Claremont Institute: America is Dead, Long Live Real America

[tehdang]

https://americanmind.org/author/glenn-ellmers/



Did you have anything to add of substance, or just some nitpick about attribution that doesn't even seem correct?

The Claremont Institute since its founding is known for the Claremont Review of Books. It's inclusion if this newer publication is no excuse to spread disinformation that it is the established view of the Institute itself. Just the author. You're a moderator yourself; but I don't associate your disinformation and attempt to mislead as representing the views of mmo-champion.com, "MMO Champion declares Authors/Fellows write their Institute's views."

Neither does a professor at Harvard say, "Harvard: America is dead." Like, try again. Try the president or an administrative board. They have a diversity of thought. I can only think you're happy to mislead people if you can't make even a small correction in title.

He says Claremont like two dozen times in that article. I have no idea why you're trying to disassociate it.

I wasn't aware you can count how much an author mentions something and it becomes like an official dispatch. Come on, this is easy.

It's not anit-conservatism, it's anti-fascism. Well that's what conservatism has turned into.

If I thought this view were more pronounced, I'd be a little more in favor of the argument under discussion. There are the conservatives, and people that think it's now fascism. Two Americas under one roof.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The Handmaid's Tale may as well be a documentary about if Trumpian ideology had taken over our government and the powers that be of our nation. After all, Trumpism is all about saying what people are thinking but nobody wants to say.

"Blacks and women aren't people and only wealthy land owners should have a say in government, and they are the only ones who should enjoy absolute freedom," is pretty much the principles of our founding.

[tehdang]

wow..another anti-conservative thread, who would have thought.

I mean it's clear that there's a certain thread-normal view on the left-right divide, but you aren't the one making threads every week involving the stupid things the American left says and does, by your opinion. I mean the author himself has not finished "formulating thoughts on this" and can only say "this is absolutely batshit crazy," so maybe he'll come back after some time and give something more intelligent.

[Edge-]

*snip*

So is there any actual commentary on the content of the blog? Or just complaining that I "misrepresented" something?

[Endus]

I mean it's clear that there's a certain thread-normal view on the left-right divide, but you aren't the one making threads every week involving the stupid things the American left says and does, by your opinion. I mean the author himself has not finished "formulating thoughts on this" and can only say "this is absolutely batshit crazy," so maybe he'll come back after some time and give something more intelligent.

The left/right divide is not based around some objective middle in US parlance. What Americans consider "left" is centrist, objectively, stretching between center-left proponents like Bernie and AOC, and center-right, like the blue-dog Democrats. The Republicans were largely moderate right-wing in the Bush era, but have shifted to far-right and fascist views, pretty much without exception; the number of federal representatives who don't fit that descriptor can be counted on one hand, and are generally labelled RINOs and worse by the rest.

That extremism leads to differential treatment, entirely naturally. To enforce an artificial middle, that would be bias.

[Edge-]

I mean the author himself has not finished "formulating thoughts on this" and can only say "this is absolutely batshit crazy," so maybe he'll come back after some time and give something more intelligent.

I'm still trying to process the levels of crazy dude, this is some unhinged nutter shit. Let's look at a snippet -

“The conservative movement” still matters because if the defenders of America continue to squabble among themselves, the victory of progressive tyranny will be assured. See you in the gulag. On the off chance we can avoid that fate, it will only be if the shrinking number of Americans unite and work together. But we can’t simply mandate that conservatives “set aside” their differences, no matter how urgent it is that they do so. So my goal here is to show why we must all unite around the one, authentic America, the only one which transcends all the factional navel-gazing and pointless conservababble.

Disassociating from any ideological "movement" which is pretty radical.

Something about gulags...gulags? I mean yeah, we had Japanese Internment but we all largely agree that it was a travesty and a black mark on US history (except for, ironically enough, some conservatives who argue it was necessary).

Shrinking number of Americans unite? So...a minority? In a Democracy?

What is " the one, authentic America"?

Practically speaking, there is almost nothing left to conserve. What is actually required now is a recovery, or even a refounding, of America as it was long and originally understood but which now exists only in the hearts and minds of a minority of citizens.

This is functionally an open call for revolution from the minority. Especially when you present it in the context of the header image - of a fighter wrapping his fists for a fight - and the at times pretty aggressive rhetoric around "taking back" things. America was founded with a Revolutionary War, refounding America logically leads to a second Revolutionary War.

[Mihalik]

sip

In the meantime, give up on the idea that “conservatives” have anything useful to say. Accept the fact that what we need is a counter-revolution. Learn some useful skills, stay healthy, and get strong.

A fascist call to arms. That's what this is. It's the early budding form of ideological scribblings for a violent terror movement.

Clearly Claremont here is trying to be the the Carl Schmitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt of "MAGA" and create the philosophical and legalistic basis for this nouveau-fascist movement. The author clearly read The Concept of the Political and decided to put a new fresh coat of paint on it.

This is literally the fucking absurd drivel some fucking shithead is going to copy paste into his manifesto before he shoots up a kindergarden or some such.

[Cthulhu 2020]

A fascist call to arms. That's what this is. It's the early budding form of ideological scribblings for a violent terror movement.

Clearly Claremont here is trying to be the the Carl Schmitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt of "MAGA" and create the philosophical and legalistic basis for this nouveau-fascist movement. The author clearly read The Concept of the Political and decided to put a new fresh coat of paint on it.

This is literally the fucking absurd drivel some fucking shithead is going to copy paste into his manifesto before he shoots up a kindergarden or some such.

I mean yeah, that's all this basically is. After the Jan 6th coup failed, there's been many call to arms for the right wing Trumpian movement. They've all failed.

It might have worked a long time ago when there were a lot more poor people who needed a cause to fight for and an enemy to blame for their situation. These days people have internet, television, food, and shelter, and the crazies who would answer this call to arms under other circumstances don't want to give up their comfy lives. People only resort to violence to push ideology when they've got next to nothing to lose.

It's what I tell Kokolums every time he claims there's a civil war brewing. Most conservatives like to sit on the internet and cheer for a civil war, but almost none of them are willing to give up their lives for such a thing and thus it will never happen.

[Nastard]

You just called an article that referred to Trump voters as the only true Americans, as anti conservative. Your post becoming, funny enough, as accurate a representation of the current conservatives, as anyone can provide...

What do you expect? When you have no logic, reasoning, or moral standing all you have left is to claim you're a victim even if you're not. ESPECIALLY when you're not.

[Mihalik]

It's what I tell Kokolums every time he claims there's a civil war brewing. Most conservatives like to sit on the internet and cheer for a civil war, but almost none of them are willing to give up their lives for such a thing and thus it will never happen.

Yeah, this won't start a civil war or some such, but there is a plentiful abundance of fucking lunatics who will kill people for "the cause". And fucking hogwash drivel like this shit is gasoline for the bonfire for those morons.

I would also not underestimate the damage the anti-democratic instincts of Republicans can do via local and state legislatures, and this is the drivel those lunatics read and masturbate to when they do voter suppression.

[tehdang]

So is there any actual commentary on the content of the blog? Or just complaining that I "misrepresented" something?

Change the title. Ex: An unsigned work of "the editors" where you would be accurate, for a change. It's an opinion on political speech "Terms of Servitude". But seeing as how you're stubborn on the point, I'll continue.

I'm still trying to process the levels of crazy dude, this is some unhinged nutter shit. Let's look at a snippet -



Disassociating from any ideological "movement" which is pretty radical.

Something about gulags...gulags? I mean yeah, we had Japanese Internment but we all largely agree that it was a travesty and a black mark on US history (except for, ironically enough, some conservatives who argue it was necessary).

Shrinking number of Americans unite? So...a minority? In a Democracy?

What is " the one, authentic America"?



This is functionally an open call for revolution from the minority. Especially when you present it in the context of the header image - of a fighter wrapping his fists for a fight - and the at times pretty aggressive rhetoric around "taking back" things. America was founded with a Revolutionary War, refounding America logically leads to a second Revolutionary War.

