Saagar Enjeti Rising

It ’ s about power , man , ” Saagar Enjeti relays about an hour into a decathlon , Corona-spring phone call .
It ’ s May , and I ’ m scrambling to interview the nationalist co-host of Rising with Krystal & Saagar , presented by the television arm of The Hill .
Our conversation takes as many pit stops as Enjeti ’ s nascent , but impactful career : from Aggie country—he ’ s a son of Texas A & M faculty—to George Washington University to Georgetown to Tucker Carlson ’ s Daily Caller to celebrated pundit before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enjeti has attracted some rubbernecking by insiders : for shifting his views .
I think it ’ s going around , as you are reading an issue of a magazine titled “ What is American Conservatism ?
” Or as Carlson told Elaina Plott ( then of The Atlantic ) last December : “ I ’ ve made a complete break mentally with the world I used to live in.
” As for me , I am at least breaking one of my own rules .
That is : I am writing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seen in person in months .
But I ’ m not going social-distance from a good story .
Because he ’ s a social conservative who isn ’ t religious .
Because he ’ s a foreign policy hawk who actually concedes the country ’ s recent mistakes .
Because he ’ s launched a slightly absurd crusade against cannabis .
Because he dresses like Alex P. Keaton , only he ’ s renounced Reaganism .
Because Saagar Enjeti has , indeed , become kind of powerful .
Enjeti forms a duo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MSNBC star .
At 38 , she is—as Jacobin magazine pointed out—the Millennial answer to Rachel Maddow .
Therein lies the most glaring distinction between the two , by all appearances close friends .
Ball is an antagonist of the liberal pantheon .
Enjeti though—while no stenographer—is broadly at peace with the present trajectory of the Right .
Ball has bashed Maddow .
Enjeti loves Carlson .
Ball ’ s cri de coeur is for generational change .
That ’ s a project pitifully on hold , as the donkey attempts to install @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually preferred an even older model—that traitor to his generation Bernie Sanders—before he withdrew from the race in a blaze of anonymity this spring .
That landscape contrasts with the Right , where an outsider president is still dominant and fresh projects seeking to tear down the old religion—such as the Enjeti-aligned American Compass ( “ great work ” ) —bloom promiscuously .
Enjeti thinks the movement to mint a populism with polish is right on track ( and they two have a book to sell seeking to prove that ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who he characterized as a tragically inflexible figure in a chosen profession where to be limber is to live another day .
I actually met Ms. Ball first—10 years ago—when she ran a quixotic campaign for Congress in the district of my alma mater in southern Virginia .
The Tea Party juggernaut that year—combined with a frivolous , overhyped personal scandal from Ball ’ s well-spent youth ( there aren ’ t that many trained accountant pundits ) —doomed Ball ’ s bid in the already salmon-colored first district of the Old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlantic and NBC cable but was an awkward fit for a liberal establishment licking its chops for a Hillary Clinton presidency .
Like many women of our shared generation , she wasn ’ t quite ready for Hillary even if she was told to be .
The pair ’ s shared production is genuinely pathbreaking—for several reasons .
It ’ s an internet television show that works .
Rising is actually rising .
The dominant media trend when I entered the industry was the vaunted switch to tablets .
But that mindset was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spring cleaning all around—those middle 2010s , the same time the Republican Party chucked its “ libertarian moment ” —both utter fads .
And America would soon give the heave-ho to much more .
In 2016—as the country anointed its first cable news president—for industry captains , the conclusion was clear : more television—and let ’ s open new frontiers .
For those seeking to court conservatives , streaming , internet television was considered a ruby-red , low-hanging fruit .
Harvested right and you could even infringe on the primacy of Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been rumors of elaborate new , “ new media ” ventures for years .
The most legendary rumor ( a plot which was actually real ) was of a motley assembly : Bill O ’ Reilly , Sean Hannity , Roger Ailes , and then-White House chief strategist Steve Bannon would open up their own shop .
This was still the early days of the Trump administration .
But to the haters , a satanic quartet was forming .
But in our desert of the real , only one oasis has been founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill.TV is not .
But it was no fait accompli .
Enjeti has a predecessor : the affable Buck Sexton , a CIA alum and a regular on both Fox and the not-so-underground drinking circuit at D.C. ’ s Trump Hotel .
But after a year the organization passed on the Buck and signed Saagar .
Sadly for Sexton , it ’ s been liftoff ever since .
But as with Elon Musk , there have been a few questionable judgment calls .
In particular , there was a strange interview a summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal lawyer—that had nothing to do with that work .
Rather , Enjeti interviewed America ’ s mayor on his work with the deeply controversial National Council for the Resistance of Iran—the American front porch of the People ’ s Mujahedin of Iran , or more notoriously , the MEK .
Mayor Giuliani has been paid lavishly for his association , as have other leading Republican figures responsible—centrally , former national security advisor John Bolton—for the country ’ s imprudent war footing toward Iran ’ s regime .
But the interview appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a series initiated and otherwise hosted by Sexton , as Enjeti was sliding into the job .
The series is marked “ sponsored content , ” which isn ’ t a nice look .
Most of foreign policy journalism has had brushes with the MEK , but it bears repeating the general view is that they ’ re emphatically fringe .
Not fringe : the show ’ s appeal with younger , online-first audiences .
America ’ s anchor—the popular podcaster Joe Rogan—said on air that he follows Saagar and Krystal for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rogan gets 190 million downloads per month and between 5-7 million listeners per day , which on some days is double even Tucker Carlson ’ s formidable traffic .
“ I just cover whatever I want , ” Enjeti told me .
That omnivorous attitude suits the clientele , who favor outside-the-box politicians with sweeping societal criticisms .
The audience loves Tulsi Gabbard , Andrew Yang , Bernie Sanders , maybe Donald Trump , and apparently no one else .
As my fellow guest Colin Rogero—of The Hill ’ s infamous “ Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honestly pass for Colin Farrell—learned when I appeared with him on the program in January : sorry , no one likes Pete Buttigieg .
The show ’ s butterfly knife approach can produce a viewer experience as oscillatory as the 2020 campaign itself .
Which is the point .
In a news cycle that ’ s now truly unyielding—a depression , a pandemic , and mass rioting—Rising rises above .
Like Kissigner and 50 Cent , Enjeti says he ’ s a stone-cold realist in a grinding turf war .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enjeti says .
“ This is about the fact that there ’ s actually a heterodox TV thing that exists , that is watched by actual people—and that ’ s the most important part .
The donors don ’ t control this.
” Enjeti gives away the secret sauce—telling me essentially that on YouTube it ’ s kingmaking to be what Jeff Bezos almost named Amazon but should have : relentless .
Constant content must be produced or the axe falls from the hard-hearted algorithm .
Enjeti denies to me what I assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bought .
In an era of the Frightful Five on America ’ s technology coast , the operating procedure of most new businesses is mere ambition to get sold .
But Enjeti says he ’ s not waiting for a call up to the majors .
He ’ s starting his own league .
Television habits have been convulsed in the era of the smartphone—especially among the young ( “ our age is the number one demographic for the show , 25-35 ” ) —and the thinking goes that cable news is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though that includes the sitting president of the United States .
If the media short-sellers like Enjeti are right that cable news is at its peak , next up could be one giant , Boomer supernova .
I agree , ” Enjeti says as I rant about how the Middle East is no longer relevant to this country ’ s national interest .
He and I got into foreign policy for a shared reason before Trump ’ s ascension : “ Domestic politics was just boring .
Second term Obama , there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Enjeti ’ s true sympathies .
For instance , Jake Mercier—the research assistant for his and Ball ’ s book ( The Populist ’ s Guide to 2020 ) worked for Gabbard , perhaps the most restraint-minded Democratic presidential candidate in a generation .
But he picks his spots .
In January , for instance , he took an equivocal tone toward the risky assassination of Qassem Soleimani , a figure in Iran perhaps only second in prestige to the theocracy ’ s supreme leader , Ali Khamenei .
On the third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ball and Enjeti summoned to Monday morning quarterback the move was an official from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies , the home of D.C. ’ s most effective operatives for regime change .
Enjeti countered that perhaps it would have been wiser to have taken Soleimani out earlier , in 2007—not firmly the stuff of a restrainer who sees de-escalation with a third-rate power in a tortured part of the planet as imperative .
But despite that Blob-y national security degree from Georgetown , Enjeti shows he ’ s not uncomfortable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been astonishing—and facilitated by outsider outfits .
It was as White House correspondent at the Daily Caller that Enjeti got his break , but also where he began enterprising his way into the limelight .
It was at the Caller that Enjeti first met the president , who he described to me as entertainer par excellence .
But Enjeti began cutting away from the sometimes derivatively conservative nature of the site—he cultivated a more intellectual online persona and went all in on the age of realignment .
That ’ s what he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” —hosted by the Hudson Institute , a cornerstone of conservative Washington .
Enjeti is an unabashed champion of anti-monopoly politics—he thinks the American state should step in to guarantee a baseline level of hard industry in this country , and he thinks gratuitous economic concentration is unstable .
With his roots in foreign policy , he has his eye on rising China .
Of South Asian descent , he lends powerful credibility to the argument that the United States should consider a cool-down period in immigration for reasons of national cohesion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ esteemed company of Reihan Salam , president of the Manhattan Institute , as well as the centrist writer Janan Ganesh of the Financial Times .
Other views are more eclectic .
He ’ s issued a semi-facetious fatwa against cannabis .
He ’ s joined other figures with a right-wing audience—such as Ann Coulter , Peter Hitchens , and the ex-New York Times writer Alex Berenson—in slamming the assumption of the age that pot is harmless .
Mr. Enjeti ’ s pronounced social conservatism is perhaps more interesting because he ’ s openly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituency lacking belief in the Holy Spirit but suffering from spiritual ennui .
“ They cheered on rioting—and looting—and crime , ” an indignant Enjeti told Carlson on his show in early June , as heinous riots swept America .
It ’ s the only show he likes to do besides his own .
“ I think you put it together perfectly earlier today on your show…the first uprising against the working class.
” What is American conservatism ?
Well , you could certainly do worse than tuning into the talented Mr. Enjeti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .

It’s about power, man,” Saagar Enjeti relays about an hour into a decathlon, Corona-spring phone call.
It’s May, and I’m scrambling to interview the nationalist co-host of Rising with Krystal & Saagar, presented by the television arm of The Hill. Our conversation takes as many pit stops as Enjeti’s nascent, but impactful career: from Aggie country—he’s a son of Texas A&M faculty—to George Washington University to Georgetown to Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller to celebrated pundit before 30. Like his putative mentor, Enjeti has attracted some rubbernecking by insiders: for shifting his views. I think it’s going around, as you are reading an issue of a magazine titled “What is American Conservatism?” Or as Carlson told Elaina Plott (then of The Atlantic) last December: “I’ve made a complete break mentally with the world I used to live in.”
As for me, I am at least breaking one of my own rules. That is: I am writing a profile of a principal I haven’t seen in person in months. But I’m not going social-distance from a good story.
Because he’s a social conservative who isn’t religious. Because he’s a foreign policy hawk who actually concedes the country’s recent mistakes. Because he’s launched a slightly absurd crusade against cannabis. Because he dresses like Alex P. Keaton, only he’s renounced Reaganism. Because Saagar Enjeti has, indeed, become kind of powerful.
♦♦♦
Enjeti forms a duo with Krystal Ball—a former congressional candidate and MSNBC star. At 38, she is—as Jacobin magazine pointed out—the Millennial answer to Rachel Maddow. Therein lies the most glaring distinction between the two, by all appearances close friends. Ball is an antagonist of the liberal pantheon. Enjeti though—while no stenographer—is broadly at peace with the present trajectory of the Right. Ball has bashed Maddow. Enjeti loves Carlson.
Ball’s cri de coeur is for generational change. That’s a project pitifully on hold, as the donkey attempts to install the oldest president on record. She actually preferred an even older model—that traitor to his generation Bernie Sanders—before he withdrew from the race in a blaze of anonymity this spring. That landscape contrasts with the Right, where an outsider president is still dominant and fresh projects seeking to tear down the old religion—such as the Enjeti-aligned American Compass (“great work”) —bloom promiscuously. Enjeti thinks the movement to mint a populism with polish is right on track (and they two have a book to sell seeking to prove that). But Enjeti had tough words for Senator Sanders, who he characterized as a tragically inflexible figure in a chosen profession where to be limber is to live another day.
I actually met Ms. Ball first—10 years ago—when she ran a quixotic campaign for Congress in the district of my alma mater in southern Virginia. The Tea Party juggernaut that year—combined with a frivolous, overhyped personal scandal from Ball’s well-spent youth (there aren’t that many trained accountant pundits)—doomed Ball’s bid in the already salmon-colored first district of the Old Dominion. She hiked over to The Atlantic and NBC cable but was an awkward fit for a liberal establishment licking its chops for a Hillary Clinton presidency. Like many women of our shared generation, she wasn’t quite ready for Hillary even if she was told to be.
The pair’s shared production is genuinely pathbreaking—for several reasons.
It’s an internet television show that works. Rising is actually rising. The dominant media trend when I entered the industry was the vaunted switch to tablets. But that mindset was soon shown the door. It was spring cleaning all around—those middle 2010s, the same time the Republican Party chucked its “libertarian moment”—both utter fads. And America would soon give the heave-ho to much more.
In 2016—as the country anointed its first cable news president—for industry captains, the conclusion was clear: more television—and let’s open new frontiers. For those seeking to court conservatives, streaming, internet television was considered a ruby-red, low-hanging fruit. Harvested right and you could even infringe on the primacy of Fox News. More broadly—especially on the Right—there had been rumors of elaborate new, “new media” ventures for years. The most legendary rumor (a plot which was actually real) was of a motley assembly: Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Roger Ailes, and then-White House chief strategist Steve Bannon would open up their own shop. This was still the early days of the Trump administration. But to the haters, a satanic quartet was forming.
But in our desert of the real, only one oasis has been founded. Roger Ailes is dead, and Hill.TV is not.
But it was no fait accompli. Enjeti has a predecessor: the affable Buck Sexton, a CIA alum and a regular on both Fox and the not-so-underground drinking circuit at D.C.’s Trump Hotel. But after a year the organization passed on the Buck and signed Saagar.
Sadly for Sexton, it’s been liftoff ever since. But as with Elon Musk, there have been a few questionable judgment calls. In particular, there was a strange interview a summer ago with Rudolph Giuliani—the president’s personal lawyer—that had nothing to do with that work. Rather, Enjeti interviewed America’s mayor on his work with the deeply controversial National Council for the Resistance of Iran—the American front porch of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or more notoriously, the MEK. Mayor Giuliani has been paid lavishly for his association, as have other leading Republican figures responsible—centrally, former national security advisor John Bolton—for the country’s imprudent war footing toward Iran’s regime. But the interview appears to have been part nine (!) of a series initiated and otherwise hosted by Sexton, as Enjeti was sliding into the job. The series is marked “sponsored content,” which isn’t a nice look. Most of foreign policy journalism has had brushes with the MEK, but it bears repeating the general view is that they’re emphatically fringe.
Not fringe: the show’s appeal with younger, online-first audiences. America’s anchor—the popular podcaster Joe Rogan—said on air that he follows Saagar and Krystal for his news. For the uninitiated, Rogan gets 190 million downloads per month and between 5-7 million listeners per day, which on some days is double even Tucker Carlson’s formidable traffic.
“I just cover whatever I want,” Enjeti told me. That omnivorous attitude suits the clientele, who favor outside-the-box politicians with sweeping societal criticisms. The audience loves Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders, maybe Donald Trump, and apparently no one else. As my fellow guest Colin Rogero—of The Hill’s infamous “Most Beautiful” list, and who could honestly pass for Colin Farrell—learned when I appeared with him on the program in January: sorry, no one likes Pete Buttigieg.
The show’s butterfly knife approach can produce a viewer experience as oscillatory as the 2020 campaign itself. Which is the point. In a news cycle that’s now truly unyielding—a depression, a pandemic, and mass rioting—Rising rises above. Like Kissigner and 50 Cent, Enjeti says he’s a stone-cold realist in a grinding turf war. “It’s about power, man,” Enjeti says. “This is about the fact that there’s actually a heterodox TV thing that exists, that is watched by actual people—and that’s the most important part. The donors don’t control this.” Enjeti gives away the secret sauce—telling me essentially that on YouTube it’s kingmaking to be what Jeff Bezos almost named Amazon but should have: relentless. Constant content must be produced or the axe falls from the hard-hearted algorithm.
Enjeti denies to me what I assumed was his goal: get this baby bought. In an era of the Frightful Five on America’s technology coast, the operating procedure of most new businesses is mere ambition to get sold. But Enjeti says he’s not waiting for a call up to the majors. He’s starting his own league. Television habits have been convulsed in the era of the smartphone—especially among the young (“our age is the number one demographic for the show, 25-35”)—and the thinking goes that cable news is the province of yesterday’s men, though that includes the sitting president of the United States. If the media short-sellers like Enjeti are right that cable news is at its peak, next up could be one giant, Boomer supernova.
♦♦♦
I agree,” Enjeti says as I rant about how the Middle East is no longer relevant to this country’s national interest. He and I got into foreign policy for a shared reason before Trump’s ascension: “Domestic politics was just boring. Second term Obama, there was just nothing happening.”
There are signs of Enjeti’s true sympathies. For instance, Jake Mercier—the research assistant for his and Ball’s book (The Populist’s Guide to 2020) worked for Gabbard, perhaps the most restraint-minded Democratic presidential candidate in a generation. But he picks his spots. In January, for instance, he took an equivocal tone toward the risky assassination of Qassem Soleimani, a figure in Iran perhaps only second in prestige to the theocracy’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. On the third day of the decade, the guest Ball and Enjeti summoned to Monday morning quarterback the move was an official from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the home of D.C.’s most effective operatives for regime change. Enjeti countered that perhaps it would have been wiser to have taken Soleimani out earlier, in 2007—not firmly the stuff of a restrainer who sees de-escalation with a third-rate power in a tortured part of the planet as imperative.
But despite that Blob-y national security degree from Georgetown, Enjeti shows he’s not uncomfortable thinking for himself. His ascent has been astonishing—and facilitated by outsider outfits. It was as White House correspondent at the Daily Caller that Enjeti got his break, but also where he began enterprising his way into the limelight.
It was at the Caller that Enjeti first met the president, who he described to me as entertainer par excellence. But Enjeti began cutting away from the sometimes derivatively conservative nature of the site—he cultivated a more intellectual online persona and went all in on the age of realignment. That’s what he’s named his podcast—“The Realignment”—hosted by the Hudson Institute, a cornerstone of conservative Washington.
Enjeti is an unabashed champion of anti-monopoly politics—he thinks the American state should step in to guarantee a baseline level of hard industry in this country, and he thinks gratuitous economic concentration is unstable. With his roots in foreign policy, he has his eye on rising China. Of South Asian descent, he lends powerful credibility to the argument that the United States should consider a cool-down period in immigration for reasons of national cohesion. In this regard, he joins the esteemed company of Reihan Salam, president of the Manhattan Institute, as well as the centrist writer Janan Ganesh of the Financial Times.
Other views are more eclectic. He’s issued a semi-facetious fatwa against cannabis. He’s joined other figures with a right-wing audience—such as Ann Coulter, Peter Hitchens, and the ex-New York Times writer Alex Berenson—in slamming the assumption of the age that pot is harmless. Mr. Enjeti’s pronounced social conservatism is perhaps more interesting because he’s openly irreligious, something he shares with a constituency lacking belief in the Holy Spirit but suffering from spiritual ennui.
“They cheered on rioting—and looting—and crime,” an indignant Enjeti told Carlson on his show in early June, as heinous riots swept America. It’s the only show he likes to do besides his own. “I think you put it together perfectly earlier today on your show…the first uprising against the working class.”
What is American conservatism? Well, you could certainly do worse than tuning into the talented Mr. Enjeti in the morning to try to find out.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-11--Reagan: Pragmatist or Conservative Purist?

Getting Right with Reagan : The Struggle for True Conservatism , 1980-2016 , by Marcus Witcher , University Press of Kansas , 448 pages , February 2020 .
On January 19 , 1989 , as the fortieth president of the United States , Ronald Reagan , departed the White House , the New York Times reported that “ no one credits Mr. Reagan with being much of an intellect , ” the went on to question , “ does anyone call him a hard worker or active leader.
” Rather , the newspaper of record claimed , Reagan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were arranged for him.
” While such words might not be totally shocking , given the source , what Marcus Witcher reveals in his extraordinary and critical new book , Getting Right with Reagan : The Struggle for True Conservatism , 1980-2016 , is that such views did not emerge merely from the left .
Conservatives , too , dumped on Reagan , criticizing everything from his failure to free the market sufficiently enough to his placating of the Soviet Union .
To be sure , no one , left or right , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastern European communism over the next several months , and such knowledge might very well have reshaped even the New York Times ’ s opinion of the greatest president of the twentieth century .
Witcher : The Best of the Best of the Rising Generation A recently-minted PhD in history , Marcus M. Witcher is , arguably , the finest and most impressive young scholar in a generation .
As his first book it would make even the most senior scholar and historian proud .
Even the opening line— “ Ronald Reagan was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
From there , the book only improves .
“ This book recasts Reagan as a shrewd political operator who often moderated his conservative positions—much to the vexation of conservatives during the 1980s.
” Rather than being ideological on fine points of intellectual rigor , “ Reagan was a pragmatic conservative who understood that building coalitions across party lines was essential to effective governance.
” Getting Right with Reagan advances four arguments .
First , Witcher convincingly argues that conservatives thought little of Reagan during his two terms as president .
They were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first to criticize the man and find his shortcomings .
Second , the author notes , again well , that Reagan ’ s successful waging of the Cold War—though , mostly in hindsight—allowed conservatives to recreate their image of him as a sort of secular demigod , allowing his life and character to be the “ glue ” that holds together the movement after the fall of communism .
Prior to Reagan ’ s success as a Cold Warrior , anti-communism had held together the various strands of conservatism .
Third , Witcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved “ significantly to the right.
” These post-Reagan conservatives seek to out-Reagan each other .
In other words , Reagan has become a myth and a symbol far different than he was in reality .
Finally , Witcher makes a convincing case for ending his study in 2016 .
When I first saw the title—before having read the book—I scratched my head .
Why not take the analysis up through 2019 ?
As it turns out , Witcher reveals that Trump has never attached himself to the Reagan legacy or to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had done everything possible to present only himself , in full populist mode , separate from any recent president .
“ Trump did not invoke Reagan ’ s name or run on his platform during the primary or general election , ” Witcher writes in the conclusion .
“ Trump showed little to no inclination to embrace Reagan ’ s legacy at all , and many of his policy positions ” have been simply contrary to Reagan ’ s own .
Crazily , both President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
In all of this , as should be obvious from the header , Witcher has painstakingly researched not only his position but every possible variation of criticism of Ronald Reagan from all parts of the political spectrum and even some from the apolitical .
Kudos , of course , to the University Press of Kansas for allowing Witcher to employ nearly 150 pages of the book to endnotes and bibliography .
The endnotes are not only stunningly masterful in terms of scope and breadth , but they are also revealing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have one complaint about the book ’ s layout , it is that I might have sprained my wrist turning from chapter to endnotes .
Certainly , the book is well constructed .
If it had not been , the spine would ’ ve easily become unhinged from such page turning .
Here ’ s hoping the second edition of this excellent book will have footnotes rather than endnotes .
If Witcher is to be criticized—and one would only do so at the reviewer ’ s own peril , as Witcher has anticipated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be for conflating conservative intellectuals and academics with conservative pundits and talking heads .
Witcher references and quotes William F. Buckley and Patrick Buchanan , but he looks to Russell Kirk only once , and he completely ignores Robert Nisbet , Eric Voegelin , Harry Jaffa , and their students .
Thus , one can question what exactly conservatism means .
In the book one realizes quickly that conservatism is never actually defined , as it is a moving target , given status relative to the meanings assigned to it over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken the views of , for instance , those of Kirk , Nisbet , and Jaffa , he might be able to offer his readers an objective lodestar , something by which one could navigate the last four decades of conservatism .
In his own writings , Kirk never failed to praise Reagan for being one of the—if not the—greatest conservatives of the twentieth century .
In Reagan ’ s first year in office , Kirk gushed : Reagan awarded Kirk the “ Presidential Medal of Freedom ” in 1989 , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40th president .
In his final words written towards the president , he wrote , “ In Reagan was no touch of pomposity .
He did not take himself more gravely , nor the world more gravely , than he must .
After suffering some defeat in the Congress , he did not repine , but laughed , perhaps .
He jested with bullets in him.
” Of the prominent conservative intellectuals of the 1980s , only Robert Nisbet openly disliked Reagan .
Nisbet saw Reagan as a progressive in foreign as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Nisbet ’ s dismay , only honed and perfected the old Puritan jeremiad , proclaiming anywhere and everywhere , that America could perfect herself and claim a unique and expectational position in world history .
In the pages of this august journal , only eleven years ago , my esteemed and beloved colleague , Richard Gamble , made a similar claim : “ But overall , Reagan preached yet another version of sinless , progressive America that had more in common with Tom Paine and Woodrow Wilson than with Edmund Burke.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Reagan used national security , like Nixon before him , as a cover for a coup d ’ état .
“ Before it is over the Reagan administration may well be proved to have captured the prize for systematic lying to the public , ” Nisbet argued .
