Get Off Rod's Back
The reality is, Rod’s been fighting the good fight for much longer than many of today’s commentators and influencers on the Right have been.
Rod Dreher has come under fire, mostly from the Right, for comments he made during an interview with Jeremy Boreing:
Here’s an especially lengthy criticism from a popular X account, in which he describes Rod as a “raped conservative” (WTF???):
Here’s a deplorable low-blow against Rod (he didn’t abandon his family):
There’s plenty more where that came from. You can see for yourself. It seems like he really riled up the crowd!
I’ve mentioned this once before, but I’ve met Rod Dreher. In person, he’s as wonderful a man as you might gather from reading his writing. I certainly can’t consider him a close friend, but a friend of mine he is, nonetheless. Not to mention, Rod’s literally the only reason anyone ever heard of my Substack. The vast majority of my subscribership can be credited to him and him alone. Thus, I’m compelled to come to his defense.
Let me start by saying that I don’t agree with everything Rod says. As I’ve explained quite bluntly, I think Rod is highly susceptible to moral panic. This owes less to his conservatism and more to his religiosity, which also lends itself to making him more likely to believe in the paranormal, aliens visiting Earth, etc. Rod and I may be friends and we may have a similar political alignment, but we’re still very different people who look at the world very differently.
There’s much Rod gets wrong. You’re not going to hurt his feelings by telling him that, though. You certainly won’t combat any of his ideas by attacking the man, neither. You combat them by attacking his arguments and consulting a range of sources. Rod speaks on much, but that doesn’t make him in expert in everything. Furthermore, acting like he himself is a problem, an enemy of the Right, is a non-starter. The reality is, Rod’s been fighting the good fight for much longer than many of today’s commentators and influencers on the Right have been.
Rod, unlike many of today’s right-wing commentators and influencers, entered the crosshairs of Islamists and even Al Sharpton almost a quarter-century ago, when many of today’s most popular right-wing thought-leaders and voices were still children. He’s survived attacks and condemnations that would’ve canceled most people were it not for the fact Rod was a media figure. The man would never allow himself to be characterized as a warrior given his humility. But he’s a survivor. He’s overcome much in both his personal and professional life, things I can’t fathom, things I simply cannot relate to. It’s why I admire him so much and why I’m offended by the criticisms he’s enduring, even if he’s not right about everything.
The idea that Rod’s betraying Vance in any way is ludicrous, given the role he played in making Vance into what he is today. Rod doesn’t brag about it, but he also doesn’t shy away from mentioning that Vance’s memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, didn’t catch much attention until Rod discussed it on his defunct blog on The American Conservative. Everyone in this world needs a push to get somewhere; Vance got his from Rod. He’d never tell anyone that the vice president owes him anything, but if you ask me, Vance most certainly does.
So ask yourselves: who exactly was betrayed here? If you still think Vance and the rising radical right are the victims here, what exactly did Rod do to hurt them? Did he defect to the Left, like the insufferable “Never Trumpers” did? I’m just going to be blunt and say the criticisms of Rod are the same criticisms he’s endured his entire career as a right-wing voice: he’s not extreme enough. That’s all there’s to it. Rod is criticized for being either too doomerish (which is my criticism of him) or for not being and out-and-out extremist. Funny, though: nobody’s criticizing him for being wrong.
One of the things I like about the Right is how much easier it is to be a dissenter than it ever was on the Left. Data shows the Right can handle a difference of opinion far better than the Left. This rising group of right-wing commentators appear to be trying to emulate some of the gatekeeping tactics of the Left, however, all while accusing Rod of trying to be a gatekeeper himself. You see this in the absurd No Enemies To The Right (NETTR) philosophy, which, in practice, means everyone on your side is allowed to be more extreme than you, anyone less extreme than you is the enemy. It’s a philosophy for children.
“Maarek,” co-host of the popular Good Ol’ Boys podcast, had this to say about Rod in 2022:
Coward and weak, you say? What’s that make Maarek, then, an anonymous podcaster trying so hard, alongside his co-host, to become right-wing thought leaders? The fact is, not only is Rod totally exposed, he’s put more skin in the game than the Good Ol’ Boys or any other aspiring right-wing thought leader. Unlike Maarek, Rod was once friends with the vice president. He’s met multiple world leaders and politicians. Who’s got more influence here? Looks like Rod’s critics will need to settle for Donald Trump-worship and dreams of following Erik Prince to their deaths.1
I often disagree with Rod when he defends truly problematic figures like Davids Brooks and French. But doesn’t that say something about his character? Doesn’t that show that, unlike most liberals and, increasingly, many conservatives, that he doesn’t let politics get in the way of friendship? Call it cowardly and weak, if you’d like. But Rod’s still a more virtuous person than most of us can aspire to being. That’s what we want in our leaders, no? Virtue? And do you really want to make politics a part of your personality? If it looks ugly on the Left, why’d it be any prettier on the Right?