It reminds me of something Whittaker Chambers wrote about characters in a work of fiction who had no redeeming qualities, whatsoever, and were singled out for scorn. "Dissent from revelation so final can only be willfully wicked ... from almost every page ... a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber--go!"

When you hear enough of the discourse saying Trump voters are fascist racists with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, the subtext is that they deserve something like the gulag, or re-education camp, or gas chambers. It's when writers admit to nuance and don't pound on with their haughty conclusions that mentions of a possible gulag are far from warranted. That part I didn't see too much beyond poetic flourish.

The division of red state and blue state, and add whatever precision you want, metros vs rurals, should give rise to Ellmer's "two nations occupying the same country." Voter ID laws are mundane protections for vote integrity, vs racist acts reminiscent of Jim Crow. Immigration is a right, vs should be reduced and regulated. All the other divides. All the talking past each other and accusing each other of residing in bubbles that affirm their ideology.

He takes it towards accusing the other side of not really being citizens or Americans, which goes way too far. The constitution has an amendment process that makes a future America different than a past America of the founders. They envisioned change in what America and America means. So he goes too far here, and it's unsupported. If he had constrained himself in the matter of discourse representing something profoundly unAmerican, he'd be on better ground. Try asking a big Bernie Bro or member of the identitarian left to give a non-demeaning reason for some of the 75 million Americans to have voted for Trump and you'll catch my drift. But again, he's not going narrow, he's going broad.

Republican party critique is boring. Trump arose from a flaccid GOP apparatus that had abandoned its constituents and forced candidates on them for too long. Same with the tired "all is lost, there's nothing worth conserving left anymore." Too defeatist, and ignores the good parts of civil society we still have. Conservatism isn't just national party politics and those fortunes.

Populism was always the rusty emergency button for corrupt systems that served to enrich a minority ("elites") or some detached power center for it's own moral uprightness. Ellmers is partially right on that point. (Addenda: The emergency button frequently goes onto its own excesses that makes people question just how bad were the ills it first addressed, and whether it was worth it in the end). He speaks about the corrupt system, and voter's identification of it, and discourse is included. He's wrong to say "Trump understood this" at a "basic level." Trump had some kind of gut instinct about immigration and trade, and very little clue about anything else and just struck wildly at targets right and wrong. He doesn't get credit about understanding things beyond something was wrong in Washington DC. He ended up doing very little lasting damage to the "deep state" or whatever some voters thought he might do. Trump got lucky sometimes, no more. He arrived as a circus performer, and was luckily enough put into a political scene at a time where it resembles a circus.

Action part: Rejection of the US constitution and "the answers to these questions are not obvious" rather betray the fact that he is better at identifying problems than suggesting solutions. The constitution and its means of stopping rot through requiring broad national consensus to engage is major action affecting all states (a few asterisks there with executive orders, but w/e) has been the greatest boon against bad agendas and bad policy for centuries. He is wrong to not speak to that "working as intended" caveat, for all the societal ills that show its shortcomings (and was it ever designed for or possible to regulate a citizenry so at odds with basics civics or civic virtue?).

A little rah-rah on the function of Claremont. I don't have much to say there. I liked their former membership and intellectual arguments a big more than their current ones. Some basic definitions of "factional interests" that's old conservative boilerplate. People that think it's new or radical should read more Aristotle, Rousseau, and Madison. And the Federalist papers. Nothing really to comment there.

He's got the stuff on education next. Yes, I wish people were better educated about the American founding and arguments going on between states and within states prior to there being a United States. I don't know if any conservatives here think anything's interesting in his harkening back to Jaffa. There's a certain disunity in fundamentally irreconcilable differences in what government is and what it should have the power to do. Maybe I too would prefer a consensus between citizens on certain preferable limits, and public education to have a debate around the subject. That's about the most I can offer on that. He's clunky and more than a little aggrandizing of his institution's role.

So ending an overly long essay and trying to put the place that currently employs him into some leading role is a bad choice on his part. The conservative movement within the Republican party has never depended on any single news show, publication, columnist, or editorial page. So, whatever. It's strange he speaks down on the anarcho-libertarians, and Benedict-option Christians, since he own preferred means is much less identifying of solutions as either of those two. If you're going for "“Conservatism” is no Longer Enough" or "Why the Claremont Institute is not conservative and you shouldn't be either," mark more solution paths to show it's not just another Flight 93 redux.

- - - Updated - - -

The left/right divide is not based around some objective middle in US parlance. What Americans consider "left" is centrist, objectively, stretching between center-left proponents like Bernie and AOC, and center-right, like the blue-dog Democrats. The Republicans were largely moderate right-wing in the Bush era, but have shifted to far-right and fascist views, pretty much without exception; the number of federal representatives who don't fit that descriptor can be counted on one hand, and are generally labelled RINOs and worse by the rest.

That extremism leads to differential treatment, entirely naturally. To enforce an artificial middle, that would be bias.

They're both relative terms, so you'd do yourself much better to admit there is no objective middle than to propose it lies where you say it does. Relative to Europe, Republicans are definitely far right. Relative to 1950s America, they're crazy left. But enough of defining the center, left, and right to wherever makes you privileged to reject extremism.

[Endus]

Change the title. Ex: An unsigned work of "the editors" where you would be accurate, for a change. It's an opinion on political speech "Terms of Servitude". But seeing as how you're stubborn on the point, I'll continue.

He's gonna be stubborn because he's right and you don't have any grounds for complaint.

It was published by the Claremont Institute. The paraphrasing of the title is a pretty accurate summation of some of its major points.

When you hear enough of the discourse saying Trump voters are fascist racists with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, the subtext is that they deserve something like the gulag, or re-education camp, or gas chambers.

This is "subtext" that you, personally, are projecting into this. It does not in any way emerge from what you're describing.

And, ironically, that projection has subtext. You immediately connect "bad people" with a genocidal approach to cleansing them from society.

And that's 110% solely on you. It isn't coming out of what you're reading, you're bringing that in with you.

The division of red state and blue state, and add whatever precision you want, metros vs rurals, should give rise to Ellmer's "two nations occupying the same country."

If that were the case, two issues arise.

First, it would be more than just "two nations".

Second, it would be a default state for all nations, not an exceptional character of the USA specifically. Something completely unworthy of note and just a known constant around which everyone has to work.

- - - Updated - - -

They're both relative terms, so you'd do yourself much better to admit there is no objective middle than to propose it lies where you say it does.

This is just incorrect. The issue is that you're trying to argue that they're scalar-defined terms, when the reality is that they're vector-defined terms. There is a directionality to them, relative to the current status quo, that they cannot be understood without.

Essentially, you're trying to deny context for terms that are entirely contextual.

Relative to Europe, Republicans are definitely far right. Relative to 1950s America, they're crazy left. But enough of defining the center, left, and right to wherever makes you privileged to reject extremism.

See, you're trying to presume different scalar reference points here.

Picture flying a plane. You can keep on the same course you are already on (centrism), veer up (reduce the impacts of hierarchical structures), or veer down (work to expand/protect hierarchical differences in society). Saying you can't veer up again because you went up last time is patently nonsense. Saying that one plane flying level is ascending (going politically left) more than another plane which is ascending quickly, but hasn't reached the same altitude, that's just wrong. You're looking at scalars (in this case, altitude) and not vectors (change in altitude).

Where you're ascending or descending is entirely objective. The thing with the USA is, the plane mostly just flies level or descends. Most advancement occurs societally, and the government is forced to catch up, rather than being proactive and attempting to lead the nation.

[Machismo]

The Claremont Institute since its founding is known for the Claremont Review of Books. It's inclusion if this newer publication is no excuse to spread disinformation that it is the established view of the Institute itself. Just the author. You're a moderator yourself; but I don't associate your disinformation and attempt to mislead as representing the views of mmo-champion.com, "MMO Champion declares Authors/Fellows write their Institute's views."

