From "How the Claremont Institute Became a Nerve Center of the American Right/They made the intellectual case for Trump. Now they believe the country is in a cultural civil war" (NYT). The article is by Elisabeth Zerofsky, but she's quoting Michael Anton, a Claremont Institute fellow who wrote an essay about the Bronze Age Pervert book.
Anton told Zerofsky that he initially assumed Trump was "a buffoon" with "nothing serious" about him and that, "therefore no serious person could possibly support him or make an argument on his behalf," but "And then we [the Claremont Institute] did it."
Trump’s boorishness is of a piece with what some of them view as the rough-and-tumble nature of political life. “The philosophers that we tend to study are not deluded about this,” Anton told me. “Aristotle, in the treatise, explains how the actual practice of politics can be bare knuckle in lots and lots of ways.” On an American Mind podcast last year, Anton reflected that what is “too insufficiently remembered is that a lot of what went down in revolutions was rough stuff. We have a picture of dignified men in Independence Hall deliberating and debating. And all that happened, I don’t discount that. But there was a lot of other stuff going on, too.”
Posts
46 comments:
Michael Anton convinced a lot of people to vote for Trump in 2016. And he was rewarded with a job in the administration. His BAP article introduced me to the lads and their Chad mindset. But this is, as far as I know, all old news. Why is the NYT interested in this now?
I used to read the old Claremont blog No Left Turns. Circa 2005, the glory days of blogs! There were a dozen I read every day.
Never knew Claremont was so hard core.
The author has a bad case of the Trump virus. I know it is impolite to point and laugh, but still ...
Anton is right about the Revolution. The Founders knew their lives were at stake. If they would have lost, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson and the whole lot of them would have been executed by the King as traitors. The high stakes certainly focused their minds. They also knew of prisoners rotting away on British ships in US harbors.
Rough stuff indeed.
Any today our "leaders" are wound up about pissing away billions on pointless Green energy projects. They've also allowed us to become dependent on China. It is a fucking disgrace.
"Scholars at Claremont have long subscribed to the belief that the American republic has been dismantled, the Constitution corrupted by left-wing ideas .... "
That statement is not arguable, but the Commie-pinko left will do it anyway.
Anton wrote "The Flight 93 Election." It explained perfectly the split between "intellectual" Trump supporters and Never Trumpers: America was the hijacked flight heading for doom, and we have no choice but to rush the cockpit. The time for radical action had arrived.
Claremont and especially their "youth wing" led by Matt Peterson and the brilliant James Poulos, are the only "think tank" worth paying attention to on the right anymore. Their partial embrace of the edgy BAPist/pepe youth was very significant and came at the risk of alienating their pearls and country club donors, who like going to cocktail parties and don’t like being associated with white supremacist alt-right trolls, which is the calumny heaped on these vitalists by our corporate-owned establishment intelligentsia. Took guts. Check out anything Poulos has written about being human in the digital age. He’s a McLuhanite, and brings a unique perspective and keen mind to his writing, which can be dense.
Never heard of this book, but I have three sons 21-33 years old, and all of them think this way already, and many of their friends and acquaintances too. It’s definitely a thing.
Most Boomers don’t get it, but maybe we are the deluded ones believing too many lies for too long. The evidence for that has accumulated more and more in recent years.
Anton has been spreading a warning about the crazies running our government. I guess that threatens the NYT.
Anton was instrumental in persuading Claremont to embrace the youth, and it’s a credit to him and Claremont leaders like Ryan Williams and Jeremy Carl, more conventional conservatives by nature, to have followed through despite the savaging they’ve taken in corporate media and establishment think tanks.
I still don't get the Trump personal hatred - the hatred of Trump as a person and not a hatred of his policy. I am very close to the exact opposite of his personality but I have clients like him and have acquaintances like him. Generally speaking, they are interesting people, especially to spend dinner or a 30 minutes with at a bar. They tend to be engaging types. Yes, they talk about themselves but are usually pretty entertaining about it. Much more interesting than your average lawyer, for example.
I have no confidence that Zerofsky is fairly summarizing BAP or Anton. Their relevance to put current predicament is unclear.
Trump was elected with probable cause that he would mitigate cultural liberalism, including the religious ("ethical") practice of human rites in the darkness of transhumanity's social progress.
Liberalism is divergent. Progressivism is monotonic. Libertarianism is independent. Conservativism is moderating. The far-left is totalitarian. The far-right is anarchist. The left-right nexus is leftist.
Jefferson's Revenge said...
I still don't get the Trump personal hatred - the hatred of Trump as a person and not a hatred of his policy.
I'm on the same page, Jefferson's, but go a bit farther. I can accept that people don't like Trump's, i.e. Republican, policies. I can even accept that you personally dislike him enough to reject him despite his support for GOP policies. Where I get off the train is the demonization. I'm old enough to remember the claims that Reagan and GWHB conspired with the mullahs to hold the hostages past Election Day, and the cries of 'Selected not Elected', and when Diebold stole Ohio for W, so spare me claims that Trump is somehow a new and unique threat to 'our democracy'.
If you want to know exactly what many of us on the right are thinking, this is as close to it for me as I've read. From Michael Anton: They can't let him back in.
I wander between a gnawing feeling that those who own the power and wield enough of it to adjust for the electorate, are not as smart as they think they are and won't be able to control what they start, or worse, that they do know and are not only fine with the direction things are heading, but are gleefully looking forward to it's playing out.
"'Scholars at Claremont have long subscribed to the belief that the American republic has been dismantled, the Constitution corrupted by left-wing ideas....'
"That statement is not arguable, but the Commie-pinko left will do it anyway."
The statement is not arguable because it is nonsensical.
Earlier this year, Steve Hayward (also a Claremont alumni who has had Anton as a guest on his Three Whiskey Happy Hour podcasts) did an interview with five young BAP conservatives. It's about an hour long and rough in spots due to tech difficulties collecting six or seven people in a podcast
Times writers are also convinced that we are in a "cultural civil war." They just don't want to say it while Democrats are in control. The standard procedure is to say anybody who objects to a stupid policies on transsexuals or gender pronouns is a culture warrior, and the people who impose such policies aren't.
I suppose Trump did come to take the conservative or traditionist side of the cultural argument, but one of the most positive things I found about him in the beginning was that he didn't campaign as a socially conservative culture warrior or a dogmatic free marketeer, but was trying to deal with the real world economic problems ordinary Americans faced. The fact that he didn't claim to be a moral exemplar was also refreshing.
I can't help noticing that prominent NeverTrumpers who were forever raising the alarm over social issues, have made their peace with the other side and now focus their outrage on Trump. I fear though that MAGA and Trumpism may just become another rhetorical line that politicians spout to get elected before they go on to join the DC blob and govern in their own interest.
Dave Begley said...
Anton is right about the Revolution. The Founders knew their lives were at stake. If they would have lost, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson and the whole lot of them would have been executed by the King as traitors. The high stakes certainly focused their minds. They also knew of prisoners rotting away on British ships in US harbors.
If that is what a prime member of the Claremont white nationalists believes, really believes, he wouldn't make up stuff like "Flight 93" and "Bronze Age Pervert." Claremont Institute, BTW, was up to its ears in planning the January 6 coup.
What our rebellious colonists wanted back when was what we now call “economic freedom.” Historians have concentrated on the Imperial Crisis, the escalation of political tensions between the colonists that began with the Stamp Act (Parliament's first direct tax on the American colonies was enacted to raise money for Britain. It taxed newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, legal documents, dice, and playing cards). And along came “No taxation without representation.”
A Connecticut colonist told a British Army Officer:
What little Money we had is so gone, that what remains is not half sufficient to pay our Public debt, and our Private vastly more weighty. The heavy taxes already collected, have produced more bankruptcies than had before happened from the settlement of the Government and too many more must soon appear. The Demand for Money is so great, to discharge our Debts, that the landed Interest (the greatest Interest of the Colony) is generally fallen full Fifty per Cent. You may depend, Sir, this is no exaggeration of our deplorable Circumstances. The other New-England Colonies are said to be equally distrest, and some neighbouring western Province, but little better; thus we are suffering by going beyond our Abilities in the King’s Service. Is Great Britain so exhausted, has she lost an equal Proportion of Blood, or is her landed Interest fallen one Half in its Value? Will her Parliament notwithstanding these Things, and in the Reign of a King, the most tender Father of his People, crush below Ruin, such a Number of most loyal, faithful Subjects already undone in his Cause?”
Just as Bill Clinton succinctly reminded us in his 1992 campaign: "It's the economy, Stupid!"
BAP isn't saying much that hasn't been said before, and better.
In 2015 all I knew about Trump was that he was a loud-mouthed, boorish Noo Yawka whose life, career, and thoughts were of no interest to me whatever--in other words, a typical NYC guy but with lots of $$$.
It took The Organs' (Deep State and MSM) unrelenting and obviously coordinated attacks, lies, and slanders to make me take a second look. I didn't vote for him in '16 (I wouldn't vote for a Clinton under any circumstances) but I did in '20.
That said, I'd like someone with some of his attitude to vote for--someone younger and not out for personal vengeance. Not that I disapprove of vengeance in general, but it needs to be broad-based and not just a matter of ticking off his personal shitlist.
File under Pinhead Intellectuals you people like.
Robert Cook said...
"'Scholars at Claremont have long subscribed to the belief that the American republic has been dismantled, the Constitution corrupted by left-wing ideas....'
"That statement is not arguable, but the Commie-pinko left will do it anyway."
The statement is not arguable because it is nonsensical.
****************
The unsupported assertion that it is nonsensical is NOT an "argument".
Try harder. Try much harder.
Claremont Institute, BTW, was up to its ears in planning the January 6 coup.
