What is needed in American today are not “hurricane men,” but calm representative figures spread throughout society, who by their example and integrity can lead a nation through the storm and accomplish great things…

hurricane menWe have reached a point in our nation’s history where the debate is becoming ever more violent and uncivil. This can be seen in the statue wars now raging after the rally in Charlottesville. The event served as an example of the growing frustration with the political process that many claim is irremediably broken.

Indeed, it is hard to get things done. Worse, things are being done outside the normal processes and even the rule of law. Hence, statues are defaced by vandals or removed at night without regard for the views of the public. Protests have turned violent and lawless. Fanning the fires, the media frames the issues so as to favor a liberal narrative and agenda. People become frustrated and want quick solutions.

And that is the problem. These are times of frenetic intemperance, in which everything must have everything instantly and effortlessly. Many people no longer want to make the immense effort to change things. Whether it be politics or consumer goods, people want everything now, quickly and without complications.

The Hurricane Men Appear

These circumstances prepare for the coming of the “hurricane men.”

Throughout history, there have always been hurricane men. The expression is used here figuratively to mean any man, woman, group or movement that in a time of crisis appears like a hurricane. These figures or movements go outside the political process and break the rules to push their agenda. Hurricane men are usually angry people who do not care about principles or protocol. They think nothing about barreling over obstacles that stand in their way regardless of the consequences.

Not all such figures have been bad people. Some merely disrupt and don’t overthrow their societies. At times, societies benefit from abrupt changes but not without damaging society in some way. Like hurricanes, these people vary in their degree of intensity, thus differing as to the extent of the devastation they cause.

Harming Society by Their Actions

However, most hurricane men have been revolutionaries that end up harming society much like hurricanes do in the places where they land.

These figures appear in times of revolution or stagnation. In cases of revolution, many are the product of manufactured crises exploited by Leftists and cooperative media outlets. In times of stagnation, they excite the public by proposing change for the sake of change that leads to disaster.

The names of these harmful figures are legion—Robespierre, Danton, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Che, Castro and countless others. The sixties introduced a generation of hurricane people with the sexual revolution. Today’s mass society tends to create hurricane movements (like Antifa and Black Lives Matter) that produce much the same effect.

A Willingness to Steamroll Over Laws and Sentiments

What characterizes a hurricane man is his willingness to go outside the customs and laws that normally govern society. He has no principles to bog him down. He proposes quick, simple solutions and pithy slogans that offer to overcome the frustrations of a society in crisis. He is willing to employ any means to reach his goal—which is deliberately left vague.

As the statue war rages, two hurricane movements clash. The first movement is the gaggle of Antifa-type Leftists, who violently attack the second movement made up of the extremists of the so-called Alt-Right. When these Leftists steamroll over laws and public sentiments, the other side is tempted to slug right back.

Times become dangerous when this happens in society. The debate ceases to be civil or even rational. All sides are committed to anarchy. The victory belongs to the side that presents the better narrative or wields the heavier fist.

The Clash of Hurricane Men Leading to Strife

And that is what has happened in the statue wars. The media have framed the controversy to the Left’s advantage. The hurricane men of the Left have undermined the rule of law. Cowardly politicians call for society to give in to the pressure of the Left. The powerful captains of industry cower in fear of displeasing politically-correct diktats of the hurricane men.

Rather than craft a counter-narrative to win the war for public opinion, many statue defenders find it much simpler to rely upon their own hurricane men, which serves only to create a more intense hurricane. This is not the classic clash of Right versus Left but rather a recipe for anarchy. No one respects the rules or principles anymore. This is the stuff of civil strife that threatens the nation.


What is missing today are those who defy the culture and make the immense effort to frame the debate in defense of order and history. What is needed are not hurricane men, but calm representative figures spread throughout society, who by their example and integrity can lead a nation through the storm and accomplish great things.

In times of crisis, hurricane men appear. However, the same crisis can also call forth those principled and courageous figures at all levels of society who will oppose the hurricane men. The time has come for many who now watch to step up to the plate.

As in times of natural disaster, all Americans urgently need to call upon God’s help to save the nation from devastation.

Books on the topic of this interview may be found in The Imaginative Conservative BookstoreThe Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
10 replies to this post
  1. Do you not see that our current president is by your own definition a “hurricane man” himself? And that selling himself to the public as such is precisely what got him elected?

    • Hi, Lisa –

      First I’m not convinced our president is someone who has shown “willingness to go outside the customs and laws that normally govern society.”

      If you see things differently, please explain.

      Second, if Mr. Horvat sees what you’re hinting, what’s your point?

      • His entire presidency thus far could be summed up in a whirlwind of activity–often done outside of advisement by or consent of relevant parties–in an attempt to “do” as much as possible in as short a timeframe as possible. My point was merely to highlight the irony of a concept like a “hurricane man” coming from a conservative source.

        • It would seem that he’s consulted relevant parties throughout his term so far; although I’m certain his idea of “relevant parties” differs from yours.