Neither does a professor at Harvard say, "Harvard: America is dead." Like, try again. Try the president or an administrative board. They have a diversity of thought. I can only think you're happy to mislead people if you can't make even a small correction in title.

I wasn't aware you can count how much an author mentions something and it becomes like an official dispatch. Come on, this is easy.


If I thought this view were more pronounced, I'd be a little more in favor of the argument under discussion. There are the conservatives, and people that think it's now fascism. Two Americas under one roof.

They publish this site, it's theirs...

It's main editor is their VP of Education.

Claremont has authority over its release, and they are the ones making the editorial decisions.

So, keep pissing into the wind.

[Cthulhu 2020]

When you hear enough of the discourse saying Trump voters are fascist racists with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, the subtext is that they deserve something like the gulag, or re-education camp, or gas chambers. It's when writers admit to nuance and don't pound on with their haughty conclusions that mentions of a possible gulag are far from warranted. That part I didn't see too much beyond poetic flourish.

I am confident that I and basically every single other liberal are perfectly fine with Trump voters living out their meaningless existence quietly not bothering anyone. As long as they break no laws, there is no reason to punish them. As long as they do not break the terms of service set forth by companies, they can continue to do business. Absolutely nothing anyone has said has implied that Trump voters need to be separated from the rest of society into some sort of prison. That's entirely your impression, and apparently the only reason for your protestations - your own delusions that liberals want to do the same things that Trump supporters wanted to do to liberals.

[Kaleredar]

They publish this site, it's theirs...

It's main editor is their VP of Education.

Claremont has authority over its release, and they are the ones making the editorial decisions.

So, keep pissing into the wind.

It reeks of that one woke brocialist guy claiming that Joe Rogan wasn't a Trump supporter even though Joe Rogan said he supported Trump in the 2020 election "because we were taking him out of context."

[Machismo]

It reeks of that one woke brocialist guy claiming that Joe Rogan wasn't a Trump supporter even though Joe Rogan said he supported Trump in the 2020 election "because we were taking him out of context."

I mean, he's trying to disassociate it with the Claremont Institute, when it's literally their publication.

[Edge-]

Change the title. Ex: An unsigned work of "the editors" where you would be accurate, for a change. It's an opinion on political speech "Terms of Servitude". But seeing as how you're stubborn on the point, I'll continue.

Were this not a member of Clairmont, I'd agree. But this is a member who has written on their behalf multiple times.

When you hear enough of the discourse saying Trump voters are fascist racists with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, the subtext is that they deserve something like the gulag, or re-education camp, or gas chambers.

That subtext is entirely from your end, because I've never read that subtext. "Leftists" seem far less talkative about killing conservatives and itching for a bloody civil war than folks on "The Right".

Voter ID laws are mundane protections for vote integrity, vs racist acts reminiscent of Jim Crow.

If those voter ID laws weren't routinely struck down by courts as being blatantly racist, you'd have a point. But the problem is...they are so...that's pretty depressingly accurate.

Immigration is a right, vs should be reduced and regulated.

There's actually little disagreement on this on a fundamental level. The difference comes in say, the Trump-era approach to immigration where the functional line is, "If you're not white, we don't want you." See: Shithole countries comments.

He takes it towards accusing the other side of not really being citizens or Americans, which goes way too far. The constitution has an amendment process that makes a future America different than a past America of the founders. They envisioned change in what America and America means. So he goes too far here, and it's unsupported. If he had constrained himself in the matter of discourse representing something profoundly unAmerican, he'd be on better ground. Try asking a big Bernie Bro or member of the identitarian left to give a non-demeaning reason for some of the 75 million Americans to have voted for Trump and you'll catch my drift. But again, he's not going narrow, he's going broad.

Snarky responses don't a "non-American" make. And I agree with you here, this is kinda what I was getting at with how unhinged and lunatic this whole piece is. It's emblematic of the theme.

