Against "Bari-Weissism"

In the fall of 2025, a friend tasked me with writing an article for publication, arguing against the rise of Bari Weiss and the new center-right that seemed to be making a play for power in the wake of the second Trump Administration. The article wasn’t a good fit for the publication in question at the time. Ultimately, despite Trump’s more neo-conservative leanings, in 2026, there was ultimately no real debate between the post-liberal right and the new “post-left” conservatives. However, today, as Weiss’s star continues to grow (institutionally, if not politically), I thought it might be a good time to release this article in case people are still struggling with the siren call of the moderate liberal conservative. Naturally, as formatted, this piece is much shorter and punchier to fit within a magazine’s word limit.

The last three decades haven’t been kind to America, as evidenced by a growing malaise across our culture. But perhaps no cohort has felt the sting of decline more sharply than conservative Christian America. This group was once the defining demographic of the United States, and the moral core of its culture. But by the early 21st century, conservative Christians faced the prospect of living in a new “negative world” where their religious convictions were called deplorable, their cultural voice mocked, and their political participation censured. The cultural dispossession of this group has been a long time in the making, and six decades of conservative politics have done very little to turn the tide.

However, in current year, conservative America seems to be experiencing a reprieve. Following the explosion of intolerant “woke” leftism and the various crises of the early 2020s, the politics of America experienced the beginnings of a realignment. Now, at last, disaffected liberals were breaking away from the 20th-century progressive project; young men were considering new, distinctly right-wing worldviews; and the outline of a broader right-wing coalition was emerging.

The rise of this new anti-progressive spirit was hopeful for many conservatives, but also confusing, since, despite agreement on what was wrong, there was little consensus on an alternative vision. Now, in the wake of the second Trump administration, people are once more asking what a non-progressive vision for America would even look like. If the advent of hysterical “woke” identity politics and censorious reality-denying government policies was what everyone was against, what was the anti-left political project interested in actually promoting?

So far, the most mainstream answer to these questions comes from liberal voices, such as former New York Times editor Bari Weiss. On this style of moderate view, the foundation of American greatness lies in its dedication to proceduralism, moderation, and core liberal values. The late-stage leftism of the 2010s went too far by violating the core principles of liberalism; as a result, the task for a right-wing coalition is to suppress the far left's radical insanity and restore societal norms.

On its face, this liberal understanding of politics is a return to form for conservatives. Breaking with the myriad radical voices that identify deeper problems in the Enlightenment project generally, Bari Weiss's vision offers the most reasonable and institutionally supported path back to societal sanity.

Understandably, many conservative Christians now struggle with how to react to these ex-liberals promising a new era of restoration. Few forget the problems of the neoconservatives, former leftists themselves, who pursued a similar compromise with the cultural revolution of the 1960s, only to produce a movement rife with contradictions and unable to find any meaningful basis for opposing 21st-century progressive identity politics.

Nevertheless, the prospect put forward by Bari Weiss might seem enticing.

Could a new moderate approach work this time with the right leaders and arguments?

Could there be a new dawn in America built around an understanding of proceduralism and compromise?

Could Bari-Weisism make “America Great Again”?

All good questions, but it’s at this point that we have to put aside wishful thinking and be blunt. Because, bluntly speaking, “Bari-Weissism” doesn’t work.

It’s not because Bari Weiss and her colleagues aren’t talented (they are). It’s not because the America they imagine wouldn’t be great (it would be). Rather, the problems lie in the fact that these moderate liberal solutions do not really address the fundamental problem we face in modern America.

That’s what historians often say about great leaders who fail at their endeavors, from Napoleon to Hannibal Barca. Their fatal flaw was not a lack of ability or passion, but rather a misunderstanding of some critical dimension of their age’s zeitgeist. As such, each failed genius dedicated themselves to winning heroic tactical victories while the broader strategic opportunity slipped through their fingers.

And much the same could be said about moderate and procedural solutions to the political conflicts of the 21st century. The opponents of leftism never win the war they are fighting because they have never really tried to address the core problem of their age.

As it turns out, the core problem of our modern society isn’t bad governance. The core problem of our modern society is that it has lost its moral consensus. At a foundational level. The traditional order of Christendom has been deconstructed, and the people of the West are desperately searching for a replacement to restore trust and order.

In the late 20th century, progressives understood this problem in a way their neoconservative rivals could not. Conservatives thought they were building a coalition to manage the American empire. Progressives understood that they were building a new religion for the world writ large. Thus, for several decades, every conservative decision has focused on tactical victories in the wake of ultimate strategic defeat and on co-owning their opponents' mistakes, so that every proposed policy arrives on the scene pre-subverted, unable to effect meaningful and lasting change.