“ The Iran-contra episode alone has made the administration a formidable contender for the century ’ s prize .
But it is well to recall that an imposing background exists for the Reagan accomplishments in public deception , a background going all the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Voegelin never commented on Reagan beyond mere statements of fact , one of his most important students , Richard Allen , served as Reagan ’ s first National Security Advisor .
Allen remembers well his conversation about the Cold War with Reagan 1977 .
When Allen asked the older man who he would wage the war against the Soviets , he merely answered , “ My theory of the Cold War is , we win and they lose .
What do you think about that ?
” Reagan , Allen remembers , never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went right to the heart of the matter .
Utilizing American values , strength , and creativity , he believed we could outdistance the Soviets and cause them to withdraw from the Cold War , or perhaps even to collapse .
Herein lay the great difference , back in early 1977 , between Reagan and every other politician : He literally believed we could win , and was prepared to carry this message to the nation as the intellectual foundation of a presidency.
” Never did Reagan ’ s understanding of freedom being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These themes never varied in the essentials , primarily because he was the principal author of everything he said , ” Allen records , “ and he would never say anything with which he disagreed.
” None of these criticisms are worthy of much contemplation .
My own interests lie in what conservative intellectuals think rather than what conservative pundits do .
But I ’ m not the author of this wonderful book , and I can not blame Witcher for writing the book that I might ( but did not ) have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his own ground , he had nothing to prove .
More accurately he has through Getting Right with Reagan , already proven himself to be one of the finest young historians in the United States at present .
That Witcher has no full-time , tenured position is not only criminal , but it reveals just how corrupt and bizarre academia is .
Any college worth its salt should scoop this fine young scholar up just as quickly as possible .
Bradley J. Birzer is author of J.R.R .
Tolkien ’ s Sanctifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Inklings : Tolkien and the Men of the West ( forthcoming , ISI Books ) .

Getting Right with Reagan: The Struggle for True Conservatism, 1980-2016, by Marcus Witcher, University Press of Kansas, 448 pages, February 2020.
On January 19, 1989, as the fortieth president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, departed the White House, the New York Times reported that “no one credits Mr. Reagan with being much of an intellect,” the went on to question, “does anyone call him a hard worker or active leader.” Rather, the newspaper of record claimed, Reagan’s “strength lay in delivering lines that were arranged for him.” While such words might not be totally shocking, given the source, what Marcus Witcher reveals in his extraordinary and critical new book, Getting Right with Reagan: The Struggle for True Conservatism, 1980-2016, is that such views did not emerge merely from the left. Conservatives, too, dumped on Reagan, criticizing everything from his failure to free the market sufficiently enough to his placating of the Soviet Union. To be sure, no one, left or right, could have predicted the complete collapse of Eastern European communism over the next several months, and such knowledge might very well have reshaped even the New York Times’s opinion of the greatest president of the twentieth century.
Witcher: The Best of the Best of the Rising Generation
A recently-minted PhD in history, Marcus M. Witcher is, arguably, the finest and most impressive young scholar in a generation. As his first book it would make even the most senior scholar and historian proud. Even the opening line—“Ronald Reagan was no conservative ideologue”—is immediately captivating. From there, the book only improves. “This book recasts Reagan as a shrewd political operator who often moderated his conservative positions—much to the vexation of conservatives during the 1980s.” Rather than being ideological on fine points of intellectual rigor, “Reagan was a pragmatic conservative who understood that building coalitions across party lines was essential to effective governance.”
Getting Right with Reagan advances four arguments.
First, Witcher convincingly argues that conservatives thought little of Reagan during his two terms as president. They were, for better or worse, the first to criticize the man and find his shortcomings.
Second, the author notes, again well, that Reagan’s successful waging of the Cold War—though, mostly in hindsight—allowed conservatives to recreate their image of him as a sort of secular demigod, allowing his life and character to be the “glue” that holds together the movement after the fall of communism. Prior to Reagan’s success as a Cold Warrior, anti-communism had held together the various strands of conservatism.
Third, Witcher claims that post-Reagan conservatives and Republicans have moved “significantly to the right.” These post-Reagan conservatives seek to out-Reagan each other. In other words, Reagan has become a myth and a symbol far different than he was in reality.
Finally, Witcher makes a convincing case for ending his study in 2016. When I first saw the title—before having read the book—I scratched my head. Why not take the analysis up through 2019? As it turns out, Witcher reveals that Trump has never attached himself to the Reagan legacy or to the large currents of conservatism. Rather, he had done everything possible to present only himself, in full populist mode, separate from any recent president. “Trump did not invoke Reagan’s name or run on his platform during the primary or general election,” Witcher writes in the conclusion. “Trump showed little to no inclination to embrace Reagan’s legacy at all, and many of his policy positions” have been simply contrary to Reagan’s own. Crazily, both President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton have more explicitly embraced Reagan than has Trump.
In all of this, as should be obvious from the header, Witcher has painstakingly researched not only his position but every possible variation of criticism of Ronald Reagan from all parts of the political spectrum and even some from the apolitical. Kudos, of course, to the University Press of Kansas for allowing Witcher to employ nearly 150 pages of the book to endnotes and bibliography. The endnotes are not only stunningly masterful in terms of scope and breadth, but they are also revealing in terms of textual details. If I have one complaint about the book’s layout, it is that I might have sprained my wrist turning from chapter to endnotes. Certainly, the book is well constructed. If it had not been, the spine would’ve easily become unhinged from such page turning. Here’s hoping the second edition of this excellent book will have footnotes rather than endnotes.
What about Conservative Intellectuals?
If Witcher is to be criticized—and one would only do so at the reviewer’s own peril, as Witcher has anticipated almost all possible arguments against his position—it would be for conflating conservative intellectuals and academics with conservative pundits and talking heads. Witcher references and quotes William F. Buckley and Patrick Buchanan, but he looks to Russell Kirk only once, and he completely ignores Robert Nisbet, Eric Voegelin, Harry Jaffa, and their students.
Thus, one can question what exactly conservatism means. In the book one realizes quickly that conservatism is never actually defined, as it is a moving target, given status relative to the meanings assigned to it over the past forty years.
If Witcher had taken the views of, for instance, those of Kirk, Nisbet, and Jaffa, he might be able to offer his readers an objective lodestar, something by which one could navigate the last four decades of conservatism.
In his own writings, Kirk never failed to praise Reagan for being one of the—if not the—greatest conservatives of the twentieth century. In Reagan’s first year in office, Kirk gushed:
For his power of will, Ronald Reagan is honored already. He has had the audacity to declare that this American Republic will endure and thrive. He has been sufficiently bold to set his face against the prophets of decay. With the old Romans, he knows that audacity is a bulwark, and that fortune both fears and fears the audacious. The American Republic commenced with audacity; if that audacity is exhausted, the Republic must end. Ronald Reagan, the audacious American stage-manager just now, is not disposed to let fall that iron curtain of national destiny. For him, the American drama is not yet played out.
Reagan awarded Kirk the “Presidential Medal of Freedom” in 1989, and the recipient never lost his admiration for the 40th president. In his final words written towards the president, he wrote, “In Reagan was no touch of pomposity. He did not take himself more gravely, nor the world more gravely, than he must. After suffering some defeat in the Congress, he did not repine, but laughed, perhaps. He jested with bullets in him.”
Of the prominent conservative intellectuals of the 1980s, only Robert Nisbet openly disliked Reagan. Nisbet saw Reagan as a progressive in foreign as well as domestic policy. Reagan had, to Nisbet’s dismay, only honed and perfected the old Puritan jeremiad, proclaiming anywhere and everywhere, that America could perfect herself and claim a unique and expectational position in world history. In the pages of this august journal, only eleven years ago, my esteemed and beloved colleague, Richard Gamble, made a similar claim: “But overall, Reagan preached yet another version of sinless, progressive America that had more in common with Tom Paine and Woodrow Wilson than with Edmund Burke.”
Even more diabolic, according to Nisbet, Reagan used national security, like Nixon before him, as a cover for a coup d’état. “Before it is over the Reagan administration may well be proved to have captured the prize for systematic lying to the public,” Nisbet argued. “The Iran-contra episode alone has made the administration a formidable contender for the century’s prize. But it is well to recall that an imposing background exists for the Reagan accomplishments in public deception, a background going all the way back to President Wilson.”
Though Eric Voegelin never commented on Reagan beyond mere statements of fact, one of his most important students, Richard Allen, served as Reagan’s first National Security Advisor. Allen remembers well his conversation about the Cold War with Reagan 1977. When Allen asked the older man who he would wage the war against the Soviets, he merely answered, “My theory of the Cold War is, we win and they lose. What do you think about that?” Reagan, Allen remembers, never wavered on this issue. “Reagan went right to the heart of the matter. Utilizing American values, strength, and creativity, he believed we could outdistance the Soviets and cause them to withdraw from the Cold War, or perhaps even to collapse. Herein lay the great difference, back in early 1977, between Reagan and every other politician: He literally believed we could win, and was prepared to carry this message to the nation as the intellectual foundation of a presidency.” Never did Reagan’s understanding of freedom being superior to Soviet tyranny shift. “These themes never varied in the essentials, primarily because he was the principal author of everything he said,” Allen records, “and he would never say anything with which he disagreed.”
In Sum
None of these criticisms are worthy of much contemplation. My own interests lie in what conservative intellectuals think rather than what conservative pundits do. But I’m not the author of this wonderful book, and I cannot blame Witcher for writing the book that I might (but did not) have written. On his own terms and on his own ground, he had nothing to prove. More accurately he has through Getting Right with Reagan, already proven himself to be one of the finest young historians in the United States at present. That Witcher has no full-time, tenured position is not only criminal, but it reveals just how corrupt and bizarre academia is. Any college worth its salt should scoop this fine young scholar up just as quickly as possible.
Bradley J. Birzer is author of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-earth as well as The Inklings: Tolkien and the Men of the West (forthcoming, ISI Books).


theamericanconservative--2020-07-11--Calls to End the Filibuster Threaten American Democracy

WASHINGTON , DC - DECEMBER 21 : U.S. Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) walks towards the Senate chamber with aides after the House passed a bill to temporary fund the government through January 19 and averted a shutdown December 21 , 2017 at the Capitol in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images ) Democrats are confident that they are within striking distance of taking both the Senate majority and the presidency this November .
One consequence of such a victory could be an emboldened Democratic Party that is willing to change the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the abolition of the electoral college , DC statehood and court-packing , is an end to the filibuster once and for all .
By ending the filibuster , Democrats may be able to pass all of their outlandish agenda without a peep from Republicans .
Green New Deal , Medicare For All , free college , you name it .
This permanent nuclear option , beyond potential temporary policy gains made by either party , will break American democracy .
Elizabeth Warren declared in February on the Democratic debate stage that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to the next Democratic president what he did to President Obama , and that is try to block every single thing he does , then we are going to roll back the filibuster.
” While this can be pushed aside as a radical opinion by an outspoken progressive , moderates in the Democratic party have recently become sympathetic to the idea , such as Senator Coons and Manchin .
They refuse to allow for a Biden presidency to end in the same way they view President Obama ’ s—a scaled-back Democratic agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Affordable Care Act are still fresh in the minds of many on the left , as Democrats were one Senator away from the all so elusive 60 vote supermajority .
The Democratic party is considering lighting a fuse in Washington , trading potential long-term chaos for immediate policy gains .
Senate Minority Leader Schumer , eyeing a potential Democratic majority in the Senate , declared that “ nothing is off the table ” last year in response to questions regarding the elimination of the filibuster .
The shift in tone by Minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously warned Republicans of invoking the ‘ nuclear option ’ on Supreme Court nominations , previously stating : “ Mr .
President , the 60-vote bar in the Senate is the guardrail of our democracy.
” In 2017 , Republicans had the same opportunity that Democrats are desperately vying for , control of both Congress and the Presidency .
While debate was held on the elimination of the filibuster , the party ultimately decided against it , fearing the long-term consequences , and likely , the consequences of a Democratic majority using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
President Trump , an avid supporter of the removal of the filibuster , has butted heads with Mitch McConnell and rank-and-file Republicans , and previously moderate Democrats , on this issue .
Trump called for its removal , citing the need to pass of his political agenda , especially before the 2018 mid-term elections .
While the filibuster is not outright written into the Constitution , it is a Senate rule , having been first used in 1837 .
The filibuster prevents the tyranny of the majority , allowing for the minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to defend their interests on a particular policy .
Thomas Jefferson once said , “ great innovations should not be forced on a slender majority—or enacted without broad support.
” The founders had the intention of crafting a slow-working government that favored popular interests rather than partisan ones .
James Madison in his notes wrote that the Senate was the , “ first to protect the people against their rulers [ and ] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.
” Without meaningful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majorities will rush to pass their legislative agenda with little opposition .
The eradication of filibuster rules will heighten the partisan divide in the country , as both parties will seek to pass impactful legislation without consultation with the minority party .
Supermajority rules are purposefully in place all throughout the U.S. government .
They exist in the procedures to amend the constitution , overriding vetoes , and convicting presidents in an impeachment trial .
By making it hard for the federal government to pass law and modify the foundational principals of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notion of federalism , empowering the states to pass their own laws .
The federal government , while slow and at times inefficient , is working as intended .
Jefferson , fearing the possibility of a fast-paced federal government , penned a letter to James Madison saying “ I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government .
It is always oppressive.
” The filibuster rule prevents the fast-pace , fast-passage legislative process that unified majority parties desperately seek .
It empowers the minority party to debate policy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckless passage of policy .
Policy with little chance of passing outside of a simple majority , should rightfully be debated .
Conservatives should oppose changes to the filibuster , as it will make it harder to do what William F. Buckley said defined a conservative in the first place , standing “ athwart history , yelling Stop , at a time when no one is inclined to do so , or to have much patience with those who so urge it.
” The removal of the filibuster prevents a slow deliberation on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 150 years .
The opposition party being able to yell ‘ stop ’ at potentially harmful legislation is a critical part of the protection of minority rights .
The filibuster protects the minority party and provides a much-needed check on government .
It allows for our system of governance to be steadied , tending more towards federalism , allowing for compromise within the Capitol , and making discussion before passing critical legislation necessary .
The political extremism unleashed in its absence is something many Americans will be unwilling to tolerate .

Democrats are confident that they are within striking distance of taking both the Senate majority and the presidency this November. One consequence of such a victory could be an emboldened Democratic Party that is willing to change the rules. On their wish list, between the abolition of the electoral college, DC statehood and court-packing, is an end to the filibuster once and for all. By ending the filibuster, Democrats may be able to pass all of their outlandish agenda without a peep from Republicans. Green New Deal, Medicare For All, free college, you name it.
This permanent nuclear option, beyond potential temporary policy gains made by either party, will break American democracy.
Elizabeth Warren declared in February on the Democratic debate stage that, “If Mitch McConnell is going to do to the next Democratic president what he did to President Obama, and that is try to block every single thing he does, then we are going to roll back the filibuster.”
While this can be pushed aside as a radical opinion by an outspoken progressive, moderates in the Democratic party have recently become sympathetic to the idea, such as Senator Coons and Manchin. They refuse to allow for a Biden presidency to end in the same way they view President Obama’s—a scaled-back Democratic agenda. The wounds over the passage of the Affordable Care Act are still fresh in the minds of many on the left, as Democrats were one Senator away from the all so elusive 60 vote supermajority.
The Democratic party is considering lighting a fuse in Washington, trading potential long-term chaos for immediate policy gains.
Senate Minority Leader Schumer, eyeing a potential Democratic majority in the Senate, declared that “nothing is off the table” last year in response to questions regarding the elimination of the filibuster. The shift in tone by Minority Leader Schumer is striking, who had previously warned Republicans of invoking the ‘nuclear option’ on Supreme Court nominations, previously stating: “Mr. President, the 60-vote bar in the Senate is the guardrail of our democracy.”
In 2017, Republicans had the same opportunity that Democrats are desperately vying for, control of both Congress and the Presidency. While debate was held on the elimination of the filibuster, the party ultimately decided against it, fearing the long-term consequences, and likely, the consequences of a Democratic majority using the lack of filibuster rules to their advantage.
President Trump, an avid supporter of the removal of the filibuster, has butted heads with Mitch McConnell and rank-and-file Republicans, and previously moderate Democrats, on this issue. Trump called for its removal, citing the need to pass of his political agenda, especially before the 2018 mid-term elections.
While the filibuster is not outright written into the Constitution, it is a Senate rule, having been first used in 1837.
The filibuster prevents the tyranny of the majority, allowing for the minority party to have a say in policymaking and to defend their interests on a particular policy. Thomas Jefferson once said, “great innovations should not be forced on a slender majority—or enacted without broad support.” The founders had the intention of crafting a slow-working government that favored popular interests rather than partisan ones.
James Madison in his notes wrote that the Senate was the, “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.” Without meaningful discourse and an empowered minority party, majorities will rush to pass their legislative agenda with little opposition. The eradication of filibuster rules will heighten the partisan divide in the country, as both parties will seek to pass impactful legislation without consultation with the minority party.
Supermajority rules are purposefully in place all throughout the U.S. government. They exist in the procedures to amend the constitution, overriding vetoes, and convicting presidents in an impeachment trial.
By making it hard for the federal government to pass law and modify the foundational principals of our government, the framers intended to uphold the notion of federalism, empowering the states to pass their own laws. The federal government, while slow and at times inefficient, is working as intended.
Jefferson, fearing the possibility of a fast-paced federal government, penned a letter to James Madison saying “I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.”
The filibuster rule prevents the fast-pace, fast-passage legislative process that unified majority parties desperately seek. It empowers the minority party to debate policy, purposefully standing in the way of the reckless passage of policy. Policy with little chance of passing outside of a simple majority, should rightfully be debated.
Conservatives should oppose changes to the filibuster, as it will make it harder to do what William F. Buckley said defined a conservative in the first place, standing “athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”
The removal of the filibuster prevents a slow deliberation on policy that has benefited American democracy for over 150 years. The opposition party being able to yell ‘stop’ at potentially harmful legislation is a critical part of the protection of minority rights.
The filibuster protects the minority party and provides a much-needed check on government. It allows for our system of governance to be steadied, tending more towards federalism, allowing for compromise within the Capitol, and making discussion before passing critical legislation necessary. The political extremism unleashed in its absence is something many Americans will be unwilling to tolerate.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-12--The Case for Kanye

The Case for Kanye

Kanye West seen out and about in Manhattan in February 2020 .
( Photo by Robert Kamau/GC Images ) On Independence Day , Kanye West announced a last-minute bid for the Oval Office , setting up the rapper , sneaker mogul , and Kardashian-by-marriage to square off against Trump and Biden as an independent .
While it may sound like a joke ( or the kind of publicity stunt that West has been known to pull in the past ) the announcement quickly drew support from a few significant public figures : his wife Kim , Elon Musk , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they come from some of the few A-listers who have at one time supported Trump—though Cuban had already jumped off the Trump train by election day 2016 .
Across the aisle , Kanye ’ s announcement has sparked concerns that a young black rapper—one of the most popular artists of all time—might pull key demographics away from the doddering , septuagenarian nominee of the self-anointed party of the future .
West ’ s transpartisan appeal and the exceptional confusion of the current moment make a Kanye presidency…well , maybe not likely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has already missed the deadline to file as an independent in multiple states , so the logistics of victory would be difficult , to say the least .
More fundamentally : he ’ s Kanye West .
He ’ s a pop-culture celebrity whose presidential aspirations—if they are even real—are obviously tied up in his ego and his flair for the dramatic .
There ’ s no way he can win against serious politicians , and no reason he should .
Sounds familiar , doesn ’ t it ?
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be brought against Kanye ’ s candidacy from the right could have been leveled against Trump in 2016 , and was .
He has absolutely no relevant experience .
His public statements have often bordered on the genuinely insane .
His past actions might raise serious concerns about his character .
He has displayed no broad or consistent fidelity to mainstream conservative principles .
His chances at winning are minuscule .
We have heard all these things before , and answered them at the ballot box .
But it became evident fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the best case , our Julius Caesar : a catalyst for radical change who—despite seeming at first like a savior in himself—would merely prepare the way for a leader and an age to come .
What was not evident—what seems , even now , fairly ridiculous—was that our Octavian might be a bombastic rapper from the South Side of Chicago .
There had been , until the fourth of July , only two likely scenarios for the conservative succession to Trump .
The first was grim : Joe Biden wins in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come the inevitable evaluations of where we went wrong , and the powers that were will insist that our fatal error was the abandonment of the old consensus .
Trump ’ s defeat will reopen the Republican power vacuum , and the old guard will quietly slink back in .
We will watch a few more decades of bargain-bin Reagan clones score a string of pyrrhic victories .
The Trump moment will be dismissed as a minor aberration until a moment like it inevitably comes again .
The day of reckoning will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we held it off .
The second is , at this point , wishful thinking : after a 2020 victory and four more years of Trump leadership , the reins of the party are handed over seamlessly to someone who can put a more positive spin on the populism Trump has tapped into .
Senators Hawley , Rubio , and Cotton are the obvious contenders .
Under this new generation of leadership , a pro-family , pro-labor , pro-American party offers a serious , earthbound answer to the Left ’ s apocalyptic vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for four years ago .
What ’ s more , we manage to free it of any unpleasant Trumpian entanglements .
This was probably the best argument for reelecting Trump in 2020 .
He would serve as a placeholder for four years , and we might even get another justice on the Supreme Court in the meantime .
But a seamless transition from Trump to a renewed GOP is no longer plausible .
This is in part because Trump has not been the disruptor we expected .
Despite some intense rhetoric and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fairly standard Republican administration .
We can not reasonably expect any seismic shifts in the party platform , and we certainly can ’ t expect any mass migrations into its electoral base .
While the administration bears some blame for this latter fact , there are also unavoidable complications of this particular moment at play : any hope of electoral windfall from the once-booming economy , for instance , has been buried by the COVID crisis .
Even if he scrapes out a victory in November , the possibility that Trump might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Republican dominance has vanished into thin air .
The party and the movement will merely find themselves limping along the scenic route to the same long-term result as scenario number one .
Kanye ’ s entry into the race presents us with a third way .
The controversial rapper , who has drawn sharp criticism for his past support of Trump , has a few defining qualities that may make him the best available successor to the current commander-in-chief .
He may be our only hope to actually force the realignment we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backslide into the GOPs old losing strategy .
The first point in West ’ s favor is actually rather practical—and timely .
It is clear now more than ever that any conservative coalition that hopes for lasting success in American politics must involve the millions of socially conservative black Americans who have been abandoned to the Democratic machine by an apathetic Republican establishment .
Trump is obviously not the person to bridge that gap—to incite one of those electoral mass migrations that would be vital to sustained political success .
Kanye may well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the color of his skin—though the electoral benefits of shared identity should not be underestimated .
West is at his most coherent ( and his most insightful ) when he talks about the troubles plaguing black communities : violence , addiction , “ welfare mentality ” , single motherhood , birth control , abortion .
West recognizes the roots of the problem—and the solutions in policy and practice that support family and enterprise—with a clarity and a conviction that neither the left nor the mainstream right approaches by a mile .
The benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be limited to black America , either .
The social and economic solutions to these problems are consistent over nearly all of our nation ’ s divisions : strong families plus a people-centered economy is a winning formula across the board , not to mention a morally sound one .
West has even waded into policy domains that have been untouched by conservatives for decades , but deserve and desperately need our attention : land reform , contraception , school prayer , and more .
Trump , at his best , showed no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to ride populist and reactionary waves , but he was never particularly invested in the ideas that drove them .
Meanwhile , for all the outrageousness of both Kanye himself and his equally famous relatives ( his wife , Kim Kardashian ; his father-in-law , Caitlyn Jenner ) , nobody who has been paying attention could honestly deny that West is passionately devoted to strong family—both on the personal and the societal level .
Some may question the sanity of his somewhat heterodox Christianity , but nobody doubts its sincerity .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and erudition in Kanye ’ s platform while appreciating the general direction of his vision , and the energy with which he pursues it .
That energy is another of West ’ s defining traits , and it actually parallels one of Trump ’ s .
Both possess an undeniable explosive power .
Trump ’ s is corporate : when supporters said in 2016 that they wanted Trump to run the government like a business , they meant specifically one of his businesses .
Whether the moribund GOP went the way of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make much of a difference .
They simply wanted the disruption that Trump had been peddling for decades in the public sphere .
But the New York businessman , expected by his supporters to be immune to the forces of the swamp , turned out to be overcome by them with remarkably little resistance .
Not only are we not experiencing the positive realignment which Trump supporters hoped for , we aren ’ t even really seeing the intermediate disruptive stage—the swamp-draining , in Trump-speak—that should have been our consolation prize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disruption—and thus force the renewal—that Trump had promised , it ’ s sure to be Kanye West .
This is in part because West ’ s energy and genius , as an artist , is of an entirely different kind from Trump ’ s , and far less easily reined in .
More importantly , however , in the wake of his recent conversion to a zealous ( if nebulous ) Christianity , West ’ s energy is actually aimed in a clear and positive direction .
Trump was always merely a disruptor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaotic potential and moral vision positions him perfectly as a transitional figure between the old age and the new .
The Art of the Deal has done all it can to cure mainstream conservatism ’ s many ills .
It ’ s time to take Jesus is King for a spin .
Declan Leary is TAC ’ s Collegiate Network Fellow and a graduate of John Carroll University .

