On January 20, 2016, Rush Limbaugh quoted from an essay, “From Household to Nation” published in Chronicles magazine in 1996. “[S]ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interests and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives.”
“The theory is that this is Donald Trump. The theory is that that (written back in 1996) foretold, if you will, or predicted the arrival of Donald Trump,” stated Limbaugh. The author of the article, and whom Limbaugh was giving credit to for helping “explain” the rise of Trump, was the conservative intellectual Samuel T. Francis.
“Sam Francis was born with three great gifts: one of the finest minds of his generation, wit and humor, and a brave heart to pursue and tell the truth,” wrote Patrick J. Buchanan.
Francis was a conservative intellectual who was not well known except within the paleoconservative movement. His writings, which were largely ignored by the conservative movement while he was alive, are now being studied to understand the rise of Trump and why so many Americans supported his platform.
The platform that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was running on was based on conservative nationalism. “Make America Great Again” and America First were the rallying cries of Trump’s campaign.
During the campaign, Trump focused on securing the border, ending illegal immigration, criticizing free trade agreements, promising protective tariffs to bring back manufacturing, and pledging to bring an end to the Neoconservative foreign interventionism and war. All of these issues, along with Trump’s patriotism, were not only considered unorthodox to conservatism and the Republican Party, but they also appealed to “Middle American” voters.
While experts were baffled and the Republican establishment was shocked at the rise and popularity of Trump, there became an effort to try and explain why this was happening. The conservative nationalism that Trump campaigned on was not original to him, but rather those ideas were part of the conservative movement that were kept suppressed by the emergence of “free market” conservatism.
Joseph Scotchie, who is a journalist and historian of the conservative movement, has written a biography of Sam Francis. Samuel T. Francis and Revolution From the Middleis both a biography of Francis and a history of the modern conservative movement.
Scotchie is a historian of the conservative movement, and his previous books include The Vision of Richard Weaver, Barbarians in the Saddle: An Intellectual Biography of Richard Weaver, The Paleoconservatives, Revolt from the Heartland: The Struggle for Authentic Conservatism, and Streetcorner Conservatism: Patrick J. Buchanan and His Times, among others.
Scotchie describes Francis as “the most provocative and prophetic political commentator of his time.” Francis attended Johns Hopkins University and earned his Ph.D. in English History at the University of North Carolina. His career began as a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation and later moved to working in the offices of United States Senators John P. East (R-NC), Jesse Helms (R-NC), and Jeremiah Denton (R-AL). Francis was also a columnist at The Washington Times.
Francis was not just involved in conservative politics and policy, but also in the intellectual movement. He was a friend and adviser to Patrick J. Buchanan, and he developed friendships with other paleoconservative intellectuals such as Thomas Fleming, M.E. Bradford, Paul Gottfried, Chilton Williamson, among others. Many of these intellectuals were associated with Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, which was and remains the flagship publication for paleoconservatism.
Francis was influenced by both Bradford and political philosopher and contributor to National Review, James Burnham. Burnham was not only an influential anti-communist conservative, but his ideas were embraced by leading conservatives, including President Ronald Reagan. Francis has been described as “Burnham’s most able disciple.”
The Managerial Revolution, which Burnham published in 1940, was just one of his books that influenced Francis. In The Managerial Revolution, Burnham argued that the “managerial class” were individuals from both the political and economic elite of society.
The Progressive Era was crucial for establishing the “managerial class,” and it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal that “solidified the triumph of the managerial state.” The “managerial class” was defined as “those who controlled the economy, the bureaucracy, the corporate class, the entertainment, culture and education centers, the judiciary and the military—held firmly to the levers of power.”
As Scotchie wrote, Francis believed that “power was key to Burnham’s thought,” that is, “Who has it? Who doesn’t? Who gains power? Who keeps it? What is the fate of those without power? How do the powerless gain power? And keep power? And to what end?” This was a theme that was brought out by Francis in Power and History: A Study of James Burnham, which was the first biography of Burnham and his philosophy.
“The very nature of the managerial revolution and the regime that developed from it promotes not independence, but dependency and not civic participation, but civic passivity,” argued Francis.
