In This Episode
- Check out Furious Minds – https://tinyurl.com/276s5uj6
- Call Congress – 202-224-3121
- Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8
- What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast
Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/
TRANSCRIPT
Jane Coaston: It’s Friday, January 16th, I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show that is simply noting a man on threads who appears to have trained crows to attack red hats. See, crows are incredibly intelligent, they can even hold grudges and remember human faces for years. So training them to be able to swoop and grab a red hat from someone’s head was a bit of a process, but it appears to have been very successful. And why red hats in particular? No reason. No reason at all. [music break] On today’s show, President Donald Trump reveals his great health care plan. That’s not sarcasm, it’s literally called the great health-care plan. And what’s long, boring, and often ends in stalemate? No, I’m not talking about Congress, I’m talking about soccer. But let’s start with conservatism and the American right. President Trump is declining in popularity with voters, but his rhetoric and that of the Trump administration is only growing more extreme. But to understand how we got here, in this place, we have to go backwards to the Reagan administration. The 1980s were the heyday of a very particular kind of conservatism. It was hawkish on foreign policy, as in yay wars, and very conservative on cultural issues, as in boo, gay people trying to exist in public life. Right-wing conservative figures held sway in politics. People like Phyllis Schlafly, an anti-feminist activist who spent a lot of time telling other women not to pursue jobs outside the home while working outside the home. But there was an entire wing of the conservative movement that seemed to think that Reaganism was for losers. They wanted something even further to the right, and for that they looked to the past. Some of these right-wing conservatives had supported former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for president in 1964, a candidate who opposed the Civil Rights Act and school integration. Others were fans of a former speechwriter for President Richard Nixon named Pat Buchanan, a culture warrior and non-interventionist. Who would run for the White House twice and give this memorable speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention about the evil changes that would come if Bill Clinton got into the White House.
[clip of Pat Buchanan] Abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units, that’s change alright, but that’s not the kind of change America needs. It’s not the kind of change America wants, and it’s not the kind of change we can abide in a nation we still call God’s country.
Jane Coaston: I don’t know, a lot of those changes sound dope to me. Anyway, the wing of the conservative movement that claimed Goldwater and Buchanan thought that the conservatism of the 1980s and 1990s and even the early 2000s was weak, even referring to mainstream conservative institutions as conservative inc. And at think tanks like the Claremont Institute, a conservative organization about 90 minutes outside of Los Angeles, right-wing academics and thinkers worked together to create a counterrevolution, a nativist populist counterrevolution of sorts. An anti-immigrant, anti-minority politics that would support the rights of the people, as long as the people are ideally white and straight and male. And then came President Trump, the answer to the prayers of the nativist populist. In Trump’s second term, the natavist populists are in charge, calling themselves the new right. One example, guess who absolutely loves the Claremont Institute? Hint, he’s a certain current vice president, here accepting the organization’s statesmanship award in 2025.
[clip of Vice President J.D. Vance] The Claremont Institute has been an important part of my own intellectual development. I’ve read the work of its scholars. I’ve uh the first major speech that I gave before I even thought about running for Senate was at a Claremount conference back, I believe, in 2021. And this institution has been great for me.
Jane Coaston: But not for anybody else. Writer and political theorist Laura K. Field wrote a book on the factions that are controlling these groups entitled Furious Minds, The Making of the MAGA New Right. We talked about her work, the conservative movement, and how we got here. She told me that her book is about the end point of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, Trump’s re-election, and efforts to exert total control over America’s politics and culture. Laura, welcome to What a Day.
Laura K. Field: Thank you so much for having me, Jane, I’m really happy to be here.
Jane Coaston: What brought you to write this book now?
Laura K. Field: Well, I came up in conservative academia, sort of studying the great books with these conservative scholars sort of of the Strausian school, so followers of Leo Strauss. And I was surprised when some of these Californians associated with the Claremont Institute started defending Trump in 2016. And so I’ve been watching them pretty closely ever since. And after January 6th, I thought they would sort of leave the stage. I didn’t actually expect to be writing a book about these guys, but, you know, Trumpism stayed, they consolidated power in the GOP. They sort of took over a lot of the mainstream institutions. It didn’t happen under the first Trump administration, but it did happen under Biden. And so they kept becoming more and more important. And then of course, J.D. Vance got the nomination. And they won again. And we see that now with Project 2025, I think people are starting to recognize how important some of these intellectuals have been in sort of radicalizing the movement. So the book is a story of intellectual radicalization. I sort of thought it would at least be historically important to understand MAGA and what happened, but you know as we’ve seen, it’s I think become far more important to our politics than I even understood. And I keep being surprised by these guys.