          I’m not sure why the “hurricane man” concept is ironic coming from a conservative source.

          • It’s ironic because the very first sentence in this article states that we don’t need “hurricane men” but that’s exactly what we put into the White House, and what most conservatives apparently support.

  2. “No one respects the rules or principles anymore. This is the stuff of civil strife that threatens the nation.”

    The United States is made of strong stuff than the fear of anarchy. Our country has survived mini revolutions since its beginning and saying our country has figures comparable to Robespierre and Lenin is a poor comparison – we are a democracy, not a monarchy. What matters in revolution is the reasons behind the protests and action. Why is the revolution happening?

    In this case, there is no “so-called Alt-Right”: there is a verified group called the Alt-Right, which are mostly white men who are white supremacists. This essay is not being intellectually honest if it implies that the Leftist groups are to blame what happened in Charlottesville: the Alt-Right came brandishing torches, chanting phrases like, “We will not be replaced!” (They were not talking about the statues.)

    Our nation is not going to decline because no one reads Miss Manners anymore. Our nation is going to decline because we do not respect the other side, and constantly vilify as opposed to empathize. There are somethings people will never agree with – but Charlottesville is a great example of where people can truly come together and unite as a nation.

    • Hi, Julie –

      “Our nation is going to decline because we do not respect the other side, and constantly vilify as opposed to empathize.”

      Is human history predominantly that of reasoned understanding and empathy – or is it more one of vilification?

      I’d argue that our Nation will decline not because we need more people “coming together,” but because we fail to see that “coming together” is not a viable answer given human nature. I do not advocate radical positions – like that of the “alt-Left” or “alt-Right”; that is, I do not advocate any position that prioritizes *individual* ideology above and beyond that of devotion to the Nation.

      Individualism with ever broader parameters is the current cause of all social unrest in the Western world, which, I’d also argue, sparked the very purpose of this site. Our aim here is to offer provide some kind of guiding light that draws us back to the communal – or national, or cultural – core which bound us together before we simply adopted positions of abstraction (“diversity,” “justice,” “freedom,” “unity,” etc.) for abstraction’s sake.

      Reality tells us that there must be pragmatic reasons and consequences for adopting the positions we do. This is what we’ve certainly lost sight of and what brings us closer to the abyss of anarchism.

      • Hi Jake –

        I would not say that human history is based either on vilification or empathy, but colonization – so those parameters do not fit.

        For US history specifically, we can see a lot of evidence of men coming together to discuss and reason. Our country is, after all, an experiment in democracy and the republic. It is precisely “coming together” which we do see in our country’s history. We see it in westward expansion, invention, industry, the Great Awakenings, the Populists, the early (19th c.) progressives, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Cold War.

        How can you have devotion to the nation without individual beliefs (I’m not sure ideology is the best term here). Without individualism, why not statism?

        Individualism *is* a conservative value – to dismiss it goes against men like Richard Weaver, Miss and Hayek – who said:

        “No political term has suffered worse in this respect than “individualism.”…

        Before I explain what I mean by true individualism, it may be useful if I give some indication of the intellectual tradition to which it belongs. The true individualism which I shall try to defend began its modern development with John Locke, and particularly with Bernard Mandeville and David Hume, and achieved full stature for the first time in the work of Josiah Tucker, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith and in that of their great contemporary, Edmund Burke — the man whom Smith described as the only person he ever knew who thought on economic subjects exactly as he did without any previous communication having passed between them.

        In the nineteenth century I find it represented most perfectly in the work of two of its greatest historians and political philosophers: Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord Acton. These two men seem to me to have more successfully developed what was best in the political philosophy of the Scottish philosophers, Burke, and the English Whigs than any other writers I know; while the classical economists of the nineteenth century, or at least the Benthamites or philosophical radicals among them, came increasingly under the influence of another kind of individualism of different origin.”

        I disagree with that reality, in short – we’re not on the abyss of anarchy. We’re prime for rejuvenation of American spirit.

        • Hello again, Julie –

          “I would not say that human history is based either on vilification or empathy, but colonization – so those parameters do not fit.”

          Those were your parameters; I just asked if one was more prevalent than the other.

          “For US history specifically, we can see a lot of evidence of men coming together to discuss and reason.”

          Perhaps some see this “coming together” in US history because the victors emphasize this narrative, in which case what we’re really seeing is Might makes Right. While there are certainly cases of men engaging in reasoned discussion, there are yet many cases where men – even in our liberal democracy – resort to that which they know best: exercising power.

          “How can you have devotion to the nation without individual beliefs?”

          I think in this case the individual subsumes his beliefs under the national interests.

          “Individualism *is* a conservative value”

          I wouldn’t say “individualism” in itself has a political leaning; however, when a society is founded upon it, such society will invariably be liberal (or as I prefer to say, Liberalistic).

          “I disagree with that reality…”

          That folks disagree at all is only a symptom of the Hobbesian universe in which we live.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: