Does the Lord of the Rings Vindicate the New Right?

In trying to refute David French’s critique of the New Right’s use of the Lord of the Rings, Nathanael Blake (of The Federalist) says a lot more about himself than he intended.

Let’s start with David French’s piece at the New York Times: ‘The Lord of the Rings’ Is Not the Far Right’s Playground. The piece has basically two parts. In the first, French surveys the impact of the Lord of the Rings on conservatives, giving examples like J. D. Vance, Peter Thiel, and Giorgia Meloni. I’m not sure to what extent “far right” works as a descriptor of these folks, especially Meloni, but–as French points out–lots of groups have latched onto Tolkien’s work like “leftist environmentalists”.

In the second part, French claims that the Lord of the Rings “rebukes some of the movements that claim to love it the most.” Why? Because a fundamental message of the Lord of the Rings is that grasping for power is itself a dark and a dangerous act, regardless of the motives.

Throughout the story the ring calls out to the heroes, speaking to their hearts, telling them that only by claiming power can they defeat power. In a very real way, the will to power is the true enemy in Tolkien’s work. The identity of the villain, whether it’s Morgoth and Sauron in “The Silmarillion” or Sauron and Saruman in “The Lord of the Rings,” is less relevant than grasping after power.

Nathanael Blake of The Federalist replied with: No Surprise, David French Completely Botches J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord Of The Rings in which he attempts to refute French by misrepresentation.

Note that in French’s argument it is not power per se but “the will to power” and “grasping after power” that are the root evil of the One Ring. However, Blake writes that French “equates the temptation of the Ring with power.” He also summarizes French’s position as “power is evil”. Since he then cites the same passage I did (where French specifically says “will to power” and “grasping at power”), I can only see this as a kind of failure of reading comprehension on Blake’s part.

Blake then provides what he thinks is the real message. It’s not that power is bad (which… nobody said). It’s that domination is bad. Which is actually a perfectly reasonable summary of the French’s position, which is the one Blake is supposed to be arguing against. After all, French cited (approvingly) Michael Drout saying that “Rather than reveling in the acquisition and exercise of power, ‘The Lord of the Rings’ celebrates its renunciation, insisting that the domination of others is always morally wrong.”

Thus “domination is wrong” is actually a fair summary of French’s point–not a refutation of it–and Blake is mostly trying to wring substantive water from the stone of semantic quibbling. But then he goes further, and the extreme position he takes is quite illuminating.

According to Blake it’s not power that Faramir and others reject, but it’s also not just domination. It is instead a particularly extreme kind of domination: the kind “that makes people into thralls and slaves.” He elaborates:

The essence of domination is the attempt to elevate oneself to a godlike position and then impose one’s will to the point of obliterating the personhood of others. This is the sort of power the Ring offers and why it cannot be used for good, even by those who otherwise possess and deploy great power of their own. (emphasis added)

The thing that’s so interesting is this: the kind of domination that obliterates the personhood of others is so extreme it’s hard to say that it exists in the real world at all. If it does, it’s certainly at the extremes of actual totalitarianism like one might find in North Korea.

If Blake’s point was just that Tolkien’s message is that domination, not power per se, is the problem: then why take the additional step of making the domination of the One Ring so particular and so extreme? It seems that the only consequence is to specifically exempt lesser domination from criticism. Power is not bad per se. And using that power to dominate others is not bad either. It’s only if you exercise or seek domination “to the point of obliterating the personhood of others” that you have a problem.

So, to recap, French says that Tolkien says domination is bad even when you’re trying to dominate for good reasons.

Blake misrepresents French’s position, but then he actually (accidentally?) engages with it and basically says: no, a little domination is just fine. It has to be really, really extreme before it’s a problem.

Blake is not actually rebutting French’s point. He’s exemplifying it.

The second portion of Blake’s piece is really just a kind of bizarre. He argues that, because Tolkien envisioned a world with a Creator and natural law, “it is a vindication of the New Right”. Well, yeah, sure, if “God exists” and “natural law exists” were the definition of the New Right, sure, but it’s not actually that hard to find devout Christians who affirm both of those principles and don’t agree with the New Right. This is just a clumsy motte and bailey. I’m not sure why Blake included it.

Here’s the thing: any great work of literature (the Lord of the Rings qualifies!) isn’t about just one thing. Good fiction can mean lots of different things to lots of different people. The New Right is free to take from the work whatever they’d like, just as any group can do the same.

But let’s not pretend that a crucial message within the Lord of the Rings is that seeking to dominate others is dangerous, that French correctly identified it, and that Blake is pretty transparently trying to wiggle out of it precisely because domination (for a good cause!) is exactly what he seeks.