Jane Coaston: Yeah, and I was struck with an anecdote about an experience you had in 2010 that kick-started your departure from the world of conservative intellectualism. I read that part in the book and was just, one, dumbstruck by it, but also like, yeah, this is how these people talk all the time. For those who haven’t had a chance to read the book yet, it is about somebody meeting Michelle Obama and telling you or telling somebody else around you how much they want to fuck her. And you describe going to the bathroom after that incident and being like, where am I and what’s going on?
Laura K. Field: Yeah.
Jane Coaston: What was that light bulb moment like for you?
Laura K. Field: Well when I sat down to write the proposal for the book, I thought, okay, I know where I’m going to start it. Because it was just this moment that really stuck with me, that sort of crystallized a lot of dissatisfactions I had had over the course of my many years in these circles. But it was one of it probably the most, it was just one of the most jarring moments for me. Philosophy guys do this kind of thing where they’re kind of just trying to test you. Are you cool? Can you take it? Are you open-minded? So it was partly that, but partly it was just sort of so incongruous with the setting, I mean, and of course, far worse happens to people than somebody saying something rude to you. And um and I have been treated pretty well by my mentors in academia, my male mentors, even you know many conservatives, but this was one of those things where I was just like, no, I don’t want anything to do with this. And there were certainly many other moments like that, but it was one that really stuck with me.
Jane Coaston: In the book you divide the new right into three groups, the Claremonters, the post liberals and the national conservatives. Can you describe each of these categories and explain how each contributes to the makeup of the new right?
Laura K. Field: Sure, so I start with the Claremonters because they were sort of the first to provide this intellectual infrastructure for Trumpism with this famous essay by Michael Anton in 2016 called The Flight 93 Election. And I call them the Claremonters, because they’re affiliated with the Claremont Institute in California and Hillsdale College in Michigan. The Claremont people have been sort of obsessed with the American founding for a very long time and have a very sort of vaunted, high-faluting understanding of the founding principles. And I would say a kind of jingoistic idolatry for the founders that brooks no criticism. So anything that deviates from that, whether it’s the New Deal or the Civil Rights Act, is kind of seen as suspect from them and for them and an excuse for a kind of, um, existential crisis, right? So there’s this kind of crisis-mongering with the Claremont Institute based on this idea that we’ve fallen so far from the original founding. The second group I describe is the post-liberals, and they tend to be constituted by social conservative Catholics. Whereas the Claremont Institute is oriented towards sort of restoration of the founding principles as they understand them, the post liberals are oriented towards what they call the common good, which is to be juxtaposed with the liberal individualism, right, and so they–
Jane Coaston: And it’s interesting because I think many of the post-liberals think that the American founding was kind of a mistake. Like it would have been–
Laura K. Field: Yes.
Jane Coaston: –so cool if we just had a monarchy.
Laura K. Field: Yeah.
Jane Coaston: That was all dictated by the common good. And you’ll never guess who gets to decide what the common good is.
Laura K. Field: Exactly. Yes, conservative traditional conservatives get to make those decisions, right? And their version of the common good is very exclusive. I mean, there’s a kind of nice communitarianism to it, but it’s basically social traditionalism, turning back the clock on a lot of contemporary rights for women and so forth. And they’re very eager to use the state in order to affect those changes and sort of to impose their moral system on on everybody else. And then I also talk about the national conservatives, and that’s sort of the umbrella organizing group that are more politically active. They’ve been organizing the conferences, and partly they’re organizing conferences around the world sort of for illiberalism international, but they’re oriented by nationalism.
Jane Coaston: What are the differences between the new right you’ve been describing and the precursors you mentioned in your book like the Goldwater movement which led to Barry Goldwater’s run for the Republican nomination in 1964, paleoconservatism like Pat Buchanan, and the Tea Party of 2009-2010?
Laura K. Field: So one of the surprises I had when I was writing my book was how much the new right referred back to some of these older populist movements. And so the main difference is that while they’re inspired by many of the same ideas, they’re far more successful, right, that’s the main thing. But they’re also, I think, a lot more misogynist. And there’s also just the kind of media savvy, tech savvy, social media savvy dimension of this that I think is really important. Partly that ties into their effectiveness. But they’ve really sort of got the pulse of the young people in a way that, the youths as we say, um in a way that I don’t think Goldwater sort of maybe did, but Pat Buchanana didn’t really. And there’s no Phyllis Schlafly in the movement, right? There’s no sort of the older movements were anti-feminist. This new movement is far more misogynist. And there is sort of a fourth group that I also map out in the book, which I call the hard right. And they sort of span the other three. But these are people who are explicitly fascist in some instances, definitely misogynist, just sort of thick with misogyny and kind of tied up in the manosphere. So those are the main things.
