were not deviations from some ur-conservatism of prudence and tradition. They were, Robin insisted, constitutive elements of the tradition itself, present from the European reaction against the French Revolution. Then Donald Trump won the presidency. The second edition, which adds a new preface and a chapter on Trump, does not treat the 2016 election as a rebuke. It treats it as a vindication. “Many of the characteristics we have come to associate with contemporary conservatism—racism, populism, violence, and a pervasive contempt for custom, convention, law, institutions, and established elites—are not recent or eccentric developments of the American right,” Robin writes. “They are instead constitutive elements of conservatism, dating back to its origins in the European reaction against the French Revolution.”

The claim is audacious, and it is the engine that drives everything that follows. Robin structures the book as a “theme and variations,” modeled on classical music. Part 1 builds a conceptual lexicon: the defense of what he calls “the private life of power,” the forward-moving character of counterrevolution, and the conservative intellectual tradition’s peculiar appetite for violence. Parts 2 and 3 unfold that lexicon across European and American case studies, from Hobbes to Trump. The form serves the argument: conservatism, in Robin’s hands, is less a settled doctrine than a repertoire of moves, endlessly recombined as democratic insurgencies force the old order to adapt. That form is also the book’s chief liability. The Reactionary Mind is a collection of essays, not a comprehensive history, and Robin is candid about the limits this imposes. The argument lives and dies by the quality of its individual readings, and those readings vary in both brilliance and fit.

Robin’s core definition is worth pausing over because it does not sound like anything a conservative would recognize—and that is precisely his point. “Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes,” he writes. “It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, and agency the prerogative of the elite.” The claim is not that conservatism occasionally serves private power but that the defense of private hierarchies—in the family, the factory, the field—is its organizing purpose. The first chapter opens with the fact that marital rape was legal in every American state until 1980, then moves through John C. Calhoun’s panic at the very sound of “slave speech,” the employer reaction to railroad workers who began running the trains themselves during the great strike of 1877, and the Seattle general strike. In each case, what agitates the conservative is not the loss of property in the abstract but the refusal of a subordinate to remain in place. “What equality ultimately means,” Robin writes, “is a rotation in the seat of power.”

This framing generates the book’s most consequential revision: the argument that conservatism is not the party of order but a restless, forward-moving counterrevolutionary practice. Robin draws on Karl Mannheim’s distinction between traditionalism—a quietist attachment to the familiar—and conservatism proper, which is born in crisis and learns to fight. Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France was not a hymn to the old regime; Burke regarded the French aristocracy as decadent and contemptible. Joseph de Maistre, the Savoyard counterrevolutionary who pushed the logic further, imagined a mass monarchy that would give distinction to the greatest number. Even the language of prudence and organic change, Robin argues, makes no sense without the revolutionary challenge it answers. “Even when the conservative seeks to extricate himself from this dialogue with the left, he cannot, for his most lyrical motifs—organic change, tacit knowledge, ordered liberty, prudence, and precedent—are barely audible without the call and response of the left.” Conservatism is parasitic, and that is what keeps it alive.

The third conceptual move—the claim that violence and hierarchy are the political forms of the sublime—is the most provocative and the least settled. Drawing on Burke’s A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful, Robin argues that the conservative intellectual tradition has consistently welcomed war, risk, and the spectacle of the lower orders in revolt as a kind of existential tonic. Georges Sorel hoped proletarian violence would reawaken a drowsy bourgeoisie. Tocqueville, surveying the corpses of the June Days in 1848, confessed to something like relief. Theodore Roosevelt made imperial conquest a cure for bourgeois softness, and the neoconservatives who seized on September 11 were disgusted by what they saw as the Clinton-era peace of economic man. “War is life, peace is death,” Robin writes, distilling a thread that runs from Treitschke to the present. The argument has real traction—one cannot read Irving Kristol’s laments for the enervating effects of the market without seeing it—but it also flattens a long and internally divided tradition into a single affective register. Burke’s sublime was not a political program; not every conservative warmonger was reading the Enquiry. The thread is there, but Robin sometimes pulls it too hard.

Part 2 opens with a chapter on Hobbes that is among the book’s finest achievements. Robin reads Leviathan as the first counterrevolutionary text, written in the shadow of the English Civil War and designed to absorb the language of consent, representation, and liberty in order to sever personal freedom from political power. Drawing on Quentin Skinner’s recovery of early modern arguments about republican liberty, Robin shows Hobbes redefining freedom as the mere absence of external impediments—a move that makes submission to the sovereign not only compatible with freedom but its precondition. “He was the first and, along with Nietzsche, the greatest philosopher of counterrevolution, a blender avant la lettre of cultural modernism and political reaction who understood that to defeat a revolution, you must become the revolution.” The Hobbes chapter also establishes a motif that will recur throughout the book: the conservative thinker who does his most creative work not by rejecting the principles of the revolution but by annexing them.

