Two Types of Integralists

Theorists and Strategists

I distinguish between two types of integralist intellectuals: theorists and strategists.* Theorists defend the integralist ideal, while strategists pursue it. All the Kingdoms of the World engages the strategists first. Assessing integralism requires assessing their political plans. 

That said, we gain more insight by addressing the theorists. The strategists strive for the ideal. If the ideal is defective, they should pursue other projects. Addressing the ideal, then, addresses the integralists all at once. So the book engages the theorists more than the strategists. 

My four theorists are Thomas Pink, Fr. Thomas Crean, Alan Fimister, and Fr. Edmund Waldstein. 

The strategists include Adrian Vermeule, Gladden Pappin, Chad Pecknold, and Pat Smith. I think Sohrab Ahmari and Patrick Deneen are now both integralists. But they’ve made some public remarks that distance themselves from the ideal. 

The two groups differ in many respects. Here are five.

(1) Location: The theorists primarily live outside the United States; most are not American. Pink, Crean, and Fimister were born in the UK. Waldstein is American but lives in Austria. 

Vermeule, Pecknold, and Smith all live in the US. Deneen is American, and while Ahmari is Iranian, he lives in the US. Gladden Pappin is an American citizen too. However, Pappin has moved to Hungary. He is now President of the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

(2) Time Period: The theorists worked on integralism five to ten more years before the strategists. (Perhaps excepting Pappin.) Pink, Fimister, and Crean were all interested in some version of the ideal in the 2000s. But most of the strategists became integralists in 2016 or later. The strategists also contain several converts. Most of the theorists are cradle Catholics. 

I’ve spoken with all the theorists. They say a Catholic society is a precondition for transitioning to integralism. The strategists have a more top-down approach. They sometimes say that they can capture elite institutions like the nation-state. That can produce an integralist society over time.

(3) Current Political Attitudes: The theorists have an authoritarian political ideal. But their attitudes toward modern politics are more anodyne. Indeed, many reject Vermeule’s fondness for the administrative state. Crean and Fimister see integralism as opposed to the modern nation-state. The strategists have authoritarian politics about current political affairs. 

(4) Scholarship: The theorists also write much more on integralism. Pink has many papers, Waldstein has a few and an array of blog posts, and Crean and Fimister have an entire book. The strategists write and publish far less on integralism.

(5) Kindness: Finally, the theorists are kinder than the strategists in their digital interactions. The strategists are often unkind to their critics, especially on Twitter. 

The theorists and strategists are different. Our approach towards them should reflect that. We should dialogue with the theorists. They merit engagement. The strategists seem to dislike dialogue, even with other integralists. I sometimes worry that all we can do is oppose them.

---

*Actually, there are two other groups. The first group includes the left-wing integralists involved in the movement before 2016. They split with the theorists and strategists over Trump. While they were once a cohesive group, they collapsed. Many now identify as ex-integralists (so I won’t identify them).

The other group are the hardcore localist quasi-integralists. They have direct or indirect ties to New Polity magazine. They’ve tried to dialogue with the strategists. They’ve failed! I am often surprised about how little the strategists want to discuss their ideal. They seem content to talk to no one but themselves and their followers.