Jane Coaston: I think it’s pretty telling about that point about misogyny that there is no Phyllis Schlafly in this movement. There’s a lot more talk about like, repeal the 19th as in like, end women’s suffrage. And what’s fascinating to me is how you can tell these groups are powerful because big time conservative organizations are constantly kowtowing to them. But I wanted to ask you, all of these groups, they seem to be to me united by thinking that like, Mitt Romney and National Review Magazine and kind of the conservatism, these so-called like classical liberalism of, even like 15 years ago, is just woefully out of touch. Why? When like, George W. Bush was in office for eight years, like Reagan won two terms, like all of these conservatives who they keep talking about how like they never won anything or they didn’t conserve at anything. They won!
Laura K. Field: Yeah, I mean, part of it’s just a grievance-mongering, right, where they are consumed by this sense of being left out. I think a lot of their success stems from real problems in the United States that then they kind of blow up into something because they’re maybe addicted to the grievance or because there hasn’t been maybe enough honesty in our politics about some of these problems you think of. I mean the end of the Cold War is sort of what started the disintegration of the right in my understanding. Um. Of the establishment, but you also, then you had 9/11 and the wars in the Middle East, right? You had the economic crisis. A lot of these people, I’m not sure how serious we should take their economic policies, but I think that they were talking about something real in terms of the the malaise about the economy and the rising inequality. So there is a kind of real, at least among some of the intellectuals I write about, some real concern for the working class, but a lot of it, I think is just a loss of status. Right? That then they lash out and blame minorities for, blame women for. And so, I mean, there’s a lot to be angry about, right? And I called my book Furious Minds because I think a lot of these men are really sort of, they have this righteous anger about politics and it’s a very strange mix of angers that they are that they are consumed by.
Jane Coaston: Among these groups, you’re not talking about Trumpists or people who for whom Trump is the end-all and be-all, and you write that the new right, quote, “does not really care about or for Donald Trump.” And I would agree, I would say that I think these groups see him as a flawed vehicle for their ideas.
Laura K. Field: Yeah.
Jane Coaston: But they do have bigger plans for a new awful old-fashioned world.
Laura K. Field: Yes.
Jane Coaston: So if the new right is driven by these plans, do they have an ideal path forward post Trump?
Laura K. Field: Well, they do not love Trump. I think you’re right, they see him as a vehicle. And in some ways he’s served as like a camouflage mechanism for them, right? I think that there’s been this really, it’s sort of dramatic radicalization of the GOP in part because of the thinkers I write about. But they love JD Vance. He’s their poster child. They are all celebrating him and he’s got sort of his, his fingers in all the different parts of the new right. And so he’s kind of their ideal person, whether he has the charm or the, just the the leadership qualities, honestly, because he’s in this real bind now. He can’t turn it, he can’t really say much against Trump, he can’t demonstrate any leadership. Now, you know, when there’s all these schisms on the right, there’s all these controversies about anti-Semitism, Tucker Carlson, and about all of the policies Trump is implementing. And there’s not much that J.D. Vance can do. I think he looks pretty weak. But these guys love him. I’m not making predictions. I’ve no idea what will happen. But I think the way forward for the MAGA new right is J.D. Vance and almost exclusively J.D. Vance. So we’ll have to see what happens there.
Jane Coaston: Laura, thank you so much for joining me.
Laura K. Field: Well, thanks for having me.
Jane Coaston: That was my conversation with Laura K. Field, author of Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. We’ll link to her book in the show notes. We’ll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break]
[AD BREAK]
Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today.
[sung] Headlines.
[clip of unknown news reporter] María, María did you offer him did you offer to President Trump your Nobel Peace Prize?
[clip of María Corina Machado] I presented the President of the United States the medal of the peace, the Nobel Peace Prize.