On Independence Day, Kanye West announced a last-minute bid for the Oval Office, setting up the rapper, sneaker mogul, and Kardashian-by-marriage to square off against Trump and Biden as an independent. While it may sound like a joke (or the kind of publicity stunt that West has been known to pull in the past) the announcement quickly drew support from a few significant public figures: his wife Kim, Elon Musk, and Mark Cuban.
These endorsements are noteworthy because they come from some of the few A-listers who have at one time supported Trump—though Cuban had already jumped off the Trump train by election day 2016. Across the aisle, Kanye’s announcement has sparked concerns that a young black rapper—one of the most popular artists of all time—might pull key demographics away from the doddering, septuagenarian nominee of the self-anointed party of the future. West’s transpartisan appeal and the exceptional confusion of the current moment make a Kanye presidency…well, maybe not likely, but surprisingly possible.
Unfortunately for West, he has already missed the deadline to file as an independent in multiple states, so the logistics of victory would be difficult, to say the least. More fundamentally: he’s Kanye West. He’s a pop-culture celebrity whose presidential aspirations—if they are even real—are obviously tied up in his ego and his flair for the dramatic. There’s no way he can win against serious politicians, and no reason he should. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
In fact, just about every conceivable argument that might be brought against Kanye’s candidacy from the right could have been leveled against Trump in 2016, and was. He has absolutely no relevant experience. His public statements have often bordered on the genuinely insane. His past actions might raise serious concerns about his character. He has displayed no broad or consistent fidelity to mainstream conservative principles. His chances at winning are minuscule. We have heard all these things before, and answered them at the ballot box.
But it became evident fairly early on that Trump would be, in the best case, our Julius Caesar: a catalyst for radical change who—despite seeming at first like a savior in himself—would merely prepare the way for a leader and an age to come. What was not evident—what seems, even now, fairly ridiculous—was that our Octavian might be a bombastic rapper from the South Side of Chicago. There had been, until the fourth of July, only two likely scenarios for the conservative succession to Trump.
The first was grim: Joe Biden wins in November. Quick on the heels of loss come the inevitable evaluations of where we went wrong, and the powers that were will insist that our fatal error was the abandonment of the old consensus. Trump’s defeat will reopen the Republican power vacuum, and the old guard will quietly slink back in. We will watch a few more decades of bargain-bin Reagan clones score a string of pyrrhic victories. The Trump moment will be dismissed as a minor aberration until a moment like it inevitably comes again. The day of reckoning will be all the more difficult for the time we held it off.
The second is, at this point, wishful thinking: after a 2020 victory and four more years of Trump leadership, the reins of the party are handed over seamlessly to someone who can put a more positive spin on the populism Trump has tapped into. Senators Hawley, Rubio, and Cotton are the obvious contenders. Under this new generation of leadership, a pro-family, pro-labor, pro-American party offers a serious, earthbound answer to the Left’s apocalyptic vision. We get the realignment we hoped for four years ago. What’s more, we manage to free it of any unpleasant Trumpian entanglements.
This was probably the best argument for reelecting Trump in 2020. He would serve as a placeholder for four years, and we might even get another justice on the Supreme Court in the meantime. But a seamless transition from Trump to a renewed GOP is no longer plausible. This is in part because Trump has not been the disruptor we expected. Despite some intense rhetoric and a few outlying policies, this has been a fairly standard Republican administration. We cannot reasonably expect any seismic shifts in the party platform, and we certainly can’t expect any mass migrations into its electoral base. While the administration bears some blame for this latter fact, there are also unavoidable complications of this particular moment at play: any hope of electoral windfall from the once-booming economy, for instance, has been buried by the COVID crisis. Even if he scrapes out a victory in November, the possibility that Trump might, like Nixon, usher in decades of Republican dominance has vanished into thin air. The party and the movement will merely find themselves limping along the scenic route to the same long-term result as scenario number one.
Kanye’s entry into the race presents us with a third way. The controversial rapper, who has drawn sharp criticism for his past support of Trump, has a few defining qualities that may make him the best available successor to the current commander-in-chief. He may be our only hope to actually force the realignment we expected from Trump, and avoid a backslide into the GOPs old losing strategy.
The first point in West’s favor is actually rather practical—and timely. It is clear now more than ever that any conservative coalition that hopes for lasting success in American politics must involve the millions of socially conservative black Americans who have been abandoned to the Democratic machine by an apathetic Republican establishment. Trump is obviously not the person to bridge that gap—to incite one of those electoral mass migrations that would be vital to sustained political success. Kanye may well be, and not just because of the color of his skin—though the electoral benefits of shared identity should not be underestimated. West is at his most coherent (and his most insightful) when he talks about the troubles plaguing black communities: violence, addiction, “welfare mentality”, single motherhood, birth control, abortion. West recognizes the roots of the problem—and the solutions in policy and practice that support family and enterprise—with a clarity and a conviction that neither the left nor the mainstream right approaches by a mile.
The benefit of West’s insight would not be limited to black America, either. The social and economic solutions to these problems are consistent over nearly all of our nation’s divisions: strong families plus a people-centered economy is a winning formula across the board, not to mention a morally sound one. West has even waded into policy domains that have been untouched by conservatives for decades, but deserve and desperately need our attention: land reform, contraception, school prayer, and more.
Trump, at his best, showed no resistance to these things: he was willing to ride populist and reactionary waves, but he was never particularly invested in the ideas that drove them. Meanwhile, for all the outrageousness of both Kanye himself and his equally famous relatives (his wife, Kim Kardashian; his father-in-law, Caitlyn Jenner), nobody who has been paying attention could honestly deny that West is passionately devoted to strong family—both on the personal and the societal level. Some may question the sanity of his somewhat heterodox Christianity, but nobody doubts its sincerity. We may likewise lament the lack of nuance and erudition in Kanye’s platform while appreciating the general direction of his vision, and the energy with which he pursues it.
That energy is another of West’s defining traits, and it actually parallels one of Trump’s. Both possess an undeniable explosive power. Trump’s is corporate: when supporters said in 2016 that they wanted Trump to run the government like a business, they meant specifically one of his businesses. Whether the moribund GOP went the way of Trump Steaks or the Grand Hyatt Hotel didn’t make much of a difference. They simply wanted the disruption that Trump had been peddling for decades in the public sphere.
But the New York businessman, expected by his supporters to be immune to the forces of the swamp, turned out to be overcome by them with remarkably little resistance. Not only are we not experiencing the positive realignment which Trump supporters hoped for, we aren’t even really seeing the intermediate disruptive stage—the swamp-draining, in Trump-speak—that should have been our consolation prize. If anyone can actually deliver the disruption—and thus force the renewal—that Trump had promised, it’s sure to be Kanye West. This is in part because West’s energy and genius, as an artist, is of an entirely different kind from Trump’s, and far less easily reined in.
More importantly, however, in the wake of his recent conversion to a zealous (if nebulous) Christianity, West’s energy is actually aimed in a clear and positive direction. Trump was always merely a disruptor, but West’s combination of chaotic potential and moral vision positions him perfectly as a transitional figure between the old age and the new. The Art of the Deal has done all it can to cure mainstream conservatism’s many ills. It’s time to take Jesus is King for a spin.
Declan Leary is TAC’s Collegiate Network Fellow and a graduate of John Carroll University.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-13--Democracy Promotion Abroad, Complete and Utter Breakdown at Home

How can we continue to tell other nations what to do when our own democracy is suffering from mediocrity and decay ?
As the United States cascades toward the status of a failed state , an author at The National Interest points out that , “ democracy for Iran is one cause that effortlessly unites the left and right in unprecedented ways.
” House Resolution 374 , which calls on Iran to adopt a “ secular democracy , ” secured 221 House co-sponsors of both parties and was enthusiastically embraced by the Trump State Department .
Disorder and violence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history and traditions bequeathed by our ancestors are being defaced , freedom of speech and religion are increasingly under siege , and rank partisanship and vitriol mark our politics .
In response , our nation ’ s leaders have come together to exclaim to the world : “ you need to be more like us.
” You might have thought that when the nation has descended into chaos and whole sections of major cities have become ungovernable , it would be time for a little humility .
Not for our puffed up political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations with claims of American superiority at a time when American democracy is displaying clear signs of mediocrity and decay .
As democracy promotion continues to be the animating principle of American foreign policy for both parties , consider the condition of American democracy .
First , the Democratic Party , once a great bastion of John Stuart Mill-style liberals , was at one time populated with politicians who earnestly felt that social problems could be solved by people with brains , sympathy and good will .