As such, the neo-conservatives proposed mass legal immigration through amnesty as an answer to open borders, “Equality of opportunity” as opposed to “equality of outcome”, and a public square that was “ideologically neutral” rather than dominated by anti-conservative ideas. In each case, the false moderate position made less sense than the radical positions the conservatives decried. And while the platform of moderation appealed to centrist voters by sounding “reasonable”, it conceded the moral high ground to the left.

Indeed, moderation wins votes. But the political conflict in the modern age is not a war of votes; it is a war of belief. Compromise means nothing. Conviction means everything. The struggle is not to form a new political coalition or government, but to discover a different expression of morality and aesthetics that radically breaks with progressive norms.

Any spirit that recaptures the trust and vitality of the old Western world must be built on a new moral understanding of society that incorporates ideas considered taboo throughout the 20th century. Such a new perspective must question our modern assumptions of egalitarianism, liberty based on the pursuit of pleasure, individualism, and limited government in the context of a multicultural society.

And that’s a tall order, especially for many conservatives stuck in a mode of liberal restraint who might struggle to understand what such a radical alternative would entail. But the solutions begin with a new attitude towards culture and politics, which now need to be learned.

First off, no political movement concerned with promoting a moral vision cares about procedural abstractions, much less propositions that stand in the way of society’s core imperatives. Neo-conservatives were fond of saying that we are a “propositional nation”, but then appealed to moral propositions America no longer held in common. They talked about meritocracy, but never could say who would determine merit. They talked about common-sense policies but never established a common culture. They talked about good governance, but couldn’t define what is good. Moreover, any attempt to establish these concepts forcefully through law was greeted with questions about “limiting principles, not understanding that issues of basic morality could not be limited by their very definition.

The fight with the left is about fundamental beliefs. And fundamental beliefs cannot have “limiting principles,” otherwise they would not be fundamental.

If a man possesses conviction, he incorporates it into his identity. And that lack of confident identity was a hallmark of past generations of failed conservatives who constantly hid behind euphemisms like “natural law” and “Judeo-Christian values”. But no one is a “Natural Law-ist” or a “Judeo-Christian” in their hearts. These are just polite alibis for people who want to appear inoffensive in polite public spaces. But maybe it’s time to start offending people more often.

Any successful approach to modern politics must talk confidently about what is “good” and “evil,” and about the ultimate purpose of both the individual and the state. A confident understanding of politics makes decisive statements about identity, sacrifice, and what matters more than pleasure and freedom. People with strong ideals don’t worry endlessly about justifying themselves against some arbitrary standard of skepticism; they demonstrate their understanding of what is righteous and then challenge their enemies to do better.

And ultimately, this is the real danger of “Bari-Weissism”. The problem isn’t just that it remakes all the old mistakes of the neo-conservatives, but that it misses the profound opportunity present in our historical moment. We are witnessing the collapse of the modern liberal order under the weight of its own contradictions, and therein lies an opportunity to boldly assert a new vision of mankind's rightful destiny and work towards a future worth fighting for.

I will admit here that the concerns of Burkean conservatives about “radicalism” are well heeded. By moving away from the modes of 20th-century thought, conservatives will undoubtedly find it harder to participate in the liberal institutions that rule our society, making short-term gains more difficult. And perhaps these missed opportunities will cut all the deeper as moderates like Bari Weiss ascend into positions of power at CBS and elsewhere.

Still, institutionally supported or not, Bari-Weissism (along with other forms of moderate liberal solutions) will remain incapable of addressing the core problems of our age. As such, followers of these more moderate approaches will only be able to continue managing these old systems into self-imposed irrelevance.

However, those interested in a different direction for society will have to look to other ways of conceptualizing politics that break with the norms of the progressive vision.

Naturally, such a radical break triggers the ultimate, and more vexing, question of which moral system will replace progressivism as the reigning religious order in the West. On this question, there is little agreement. Between Christian Nationalism, Vitalism, Integralism, and even technocratic monarchy, there is no consensus among post-liberals on which path society should follow.

Nonetheless, these new questions will likely be answered through hard experience and the decision of History. Perhaps that’s a frightening prospect for many American conservatives who thought the 20th century had brought an end to these deep ideological conflicts. Still, answering such questions of fundamental belief is the task that now stands before the human race.

Victory is not guaranteed, but shirking from the challenge guarantees decline, just at a slightly slower pace.