Republican party critique is boring. Trump arose from a flaccid GOP apparatus that had abandoned its constituents and forced candidates on them for too long.

There was also that post-2012 post-mortem about the Republican party needing to appeal more to women and minorities that...they shredded as they went all-in on identity politics and white guys.

Trump rose not because of a flaccid GOP, but because the GOP has lost any coherent ideology of any sorts. Look at the stunning failure of their two years in total power, where their signature accomplishment was...a historically unpopular tax cut. This, once again, goes back to the theme that most Democratic/liberal policies and legislation are generally far more popular than Republican/conservative policies and legislation.

He ended up doing very little lasting damage to the "deep state" or whatever some voters thought he might do.

Because the "deep state" never existed, and the corruption being discussed was actually made worse under Trump, not better.

Action part: Rejection of the US constitution and "the answers to these questions are not obvious" rather betray the fact that he is better at identifying problems than suggesting solutions. The constitution and its means of stopping rot through requiring broad national consensus to engage is major action affecting all states (a few asterisks there with executive orders, but w/e) has been the greatest boon against bad agendas and bad policy for centuries. He is wrong to not speak to that "working as intended" caveat, for all the societal ills that show its shortcomings (and was it ever designed for or possible to regulate a citizenry so at odds with basics civics or civic virtue?).

Which also goes back to modern conservatism being the "ideology" (it's not a functional one) of grievance and complaints/victimhood. It's not a functional ideology capable of delivery solutions for their problems that don't seem to involve a Civil War and murdering others.

There's a certain disunity in fundamentally irreconcilable differences in what government is and what it should have the power to do.

It's much more than this, it's an opposition to the existence of a functional government often times. Regan's "nine scariest words in the English language" bit is emblematic of this dysfunctional notion of governance and its inherent contradictions.

The conservative movement within the Republican party has never depended on any single news show, publication, columnist, or editorial page.

Hard disagree, at least in the US. Fox News has long been the primary and most important platform for the Republican party and their ideology. They're getting more diversity with the multiple internet sites that have risen to prominence in conservative circles as well as some newer television entrants (OAN/Newsmax), but without the Fox News the Republican party would have withered long ago.

For context on its influence and impact - https://www.businessinsider.com/stud...-at-all-2012-5



That Fox viewers would somehow be LESS informed on domestic questions than people who don't even follow any news speaks volumes to the level of propaganda the network is responsible for putting out on behalf of the Republican party and conservative movement. Let's not forget Fox rose from Republican circles with Murdoch, they created their own platform dude.

[Machismo]

Change the title. Ex: An unsigned work of "the editors" where you would be accurate, for a change. It's an opinion on political speech "Terms of Servitude". But seeing as how you're stubborn on the point, I'll continue.


It reminds me of something Whittaker Chambers wrote about characters in a work of fiction who had no redeeming qualities, whatsoever, and were singled out for scorn. "Dissent from revelation so final can only be willfully wicked ... from almost every page ... a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber--go!"

When you hear enough of the discourse saying Trump voters are fascist racists with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, the subtext is that they deserve something like the gulag, or re-education camp, or gas chambers. It's when writers admit to nuance and don't pound on with their haughty conclusions that mentions of a possible gulag are far from warranted. That part I didn't see too much beyond poetic flourish.

The division of red state and blue state, and add whatever precision you want, metros vs rurals, should give rise to Ellmer's "two nations occupying the same country." Voter ID laws are mundane protections for vote integrity, vs racist acts reminiscent of Jim Crow. Immigration is a right, vs should be reduced and regulated. All the other divides. All the talking past each other and accusing each other of residing in bubbles that affirm their ideology.

He takes it towards accusing the other side of not really being citizens or Americans, which goes way too far. The constitution has an amendment process that makes a future America different than a past America of the founders. They envisioned change in what America and America means. So he goes too far here, and it's unsupported. If he had constrained himself in the matter of discourse representing something profoundly unAmerican, he'd be on better ground. Try asking a big Bernie Bro or member of the identitarian left to give a non-demeaning reason for some of the 75 million Americans to have voted for Trump and you'll catch my drift. But again, he's not going narrow, he's going broad.