The next two chapters pursue what is arguably the book’s most original contribution: a “Nietzschean economics” running through Burke’s late writings on scarcity, the Austrian School, and Joseph Schumpeter. Robin reconstructs Burke’s Thoughts on Scarcity and Letters on a Regicide Peace as a coherent theory of value in which capital, not labor, determines what a thing is worth. Against Adam Smith’s labor theory of value—and the implication that the worker claims a moral share in what he produces—Burke insists that “labour is a commodity like every other” and that the only relevant question is what it is worth to the buyer. Robin then traces this current forward through Carl Menger’s subjectivism, Mises and Hayek’s market as a theater of moral self-disclosure, and Schumpeter’s entrepreneur as a Machiavellian prince whose “creative destruction” remakes the world in his own image. The Austrian market becomes the modern home of aristocratic action, a space where the few with “peerless taste” impose their valuations on the many. “Value was not a product of the prole; it was an imposition of peerless taste.” Hayek’s famous defense of freedom as something that matters most for the wealthy, idle, and inheriting few is not, on this reading, an embarrassing aside. It is the core of the program.

This is a genuinely illuminating thread, and it recasts arguments that free-market economists have long presented as neutral science in a far less flattering light. Yet the very brilliance of the reading conceals a tension. Robin wants to claim, against Perry Anderson, that Hayek represents the “far greater daring” of relocating grosse Politik into capitalist economic relations. That is a powerful counter to Anderson’s intellectual hierarchy, but it also raises the question of whether “Nietzschean economics” is a reading of the Austrians or an imposition upon them. Menger’s subjectivism arose from a methodological dispute with the German historical school, not from a reading of The Genealogy of Morals. Robin is mining a “metaphysical pathos” beneath the surface of the texts, and he does so with finesse, but the reader who wants a causal or historical account of how Nietzsche entered the Austrian seminar room will not find it here. What the book offers instead is an interpretive hypothesis—and a rich one.

The American variations that occupy Part 3 are more varied in quality. The chapter on Ayn Rand is the weakest link in the collection. Robin reads The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as kitsch with a “fascist moral syntax,” and while the case is energetically made, it relies more on polemical affinity than on sustained textual analysis. Rand is an easy target, and the chapter does not add much to the existing critical literature. The chapter on the postwar right, by contrast, is essential reading. Robin traces how Goldwater, Nixon, and Phyllis Schlafly repeatedly played the pariah-victim card, transposed segregationist grievances into the language of religious freedom and white ethnicity, and absorbed the idioms of feminism, the New Left, and the counterculture to rebuild a regime of lordly rule. The Southern Strategy was not simply a coded appeal to racism; it turned white racists into an aggrieved ethnic group with its own liberation narrative. Nixon, Robin shows, understood strategic rage—the kind that “never get mad unless it’s on purpose”—as a political instrument. The chapter on the neoconservative embrace of empire after 9/11 is similarly sharp, capturing the longing for a high politics beyond the market and the inevitable anticlimax of wars that the United States refused to pay for.

The Scalia chapter gives Robin the chance to crystallize a concept he calls “duresse oblige”—a jurisprudence that treats rules not as vehicles of fairness but as divining rods for natural inequality. Scalia’s dissent in PGA Tour v. Casey Martin, in which he argued that a disabled golfer should not be allowed to use a cart because walking the course is part of the game’s essential test, becomes a parable of a Nietzschean-Spencerian commitment to the “uneven distribution of God-given gifts.” “A Scalia opinion,” Robin writes, channeling Margaret Talbot, “is ‘the jurisprudential equivalent of smashing a guitar on stage.’” The chapter is a miniature of the book’s method at its best: a single figure read closely, situated within a longer intellectual tradition, and made to illuminate an entire style of conservative argument.

All of this prepares the ground for the Trump chapter, which is at once the book’s most timely addition and its most tentative. Robin argues that Trump’s racism, violence, and anti-establishment posturing are entirely continuous with the long conservative tradition. What is new, he suggests, is the specific fusion Trump effects: a mixing of the warrior and the capitalist visions of the market, combined with a more brazen economic and racial populism aimed at the white lower orders. Trump’s signature rhetorical move is “truthful hyperbole”—the claim that “a lot of attention alone creates value”—and his conception of power is fundamentally economistic. China’s military threat is answered not with war but with currency legislation, a 25 percent tariff, intellectual-property lawsuits, and a chopstick factory. The lesson of Iraq becomes a missed repayment deal: “Take the oil.” Even Trump’s most coercive instrument is to walk away from the table. “Dealmaker in chief,” Robin notes, is Trump’s own preferred term for the president.

Robin draws on Robert O. Paxton’s argument that economism constrains fascist ambition to argue that Trump falls short of genuine fascism despite his passionate nationalism. Hitler was an experienced political operative who built a machine and extracted loyalty oaths; Trump inherited a party, never won a majority of his own primary voters, and leads a movement he did not create. The argument is measured and careful, but it also reveals a structural difficulty with the chapter’s placement at the end of a book whose earlier chapters have argued, in effect, that conservatism and fascism are distinct phenomena. The reader who has spent three hundred pages learning that conservatism is a counterrevolutionary tradition of private hierarchy, not a totalitarian movement that dissolves private life into the state, will not be shocked to learn that Trump does not meet the fascist threshold. The chapter’s real contribution is elsewhere: in Robin’s argument that conservatism now confronts a “deficit of the popular.” Since 1992 the GOP has won only three of seven presidential elections, twice without the popular vote. It compensates through the Electoral College, the courts, and vote restrictions—the modern equivalent of the rotten boroughs that sustained pre-Reform British conservatism.

Here we arrive at what is simultaneously the book’s most striking predictive claim and its most significant analytical vulnerability. Robin argues that conservatism’s vitality depends on a mobilized left to discipline and tutor it. Without an emancipatory challenge of the magnitude of the French Revolution, the 1860s, 1917, the 1930s, or the 1960s, the right will flail even while holding power—reduced, in Trump’s case, to “a show about nothing.” The thesis is elegant and largely plausible, but it also risks making conservatism too purely reactive. Robin insists that the right has no intellectual life independent of the left it opposes, but a reader who has just finished the chapters on the Austrian School or Scalia might wonder whether there is not also a positive, constructive tradition of antiegalitarian thought at work—one that does not merely borrow from the left but builds its own architectures of justification. Robin’s commitment to the parasitic model sometimes obscures the degree to which conservative thinkers have developed genuinely autonomous arguments for hierarchy, from natural law to evolutionary psychology, that do not depend on the left for their intelligibility.

The book also suffers, as Robin himself acknowledges, from the episodic character of its essayistic form. The chapters on Rand and on the neoconservatives, for example, feel less fully integrated into the overarching argument about private power than the chapters on Hobbes, Burke, and the Austrians. The treatment of gender and patriarchy—which opens the book with a striking meditation on the marriage contract—recedes in the later chapters, despite the centrality of the family to the “private life of power” thesis. The violence-as-sublime theme, while fascinating, never quite resolves the tension between the intellectual tradition’s rhetorical embrace of war and the historical record of actual conservative governance, which has often been more bureaucratic than Byronic.

Still, these are the complaints one makes about a book that has already succeeded in reframing its subject. Robin writes from within a tradition of left critique that stretches from Marx’s analysis of surplus value to Wendy Brown’s account of neoliberalism as the conquest of political argument by economic reason. He engages a staggering range of interlocutors—Skinner on Hobbes, Anderson on the intransigent right, Paxton on fascism, Skowronek on presidential time, Mannheim on the difference between conservatism and traditionalism—and he does so with a polemical energy that never overwhelms the close reading. Against the journalistic narrative that each generation of the American right has “taken it off the rails,” Robin insists that the rails were laid by Burke and de Maistre and have run through Calhoun, Goldwater, and Scalia without a break.

The book is for readers who want to understand the inner logic of the right rather than to catalogue its surface positions. It is not a neutral history, nor does it pretend to be. Its most durable contribution is not the grand thesis about counterrevolution—which, however illuminating, is at times too capacious to be falsifiable—but the local acts of reading that make that thesis feel alive. When Robin shows Hobbes absorbing the language of liberty to install a sovereign before whom freedom and submission become identical, or when he traces the Nietzschean current beneath Hayek’s defense of the wealthy few as the avant-garde of value, he is doing something that political commentary almost never does: he is taking the intellectual life of the right seriously enough to read it against itself. The Reactionary Mind is a book that conservatives will hate and that leftists will quote selectively. It deserves a more interesting fate: to be argued with, closely and at length, by anyone who wants to understand what it actually means to be a reactionary.

Notable Quotes

Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, and agency the prerogative of the elite.

Chapter 1, defining conservatism's core purpose as opposition to subordinate agency. — conservatism defined, hierarchy, agency, subordination

For that is what conservatism is: a meditation on — and theoretical rendition of — the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

Chapter 1, Robin's foundational definition of conservatism as a politics of threatened power. — conservatism defined, power, reaction, loss

Here is the secret of the opposition to woman's equality in the state. Men are not ready to recognize it in the home.

Chapter 1, quoting Elizabeth Cady Stanton on how the 'private life of power' underlies all political struggles. — feminism, private power, patriarchy, political roots

The levellers only change and pervert the natural order of things. The occupation of an hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person — to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule.

Chapter 1, quoting Burke in the Reflections on the danger of allowing common workers to govern. — Burke, class hierarchy, democracy as threat, natural order

If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.