The thing is, the Right maybe unhappy with Rod engaging in friendly fire, but he’s always reserved his worst criticism for the Left. Because he’s a man of integrity, however, he calls out wrong everywhere he sees it. A recovered Catholic, he was and remains highly critical of the church for its corruption and trespasses over the decades. Nobody really gets on him about this, interestingly. Though he’s happy his current denomination, Orthodoxy, is gaining adherents, he’s also expressed concern over the fact it’s being used as a vessel for propagating far-right politics. Welding religion and political ideology together is toxic combination and Rod rightfully calls it out. If he doesn’t, who will? Who even has? You want a liberal to do it instead?
Returning to the accusations of betrayal, it reminds me of erstwhile intelligent people saying we “owed” President Trump our loyalty. Again, for what? What’s Trump done to earn our loyalty? Better yet, why doesn’t anyone ever say Trump owes us his loyalty? We’re the ones who made him president. Meanwhile, Trump’s performance in office has been nothing to boast about. The best anyone can say in his defense is that he tries.
This is the Right’s respect for authority taken to absurd extremes, at a time where there exists such a vacuum of authority, even someone like Trump will do. I suspect these same people will try doing to the same with Vance. They’re already trying. Between Vance and, say, Marco Rubio, my views align more with the former. If forced to choose, I’d probably choose Vance. But let’s make something clear: Vance is supposed to work for us. In America 2026, we owe no loyalty to the elected. They better do the job or they can lose it. Get mad at me, stay mad at me.
The thing is, politics can make even the most virtuous of leaders into villainous figures. Ironically, this is most true in democracies. In a society where politics becomes a hustle - yet another downside of mass democracy - competition is so fierce, you have to be willing to compromise your own integrity at times in order to remain relevant.
I think that’s all Rod wanted for Vance - to not sacrifice his integrity:
One of the worst things about Trump’s political victories is that the Right seems to have over-learned lessons from his success. Specifically, they seem to believe that the more extreme, the better. Obviously, we can’t go back to the days when Romney, McCain, and Bush (who were all considered Nazis, by the way) represented the Right, nor should we. But the idea we should push the most extreme figures imaginable is also wrong. Pushing the Overton window, destroying taboos, forcing a debate on previously untouchable issues, is a delicate task. We can see in real-time how Trump’s successes in this arena are accompanied by ugly failures as well.
I don’t think Rod’s concerns about rising antisemitism are entirely off-base, either. It’s not that I take his “Weimar America” thesis literally. I’ve explained that America proved uniquely resistant to fascism back in the 1930s and a big point I’ve tried to make time and again is that life isn’t a binary choice between eventually being under the jackboot of communists or fascists. That’s an absurdly 20th century way of thinking and isn’t what much of history has amounted to.
The problem with rising antisemitism is that it opens the door to the kind of tribalism that can irreparably fracture societies. I’m not saying it’ll happen, but once the taboo has been broken, all other similar taboos become fair game. No group - ethnic, racial, religious - is above criticism. If we want, as Americans seem to do, to celebrate all the different groups making up our multicultural society, it’s perfectly fine to criticize them as well. Besides, anti-Whiteness, which is the only acceptable form of discriminatory hatred today, dominates our culture and politics. Liberals can contort themselves into justifying it all they’d like, but nonsense is nonsense. There’s much more to criticize blacks over than Whites, for one.
Antisemitism, however, criticizes Jews just for being Jews, often attributing to them conspiracy theories and falsehoods. There’s plenty of things to rag on Jews over, as with any other group, but pretending like they’re the source of all problems is hate for the sake of hate. Nobody’s going to convince me, for example, that Jews are a bigger threat to the West than Muslims are. That’s simply preposterous. Nor can anti-Whiteness, an animating concern on the Right, be fought through antisemitism. Jews aren’t to blame for anti-Whiteness and are actually victimized by it as well.
My bottom line is this: whatever his issues, Rod Dreher isn’t the enemy. If the Right fails, he won’t be to blame for it. If anything, the Right’s failures are more likely to be blamed on the fact they gave into the extremists and crazies instead of leaning into the voices of reason like Rod. The fact that Rod doesn’t deny the Holocaust or call for TND (if you don’t know what this is, don’t look it up) is the least of the Right’s problems.
