Read what the voices on the right have to say before Donald Trump becomes president of the United States

Obama has all but left the building, but we’re still not sure what the Trump White House will bring.

Conservatives – fans and critics alike – are just as perplexed by what the new leader might do with (or to) allies in western Europe and the Middle East. They’re also joining the fray over the meaning of the Obama presidency. Others are fretting over states’ efforts to undermine Trump before he begins. Meanwhile, in Washington, the far-right movement that supported Trump looks to be fragmenting in the wake of his victory.

Publication: Commentary

What you should know about the author: Noah Rothman is the assistant online editor for neoconservatism’s original organ, Commentary. He is a reliable fount of neoconservative foreign policy opinion and isn’t above liberal-bashing and panics about identity politics. But as someone who wasn’t wholly on board the Trump train during the election, he’s capable, now and then, of voicing incisive conservative skepticism about the president-elect.

Why you should read it: Trump’s position on Nato has shifted from outright hostility during the campaign to a recent insistence that it think less about Russia and more about Islamist terrorism. European leaders such as Angela Merkel voiced their concerns this week after Trump was interviewed by the Sunday Times, but the alliance that won the cold war looks shaky. What happens if those ties become even more frayed?

Extract: “The ties that bind North America and Western Europe are fraying, and to what end? Will American or European interests be better seen to by a collection of disparate states at cross purposes than they were under the rubric of an American-led alliance structure? It’s doubtful. This is a crisis of choice. The incoming American administration seems prepared to surrender the hard-won gains of the 20th Century. What problem do these measures aim to solve other than an unprecedented spate of post-Cold War peace and shared prosperity? That remains an open question.”

Publication: The Federalist



What you should know about the author: Having once penned a sex column based on her conservative, moral principles, Molly Hemingway has found a niche at the Federalist as a rightwing critic of liberal media. She’s a thoroughly partisan political and cultural conservative who regularly turns out culture wars guff. It must be said, though, that she’s not dumb, and occasionally her broadsides at liberals hit the mark: her filleting of Vox’s Matt Yglesias is a good example.



Why you should read it: This is a pretty thorough examination of the implications of the apparent leaking of scandalous Trump material to the media by top intelligence officials. Hemingway correctly points out that liberal outlets have a habit of falling for Trump oppo research that later turns out to be false. She also tries to point out that credulousness in the face of deliberate attempts by security services to undermine an elected president may not serve the people or the media well in the long term, even if the president in question is unqualified.

Extract: “The campaign in which the media are too compliant also can hurt the media’s efforts to hold Trump accountable because it causes people who aren’t already histrionic about the president-elect to tune out a media establishment they see as overly compliant in pushing partisan political narratives. Also, oddly enough, it could serve to scandal-proof Trump. Pushing outlandish suggestions that are proven false makes it more difficult to convince the American public of any real threats or scandals that could arise.”



Publication: The American Conservative



What you should know about the author: Once again, Kelly Vlahos brings an essential, principled and critical perspective on foreign policy and military affairs.



Why you should read it: Trump is capable of shifting on any position, and Israel is no exception. What sounded like even-handedness during the election campaign seems to have hardened into ultraconservative pro-Israel, pro-settler rhetoric and appointments during the transition period. He even seems to be backing away from longstanding bipartisan support for a two-state solution. But it’s going to remain pretty murky until he is sworn in.

Extract: “Trump’s not-so-subtle slide toward the far right of the spectrum has alarmed more moderate – some would say Democratic – Jewish groups and establishment writers, who sense in this group a strong consensus against a two-state solution for Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians. Collectively, there is more support here for expanded settlements in contested Palestinian territories, and for moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, than there has been at the levers of Washington power in a long time, if ever. If these forces have their way, an already fragile Middle East could be headed for a new regional conflagration, with the peace process turned back decades.”



Publication: Politico magazine

What you should know about the author: Ben Schreckinger has been covering the far-right beat for Politico.



Why you should read it: This explores some of the contradictions afflicting the far-right movement right now. Figures such as Richard Spencer seem to have more influence and adherents than anyone could have predicted a year ago. And yet the white nationalist, racist movement has been riven by infighting, rivalries and ideological bun fights that were papered over during the campaign. Some on the “alt-right” are balking at a continuing association with forthright fascists, and others – such as “Mike Enoch” – are being torn down by their own movement when it’s discovered that their private life doesn’t match their far-right politics. Schreckinger’s coolly analytical article reveals things that other more stridently critical pieces can’t.

Extract: “Now, as its members move on Washington, an already fragmented movement is further split between those who embrace Spencer’s racial politics and those who, for reasons of pragmatism or principle, reject the ‘alt-right’ label for its associations. Said Paul Ray Ramsey, a blogger who flirts with white nationalism but found the Nazi associations a bridge too far, even for him: ‘You don’t want to tie your brand to something that’s ultimate evil.’”



Publication: New York magazine



What you should know about the author: Christopher Caldwell is a senior editor at the bellicose Weekly Standard, which Bill Kristol fashioned into a hammer for neoconservatives. He has courted criticism from many directions for his own views on immigration.



Why you should read it: There is a pretty fierce battle going on between the left, liberals and conservatives to define the legacy of the outgoing president. As you’d expect, some of Caldwell’s criticisms are boilerplate rightwing whining of the kind that’s been going on for eight years. But some of what he says – on increased executive power, and Obama’s closeness to the oligarchs of Wall Street and Silicon Valley – need to be reckoned with. Either way, the struggle to define the departing president is a struggle over history, and therefore also part of the struggle for the future. We should tune in.

Extract: “Obama’s legacy is one of means, not ends. He has laid the groundwork for a political order less answerable to voters. His delay of the Obamacare employer mandate by fiat, his provision of working papers to immigrants by executive order – these are not applications of old tricks but dangerous constitutional innovations. After last fall’s electoral rout, the president claimed to have ‘heard’ (presumably to speak on behalf of) the two-thirds of people who didn’t vote. And he has forged a partnership with the country’s rich – not the high-earning professionals calumniated in populist oratory (including his own) but the really existing Silicon Valley and Wall Street plutocracy.”