Through the lens of the “managerial class,” it becomes easier to understand President Trump’s popularity against the “deep state,” globalists, and political elites. Francis also wrote Leviathan and Its Enemies, which was his treatise on political philosophy that followed Burnham’s arguments.
In addition to Burnham, Francis was also interested in the work of sociologist Donald Warren. Warren examined why white working-class voters had supported both Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and who had also been supportive of the presidential campaigns of Governor George Wallace and Senator Barry M. Goldwater.
Warren referred to these voters as “Middle American Radicals” or MARS, who “were disgusted [by the] nation’s rapid descent into barbarism.” “Crime, inner-city and college campus rioting, school busing orders, inflation, welfare payments, the humiliating defeat in Vietnam—MARS were overwhelmed by the social revolution upending a once-stable nation,” wrote Scotchie.
Later, as Francis would record, MARS voters would be concerned with not only the continual cultural decline, but uncontrolled immigration, free trade and globalization, and the general attack on America’s history. These were also the voters who supported the presidential campaigns of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.
Politically, Francis’s traditional conservatism ran counter to libertarianism and neoconservatism. “Francis rejected both the free market ideology of the libertarians and the ‘stabilization’ of the Democratic/Republican elite,” wrote Scotchie. Francis supported limiting the federal government, and as the Cold War ended, he understood that the issues that concerned MARS included immigration, free trade and the loss of manufacturing, interventionism in foreign policy, the decline of culture, multiculturalism, and more controversial issues of race.
Francis was also a fierce defender of Western Civilization, traditional Christian culture, and—just as with Pat Buchanan—defended America’s history from liberal attacks.
Francis argued that the “managerial elite” did not just have political and economic implications, but they also impacted and controlled the broader culture. Scotchie notes how Francis was “intrigued at how the ‘managerial elites’ could control the minds and actions of entire populations.” Overall, he feared that the greater consequence of the “managerial elite” represented not only a “deadened, passive populace,” but also the “death of republican living.”
“Early on, Sam saw that America was in the grip of a culture war where peaceful coexistence was self-delusional,” wrote Buchanan.
Francis outlined a philosophy of conservative nationalism, which was shared by Pat Buchanan. Buchanan, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996, and then ran as a Reform Party candidate in 2000, ran on a platform of conservative nationalism.
Scotchie wrote that “Buchanan’s rise focused attention on Sam Francis,” and he was “being hailed as the mastermind of Buchananite populism.” Buchanan’s campaign for the presidency centered on issues of conservative nationalism which included an America First foreign policy, securing the border and limiting immigration, opposing free trade agreements that led to the outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing, and a defense of traditional Christian values and culture. This also included opposing affirmative action and warning about multiculturalism—all issues that Francis addressed.
As an editorial writer and columnist, Francis pulled no punches in defending conservatism and what he considered to be the truth. Perhaps most controversial were his writings and speeches on race, which ultimately led to his dismissal from The Washington Times and banishment from the “conservative movement,” even though his columns remained popular.
The banishment of Francis from the conservative movement was an example of the ongoing war within conservatism between paleoconservatives and the neoconservatives, who were gaining more strength. The divide between “paleos” and “neocons” was both philosophical and related to matters of policy. This was also a lonely time for Francis, as he was now isolated from the conservative movement and no longer welcomed.
“Throughout the last 15 years or so, neoconservatives have engineered similar hit jobs on several paleoconservatives whom they perceived as threats to them and their control of the American right—on M.E. Bradford, Joe Sobran, Paul Gottfried, and Pat Buchanan, among others,” wrote Francis in Chronicles.
For Francis, it was bad enough to be critical of free trade, free market economics, and an interventionist foreign policy, but the issues of race, immigration, and a defense of Western Civilization and Western Culture got him branded as a “racist.” However, his friends and those who knew Francis understood this to be nothing but an unfair attack.
“And Sam awakened to the truth that our neo-conservative allies were at heart opportunistic and nomadic liberals, most of them without principles, who did not share our beliefs or values but had enlisted in our cause only because, after 20 years, we were on the precipice of national power,” wrote Buchanan.