None of this is to say he’s any kind of right-wing leader. Even he’d reject that title. But he remains a valuable voice in the discourse. His ability to break through to the mainstream is limited, since the public has such a strong allergy to anything not liberal. Given the public has a predisposition to viewing the Right in the worst light imaginable, why then is the Right so determined to validate their views? Whether on the Left or the Right, if you can’t handle Rod, you’re not going to make it.
Which leads me to my final point: I can’t tell whether the Right thinks the rise of extremist ideologies and antisemitism on their side is a good or bad thing. Personally, I don’t care much what the Left thinks of the Right, given their predispositions. But if the Right wants to be able to enjoy the same successes the Left did, they have to get some of this extremism under control. Remember that the Left always managed to present themselves and their leaders as the sane ones, despite holding ridiculously radical views. They had an easier task given the direction our culture shifted, but unless you enjoy this luxury, you cannot put the extremists at the forefront of your movement and expect to win.
When you read Rod’s writings, you get the sense of a conflicted man. On one side, he understands something has decisively changed, the system cannot be reformed, and we simply can’t do politics the way we once did. Hence, his post-liberalism. On the other side, he’s not ready to just throw everything over the cliff, either, because he understands, through history, that even a broken system is better than none at all. Hence, he still holds onto some of the sacred cows of his generation, such as the post-Civil Rights consensus on race. I think that’s where many of us are today, even on the Left. It’s just that Rod’s honest enough to say so.
I wrote this essay to defend Rod, so I’m not going to critique all of his thoughts, not now. There’ll be plenty of time for it later. While I disagree with Rod adamantly on the issue of race, for example (I’m definitely more of a radical than he’s on that), the fact that I’m even developing these thoughts in my head, writing them down, and able to explain to readers why I believe as I do shows you the true value of Rod Dreher: he makes you think. His critics seem to want two things at once which are in conflict: they want someone to tell them what to think, but they also want what they’re told to align with their predispositions.
He’s not there to do that. He’s there to make you ask yourself: why do I think as I do? A little self-reflection does a person lots of good. So the real question is: why are Rod’s critics on the Right so afraid of self-reflection? Is it because, perhaps, he’s not wrong about them?
That’s it for this one. What are your thoughts on the drama? Talk about it in the comments section.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
I’m a fan of the Good Ol’ Boys podcast and like both their hosts, for the record. I just think their attacks on Rod are wholly unmerited.
I'm a regular commentor and a paid subscriber to Rod's Substack. Over the past couple of years he has become obsessed with the Groypers and antisemitism to the point of hysteria. You're right to say that he's susceptible to moral panic. He is and it's because he is, ultimately, a weak man who is not ready for the world that is about to be born.
His criticism and complaints about Vance have started to sound a little bit like a jilted teenage girl. He admits that the youth who are being tempted by radicalism of the far- left or far- right have legitimate concerns, but proposes no solutions to them.
He laments Europe being overrun by migrant hordes from Africa and the Middle East (He was posting that line about "setting fire to your oak doors" from TCOTS yesterday in response to the Moroccan invasion of Spain yesterday) but won't countenance the idea that actual physical violence, either by the state or the citizenry at large if the state refuses to act, against migrants will ultimately be the only solution.
As for his personal situation, ideally family and all that should be off limits, but he's aired his own dirty laundry in public so much that you can't hardly blame people for taking notice of it and using it as a cudgel against him. If you've read him as long as I have, you also notice that, while he won't say directly what happened in his marriage or his relationships with his children or with his parents and other family when he moved back to Louisiana, it always comes through that whatever it was, was mostly other people's fault and mostly not his.
Look, we all know people in our real lives who somehow have a bunch of problems with the people who know and love them best, yet will never admit that maybe- just maybe- they're the problem. They were the cylinder that wasn't firing. Not absolutely everybody else.
And the simple fact is that he is punching Right far more than he is punching Left right now.
I had a chance to spend part of a day with Rod several years ago, even saw him through his first Evangelical church service. He truly is the most merry doomer you will ever find.
I have lots of criticism of his equation of racist authoritarianism on Left and Right, some of which I've shared on his own stack. But he's one of very few online people I would "go have a beer with" (and I don't even drink.)
To those who want to write him off though. Benedict Option: 5 years ahead of its time. Live Not By Lies: 3 years ahead of its time. The rise of the UFO thing: predicted it 2 years ahead. He's had a few misses as well (2023: "Europe's going to freeze to death w/o Russian gas!") but he's got a better track record of predicting the future than most.