Republican party critique is boring. Trump arose from a flaccid GOP apparatus that had abandoned its constituents and forced candidates on them for too long. Same with the tired "all is lost, there's nothing worth conserving left anymore." Too defeatist, and ignores the good parts of civil society we still have. Conservatism isn't just national party politics and those fortunes.

Populism was always the rusty emergency button for corrupt systems that served to enrich a minority ("elites") or some detached power center for it's own moral uprightness. Ellmers is partially right on that point. (Addenda: The emergency button frequently goes onto its own excesses that makes people question just how bad were the ills it first addressed, and whether it was worth it in the end). He speaks about the corrupt system, and voter's identification of it, and discourse is included. He's wrong to say "Trump understood this" at a "basic level." Trump had some kind of gut instinct about immigration and trade, and very little clue about anything else and just struck wildly at targets right and wrong. He doesn't get credit about understanding things beyond something was wrong in Washington DC. He ended up doing very little lasting damage to the "deep state" or whatever some voters thought he might do. Trump got lucky sometimes, no more. He arrived as a circus performer, and was luckily enough put into a political scene at a time where it resembles a circus.

Action part: Rejection of the US constitution and "the answers to these questions are not obvious" rather betray the fact that he is better at identifying problems than suggesting solutions. The constitution and its means of stopping rot through requiring broad national consensus to engage is major action affecting all states (a few asterisks there with executive orders, but w/e) has been the greatest boon against bad agendas and bad policy for centuries. He is wrong to not speak to that "working as intended" caveat, for all the societal ills that show its shortcomings (and was it ever designed for or possible to regulate a citizenry so at odds with basics civics or civic virtue?).

A little rah-rah on the function of Claremont. I don't have much to say there. I liked their former membership and intellectual arguments a big more than their current ones. Some basic definitions of "factional interests" that's old conservative boilerplate. People that think it's new or radical should read more Aristotle, Rousseau, and Madison. And the Federalist papers. Nothing really to comment there.

He's got the stuff on education next. Yes, I wish people were better educated about the American founding and arguments going on between states and within states prior to there being a United States. I don't know if any conservatives here think anything's interesting in his harkening back to Jaffa. There's a certain disunity in fundamentally irreconcilable differences in what government is and what it should have the power to do. Maybe I too would prefer a consensus between citizens on certain preferable limits, and public education to have a debate around the subject. That's about the most I can offer on that. He's clunky and more than a little aggrandizing of his institution's role.

So ending an overly long essay and trying to put the place that currently employs him into some leading role is a bad choice on his part. The conservative movement within the Republican party has never depended on any single news show, publication, columnist, or editorial page. So, whatever. It's strange he speaks down on the anarcho-libertarians, and Benedict-option Christians, since he own preferred means is much less identifying of solutions as either of those two. If you're going for "“Conservatism” is no Longer Enough" or "Why the Claremont Institute is not conservative and you shouldn't be either," mark more solution paths to show it's not just another Flight 93 redux.

- - - Updated - - -


They're both relative terms, so you'd do yourself much better to admit there is no objective middle than to propose it lies where you say it does. Relative to Europe, Republicans are definitely far right. Relative to 1950s America, they're crazy left. But enough of defining the center, left, and right to wherever makes you privileged to reject extremism.

How does restricting voting hours protect integrity?

[Glorious Leader]

How is it anti-conservative? Are you thinking?

He's a conservative so the answer is probably not. He's reacting

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...mission statement;

We are a think tank that teaches, writes, and litigates. Since our founding in 1979, our strategy has been to teach the principles of the American Founding to the future thinkers and statesmen of America. Those principles include the foundational doctrines of natural rights and natural law found in the Declaration of Independence; the ingenious political science of the Constitution; and the popular constitutionalism or reverence necessary for the maintenance of free government.

..meh..typical right-wing libertarian bullshit.
/ignore..