With Republican electoral victories and the administration of President George W. Bush, the neoconservatives would take center stage not only in policy but also within the movement. In the process, the neoconservatives did their best to marginalize paleoconservatives.
“You don’t have to be paranoid to get the impression that someone out there doesn’t like paleos, doesn’t want paleos writing ‘offensive’ things, and is willing to mount organized but secretive ‘crusades’ to ruin their careers,” argued Francis.
Even after being dismissed from The Washington Times, Francis would still publish his columns in publications such as Chronicles and in various newsletters. He was also a popular speaker in paleoconservative circles. Francis became critical of both the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
“They feared Sam, for they feared the truth, and knew there are many in Middle America, who if they read Sam, would agree with him,” argued Buchanan. The same situation applied to Trump, and many still do not understand why he resonates with American voters.
He believed that the Republicans were ignoring MARS and their issues and that the conservative movement itself had failed. Revolution from the Middle, Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism, and Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War are all published volumes of Francis’s writing that were largely ignored but are prophetic now.
In Beautiful Losers, Francis was pessimistic about the future of the country. “The Old Republic cannot be restored today because few Americans even remember it, let alone want it back…,” wrote Francis.
A source of pessimism was the decline in republicanism, which Francis argued the conservative movement failed to rehabilitate. “But almost no one wants a republic or even knows what a republic is, and there can be no possibility of a republic in the United States again until Americans are willing to assume the burdens of civic responsibility and independence that republican life demands,” argued Francis.
“The American Right—Old or New, Paleo or Neo—failed to persuade Americans to take up those burdens, as their ancestors took them up in Williamsburg and Boston, at Fort Sumter and Gettysburg, and those who identified with its cause are only a few of the Americans who will eventually pay the price of that failure,” wrote Francis.
President Donald Trump and the ascendancy of conservative nationalism and America First policies are certainly reflective of some of the ideas that Francis wrote about and defended. The neoconservatives that banished him from the movement have themselves been pushed to the sidelines by President Trump and the MAGA movement.
The current debate within the conservative movement is now between the “New Right”—described as the conservative nationalists who support President Trump and his policies—and the “Old Right,” who are the neoconservatives, “Reagan” conservatives, and free-market conservatives who are critical of President Trump. At one time, Francis was viewed as a leading voice in what was described as the “New Right” during the 1980s.
Francis would not be surprised by the rise of President Trump and the issues that surround his candidacy, because he foresaw an emerging nationalism in American politics driven by MARS. The base of the Trump coalition is the MARS voter. An assumption can be made that Francis would still be concerned about the state of American culture and its continual decline.
President Trump’s presidency has not only ushered in debates within the conservative movement, but it has also provided an overdue opportunity for paleoconservatives to be taken seriously and contribute to the policy debate.
Joseph Scotchie’s biography of Samuel Francis has brought forth both the story of an influential conservative intellectual who should be remembered, and it is also a history of the modern conservative movement that helps explain the current situation and debates within conservatism.
Francis will still be viewed as controversial, including by many within the conservative movement, but Scotchie has written an honorable and fair biography of a scholar who deserves to be remembered for his contributions to American conservatism. More importantly, Francis deserves to be remembered as a defender of American values and truth—even though it cost him much. He placed principle before fame, and he traded defending the truth in exchange for being exiled from the glamor of the conservative movement.
We can learn a lesson from Francis, not only about conservatism, but also about loyalty to friends and family, and that defending principles and truth is worth the cost—even however unpopular it may be. In the aftermath of his dismissal from The Washington Times, Francis wrote: “As for me, my column has actually gained newspapers since my defenestration at the Times. It’s true I lost my job and my Washington outlet, and that’s a blow, but it’s far from death. In the coming years, the Beltway right may be amazed to discover how little it has to do with the direction in which the country is moving, and I plan to be there when it finds out that no one else is paying much attention to its precious ‘limits’ on what you can and cannot say.” Sam Francis was correct, and his voice has a larger audience today.
Print a PDF