These liberals—Patrick Moynihan is an example—were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They were generally formidable interlocutors when discussing the nation ’ s problems , which they genuinely wished to solve .
These traditional liberals were not “ conservative ” in the sense that they were more respectful of “ reason ” than of tradition , and they were certainly elitist , but they were civilized , orderly and thoughtful .
Now consider the temperament of those setting the tone in the contemporary Democratic Party .
John Stuart Mill-style liberalism is dead , its rationality replaced by a totalitarian ferocity that brooks no dissent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Frankenstein ’ s monster , who was created on our university campuses and who there instituted a decades-long reign of terror , has now extended his dominion over institutions off-campus , such as the Democratic Party and the media .
Like Mary Shelley ’ s monster in her novel , the Western intellectuals who created the illiberal campus culture insisted that the creature was beautiful when , in fact , he was hideous and violent .
And , as in the novel , when the monster—who felt that he was full of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a cruel world–escaped into the population no one was safe .
It took several decades for the irrationality , ideology and intolerance of campus culture to overtake the Democratic Party , but that takeover is now complete .
Politicians on the left no longer wish to debate the nation ’ s problems and , as is the case for activists on campus , their goal is to shout down , stigmatize , smear , and crush their opponents .
In this tribalistic culture , there are no longer any civil rights for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police officers in urban areas controlled by Democrats will now face the same kangaroo justice that boys on campus faced when they were accused of sexual misconduct .
Campus culture is now Democratic Party culture , and its victims will be innocent citizens trapped in urban areas that will go unpoliced and ungovernable for the foreseeable future .
If you think the GOP is the antidote to this chaos , think again .
The Republican Party is sometimes labeled as the nation ’ s “ conservative ” party .
What exactly has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intolerant left marched through all of the nation ’ s cultural institutions , Republicans did nothing .
They had some electoral success , but they accomplished little because they did not understand that public policy is downstream from culture ; the options of the policymakers are quite limited when the culture sets the boundaries of acceptable debate .
Conservative “ intellectuals , ” should have been seriously alarmed by the Maoist-style cultural revolution , instead they abandoned the universities and founded “ think tanks ” designed to push tax cuts at home and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might ask The Heritage Foundation , are things going on the American heritage front ?
The conservative “ movement ” ignored the culture and became obsessed with electoral politics and economic growth , meaning that the ultimate goals for “ conservatives ” became power and money .
The philistinism of the Republican Party was captured brilliantly in Sen. Marco Rubio ’ s declaration during the 2016 campaign that college students should avoid learning Greek philosophy .
Rubio ’ s consistent position has been that compared with money and war , Aristotle is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voiced the same disdain for our foundational classical culture .
Is it any wonder that Republican politicians are at a loss and hiding under their beds as disorder sweeps the nation ?
They simply do not know what to say or do because they have ignored , and sometimes even ridiculed , the traditions that gave us Western order and American constitutionalism .
Populism and nationalism , two trendy buzzwords of conservative intellectuals , simply represent the pouring of old wine into new bottles and reflect the continuing misguided emphasis upon electoral politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away if Trump is defeated in the election .
With Jared Kushner firmly at the helm in the Trump White House , Trump will likely fail to make good on two of his signature campaign promises : immigration reform and exiting the Middle East , thus cinching defeat in key Midwest battleground states .
Rather than adopting a 2020 campaign slogan of “ Keep America Great , ” Trump might consider , “ après moi le déluge.
” Thirty years ago , as the Cold War was coming to an end , Jeane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good society is defined not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities.
” She advised Americans to come home from their global commitments and to work to “ make a good society better.
” Our leaders of both parties ignored her advice , and we are seeing the results .
William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America .
His recent book Democracy and Imperialism is from the University of Michigan Press .

As the United States cascades toward the status of a failed state, an author at The National Interest points out that, “democracy for Iran is one cause that effortlessly unites the left and right in unprecedented ways.” House Resolution 374, which calls on Iran to adopt a “secular democracy,” secured 221 House co-sponsors of both parties and was enthusiastically embraced by the Trump State Department.
Disorder and violence is rampantly spreading in the U.S. The history and traditions bequeathed by our ancestors are being defaced, freedom of speech and religion are increasingly under siege, and rank partisanship and vitriol mark our politics. In response, our nation’s leaders have come together to exclaim to the world: “you need to be more like us.”
You might have thought that when the nation has descended into chaos and whole sections of major cities have become ungovernable, it would be time for a little humility. Not for our puffed up political class. They continue to hector other nations with claims of American superiority at a time when American democracy is displaying clear signs of mediocrity and decay.
As democracy promotion continues to be the animating principle of American foreign policy for both parties, consider the condition of American democracy.
First, the Democratic Party, once a great bastion of John Stuart Mill-style liberals, was at one time populated with politicians who earnestly felt that social problems could be solved by people with brains, sympathy and good will. These liberals—Patrick Moynihan is an example—were rational, inquisitive, insightful and sincere. They were generally formidable interlocutors when discussing the nation’s problems, which they genuinely wished to solve. These traditional liberals were not “conservative” in the sense that they were more respectful of “reason” than of tradition, and they were certainly elitist, but they were civilized, orderly and thoughtful.
Now consider the temperament of those setting the tone in the contemporary Democratic Party. John Stuart Mill-style liberalism is dead, its rationality replaced by a totalitarian ferocity that brooks no dissent and labels opponents as malevolent cretins. A Frankenstein’s monster, who was created on our university campuses and who there instituted a decades-long reign of terror, has now extended his dominion over institutions off-campus, such as the Democratic Party and the media. Like Mary Shelley’s monster in her novel, the Western intellectuals who created the illiberal campus culture insisted that the creature was beautiful when, in fact, he was hideous and violent. And, as in the novel, when the monster—who felt that he was full of virtue and innocence, simply a victim of a cruel world–escaped into the population no one was safe.
It took several decades for the irrationality, ideology and intolerance of campus culture to overtake the Democratic Party, but that takeover is now complete. Politicians on the left no longer wish to debate the nation’s problems and, as is the case for activists on campus, their goal is to shout down, stigmatize, smear, and crush their opponents. In this tribalistic culture, there are no longer any civil rights for the accused in non-favored groups. Accused police officers in urban areas controlled by Democrats will now face the same kangaroo justice that boys on campus faced when they were accused of sexual misconduct. Campus culture is now Democratic Party culture, and its victims will be innocent citizens trapped in urban areas that will go unpoliced and ungovernable for the foreseeable future.
If you think the GOP is the antidote to this chaos, think again. The Republican Party is sometimes labeled as the nation’s “conservative” party. What exactly has the GOP sought to conserve? As the intolerant left marched through all of the nation’s cultural institutions, Republicans did nothing. They had some electoral success, but they accomplished little because they did not understand that public policy is downstream from culture; the options of the policymakers are quite limited when the culture sets the boundaries of acceptable debate.
Conservative “intellectuals,” should have been seriously alarmed by the Maoist-style cultural revolution, instead they abandoned the universities and founded “think tanks” designed to push tax cuts at home and endless wars abroad. How, one might ask The Heritage Foundation, are things going on the American heritage front?
The conservative “movement” ignored the culture and became obsessed with electoral politics and economic growth, meaning that the ultimate goals for “conservatives” became power and money. The philistinism of the Republican Party was captured brilliantly in Sen. Marco Rubio’s declaration during the 2016 campaign that college students should avoid learning Greek philosophy. Rubio’s consistent position has been that compared with money and war, Aristotle is not worth your time. Rush Limbaugh has voiced the same disdain for our foundational classical culture. Is it any wonder that Republican politicians are at a loss and hiding under their beds as disorder sweeps the nation? They simply do not know what to say or do because they have ignored, and sometimes even ridiculed, the traditions that gave us Western order and American constitutionalism.
Populism and nationalism, two trendy buzzwords of conservative intellectuals, simply represent the pouring of old wine into new bottles and reflect the continuing misguided emphasis upon electoral politics. These buzzwords are likely to pass away if Trump is defeated in the election. With Jared Kushner firmly at the helm in the Trump White House, Trump will likely fail to make good on two of his signature campaign promises: immigration reform and exiting the Middle East, thus cinching defeat in key Midwest battleground states. Rather than adopting a 2020 campaign slogan of “Keep America Great,” Trump might consider, “après moi le déluge.”
Thirty years ago, as the Cold War was coming to an end, Jeane Kirkpatrick warned us that, “a good society is defined not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities.” She advised Americans to come home from their global commitments and to work to “make a good society better.” Our leaders of both parties ignored her advice, and we are seeing the results.
William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His recent book Democracy and Imperialism is from the University of Michigan Press.