Jane Coaston: Honestly, sometimes you gotta do what you got to do. Venezuelan opposition leader, María Corina Machado, visited the White House on Thursday to discuss the future of Venezuela. You know, since the U.S. captured the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, earlier this year. As in, like, 13 days ago. In a post on Truth Social, Trump thanked Machado for presenting him with the prize, writing, quote, “such a wonderful gesture of mutual respect.” The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded Machado the Nobel Peace Prize in October for her quote. Tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela. And for the record, Trump has never done tireless work in his entire life. Tiresome? Sure, but not tireless. Trump has raised doubts about Machado’s ability to lead the country. Instead, he has signaled a willingness to work with acting president Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s number two. So much for regime change. Nevertheless, a White House official told the Wall Street Journal Trump accepted Machado’s award. But the Nobel Peace Center is here to remind us, quote, “a medal can change owners, but the title of a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate cannot.” We’ll have to see if her gift has any sway in how Trump governs Venezuela. Because yes, Trump is governing Venezuela.
[clip of President Donald Trump] Today, I’m thrilled to announce my plan to lower healthcare prices for all Americans and truly make healthcare affordable again.
Jane Coaston: He does not sound thrilled. On July 19th, 2020, President Trump told Chris Wallace on Fox News that a Republican healthcare plan was coming in two weeks. And on Thursday, only 286 weeks later, Trump announced what can only be described as concepts of a healthcare plan. This as pressure mounts over rising insurance costs following the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. Trump released a comprehensive document of his plan. It’s two pages long. Unsurprisingly, experts balked at the complete lack of details. There are simply four stated goals to achieve health care. Lower drug prices, lower insurance premiums, hold big insurance companies accountable, and maximize price transparency. Sure it sounds good, but it’s essentially saying the plan is to fix health care by fixing health care without explaining how. Which is like announcing you’ve solved a murder by promising to solve the murder without doing any detective work, which sounds very Trumpian, honestly. What can be sussed out within the great healthcare plan is that Trump wants to send money directly to Americans through health savings accounts. That would ostensibly allow consumers to shop for insurance and medical care on their own.
[clip of President Donald Trump] You’re gonna get a better deal and better care. We will have maximum price transparency and costs will come down incredibly. I’m calling on Congress to pass this framework into law without delay.
Jane Coaston: Least convincing infomercial ever. He should call Mike Lindell for tips. A White House official told the Associated Press that conversations with Republicans about the plan are ongoing, but was unable or unwilling to name anyone prepared to introduce said plan. The Trump administration pulled a 180 after announcing that billions of dollars in federal grants for mental health and addiction organizations were being yanked. The federal funds were pulled on Tuesday. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration sent only a form letter to the organizations. The letter inexplicably says that mental health & substance abuse services didn’t align with their current policy focus. Their stated priority? Backing quote, innovative programs and interventions that address the rising rates of mental illness and substance abuse conditions, overdose, and suicide. I wonder what constitutes innovative treatments with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the helm. Ritual bear cub sacrifice? Raw milk injections? Anyway, employees of mental health and addiction programs reportedly freaked out, not only for their jobs, but because without these life-saving services, people will die. A flurried, bipartisan group of lawmakers lobbied both HHS and the White House. Within 24 hours of the initial announcement, the money was restored on Wednesday, though it’s unclear exactly what specifically prompted the reversal. For an administration that justifies a ton of bullshit in the name of stopping drugs, clearly it couldn’t care less about anyone who’s taken them. [theme of 2026 FIFA World Cup begins playing] You hear that? That is the official theme for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Every four years, nations across the globe set aside their differences and agree on one thing. Kicking a little ball is literally the most important thing to ever happen in the history of time, and if you kick the ball wrong, you will be hated by billions of people. FIFA says demand for this year’s World Cup is already off the charts, with more than 500 million ticket requests submitted worldwide. Outside of the host countries, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. The strongest demand came from fans in Germany, England, Brazil, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, and Colombia. Ticket prices have drawn criticism, with some seats listed at nearly $9,000. Not very We Are the World of them. After backlash, FIFA said it will also offer a limited number of $60 tickets sold through national soccer federations. The most requested matches include Colombia vs. Portugal in Miami, the World Cup final in New Jersey and the tournament opener in Mexico City. And that’s the news. [music break]
[AD BREAK]
Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review. I don’t think I really emphasized the degree to which crows hold grudges and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how according to the New York Times, if a murder of crows, that’s what a group of crows is called, decides a person is bad, not only will those crows attack that person, but so will their descendants for up to 17 years, like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston and do not mess with crows. Do not mess with crows. [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producers are Emily Fohr and Chris Allport. Our producer is Caitlin Plummer. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Ethan Obermann, Greg Walters, and Matt Berg. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adriene Hill. Our theme music is by Kyle Murdock and Jordan Cantor. We had help today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.
[AD BREAK]