Chapter 1, quoting Lampedusa's classic formulation of the conservative paradox: preservation requires transformation. — conservative paradox, counterrevolution, change

Far from being saddened, burdened, or vexed by violence, the conservative has been enlivened by it.

Chapter 3, introducing the argument that violence serves as a vitalizing force in conservative thought. — violence, vitality, sublimity, conservative psychology

Pain and danger are emissaries of death, the king of terrors. They are sources of the sublime, the strongest — most powerful, most affecting — emotion which the mind is capable of feeling.

Chapter 3, explaining Burke's theory of the sublime as it relates to the conservative attraction to violence. — sublime, Burke, pain, danger, sensation

The mere husbanding of already existing resources, no matter how painstaking, is always characteristic of a declining position.

Chapter 1, quoting Schumpeter on why conservatism requires activism rather than complacency. — decline, activism, power in repose, Schumpeter

To destroy that enemy, by some means or other, the force opposed to it should be made to bear some analogy and resemblance to the force and spirit which that system exerts.

Chapter 2, quoting Burke on how the counterrevolution must learn from and mirror the revolution it opposes. — counterrevolution, Burke, learning from the enemy, mimicry

All conservatism begins with loss.

Chapter 2, quoting Andrew Sullivan on why the conservative party is fundamentally the party of the loser. — loss, victimhood, conservative identity

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.

Chapter 2, quoting Republican strategist Lee Atwater on the evolution of the Southern Strategy's racial coding. — Southern Strategy, racism, coded language, Republican tactics

There is no single elite in America. Everyone can be an aristocrat within his own Olympus.

Chapter 1, quoting David Brooks on democratic feudalism — how conservatism offers everyone the illusion of aristocratic status. — democratic feudalism, populism, privilege, illusion

With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals.

Chapter 2, quoting John C. Calhoun on how racial hierarchy conscripts poor whites into the master class. — Calhoun, racial hierarchy, democratic feudalism, white supremacy

The central question that emerges is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

Chapter 2, quoting a 1957 National Review editorial on white supremacy as willed political agency. — white supremacy, National Review, political agency, civil rights

Never greater an evil had existed than the French Revolution.

Chapter 1, quoting Burke laying down the foundational claim that conservatism is produced in reaction to revolutionary emancipation. — Burke, French Revolution, foundational reaction

The monied men have a right to look to advantage in the investment of their property. To advance their money, they risk it; and the risk is to be included in the price.

Chapter 5, quoting Burke's late economic writings on how the needs of capital should determine value. — Burke, capitalism, value theory, capital's prerogative

Whatever has value in our world now does not have value in itself, according to its nature — nature is always value-less, but has been given value at some time, as a present — and it was we who gave and bestowed it.

Chapter 6, quoting Nietzsche's The Gay Science on value as aristocratic bestowal rather than labor's product. — Nietzsche, value theory, subjective value, aristocratic creation

Freedom to order our own conduct in the sphere where material circumstances force a choice upon us is the air in which alone moral sense grows and in which moral values are daily re-created.

Chapter 6, quoting Hayek on the market as the theater of moral self-disclosure. — Hayek, market morality, freedom, choice, value creation

What may be attained by industrial and commercial success is still the nearest approach to medieval lordship possible to modern man.

Chapter 6, quoting Schumpeter on the capitalist entrepreneur as the modern equivalent of the feudal aristocrat. — Schumpeter, capitalism as feudalism, entrepreneur, lordship

I don't do it for the money. I've got enough, much more than I'll ever need. I don't do it for the money.

Chapter 11, quoting The Art of the Deal's opening lines — Trump's insistence that capitalism is expressive rather than acquisitive. — Trump, capitalism, expression, emptiness

If you ask me exactly what the deals I'm about to describe all add up to in the end, I'm not sure I have a very good answer.

Chapter 11, Trump's inadvertent admission that the market's justification is nothing more than itself. — Trump, nihilism, capitalism, meaninglessness

A lot of attention alone creates value.

Chapter 11, quoting Trump on how spectacle, not productivity, generates economic value. — Trump, spectacle, value, attention economy

The secret of Trump is that there is no secret. That is the truth about capitalism that is revealed in The Art of the Deal: there is no truth. It's a show about nothing.

Chapter 11, Robin's devastating conclusion about Trump's economic philosophy and its implications for the right. — Trump, capitalism, nihilism, conservatism's endgame

Conservatism does its best in times of crisis.

Chapter 11, quoting Roger Scruton on the right's dependence on a threatening left for its creative energy. — Scruton, crisis, left-right dialectic, vitality

A clear idea is therefore another name for a little idea.

Chapter 3, quoting Burke on how obscurity and mystery are essential to sublimity — and by extension, to conservative power. — Burke, sublimity, obscurity, mystery, power