Another nutty conspiracy theopriest
Blogger Howard said...
File under Pinhead Intellectuals you people like.
More "you people" projection from Howard. Howard prefers the "1619" author.
Michael K said: Anton has been spreading a warning about the crazies running our government. I guess that threatens the NYT.
BAP on the crazies running our government:
America’s Delusional Elite Is Done
(American Mind is a Claremont publication)
@Robert Cook. Read the 10th Amendment and then present your argument.
Anton holds paid posts at several "nonprofit" conservative and "conservative" outlets simultaneously. He'll spew out whatever the donors want.
These people wouldn't wisp in the wind on every issue so much if their truly shallow and corrupt donor base didn't have so much contempt for the people it claims to speak for.
At least the Democrat Party is lining their pockets by lining the pockets of their lazy, illegal, and unproductive clients. Equally evil but somehow less personally deceptive, to their base, at least.
This is just more Alt Right white nationalism pinheaded propaganda. So this guy says what we’ve heard the less sophisticated alt right white nationalists say on the crazy alt right sites across the rightosphere, but in more sophisticated words. As IF the alt right ideology merits more consideration by average normal Americans. And they, the rightists buy it, it’s just more bullshit by guys who got themselves cushy jobs by supposed think tanks and get to spew it to people who have been on the edge of societal norms all along. The extremists want to hear more extreme rhetoric from their favorite extremists.
I like that Steve Hayward jovially refers to "Claremonsters" in his Powerline podcasts with "Lucretia".
I've pointed this out before, but it looks like I need to say it again. Anyone who uses the phrase "white nationalist", as Inga just did, is using a cleverly-designed slur to defame at least 100 million Americans. The phrase is designedly and dishonestly ambiguous. Does it mean someone who is both white and a nationalist? Hey, that's me! And 100 million other Americans at least! Or does it mean someone who wants the U.S. to be a white nation? Woah! That is NOT me, or anyone I know. Calling people "white nationalists" is a clever way of implying that all ((white)(nationalists)) - like me - are ((white nation)(-alists)), which is a damnable lie. And anyone who continues to use the phrase, knowing that it is a pseudo-intellectual weapon, is a damnable liar. How many here will do that? More than one, I'm sure.
The extremists want to hear more extreme rhetoric from their favorite extremists.
The village idiot opining again.
Here’s the somewhat sympathetic review Anton wrote of BAP’s book, which introduced him to mainstream conservative intellectuals and painted the target on Claremont’s back at which local program drones even in this thread hurl accusations of white supremacy. Maybe back that up with something?
Here’s BAP’s response, and the only piece I know of attributed to BAP not written in his typical style but in his adult, PhD political scientist voice.
"They also knew of prisoners rotting away on British ships in US harbors."
I know of multiple prisoners rotting away in this illegal regime's dungeons. And I know that the Democrats are scheming to throw the rest of us in there with them, so they can turn the US into a permanent one-party tyranny like the Soviet Union and China.
Tina Trent said...
"Anton holds paid posts at several "nonprofit" conservative and "conservative" outlets simultaneously. He'll spew out whatever the donors want."
If you find it objectionable that Anton gets paid to write, I guess that's your prerogative. But if he is simply a mouthpiece for some wealthy donors, I have to say that those wealthy donors are highly original thinkers.
"This is just more Alt Right white nationalism pinheaded propaganda."
So you got something against the Bronze Age, Igna? I know you don't have any problem with Perverts.
Tina, you’re not wrong about Anton’s metier, but you are wrong about how he in particular plies his trade. He’s an honest broker and pretty bold, a risk-taker among the coddled intelligentsia.
Trump was a warning shot across the bows of the current elites; just like Palin was.
The raw fact is that the rubes, the "normies", the regular-guy Americans who just want to be left the hell alone...? They've figured out that the assholes running the country aren't looking out for their interests, but are actually doing everything they can for the benefit of the connected, the transnational elites, and everybody else but normal, everyday Americans that live out here in flyover country.
Y'all are not going to like what happens once they reach the conclusion that they're being fitted-out for chains and grave-shrouds; I promise you that la Terreur of the French Revolution won't have jack on what comes once the inflection-point of all this is reached. You will be horrified and amazed at just how rapidly and how hard the backswing on the cultural pendulum will come, and I seriously doubt that anyone who is currently "in charge" has the slightest understanding of what will happen. They'll still be whining about DIE and all that other BS as the nooses draw tight around their necks, or the gasoline-filled tires are hung around them by the raving mob that will engulf everything they think they know. It won't be pretty, but it will be coming because they've steadily ignored the warning signs, blocking the release-valves built into the system by the Founders. The 2020 election was probably the last time they're going to get away with the fraud, because if it continues and everyone stops believing in the fairy tale? It's all going to go "Phfffft!" and away overnight.
I remember telling cop friends of mine that if they continued with the Thin Blue Line BS, and didn't start policing their own ranks, that things would change. I was told that there was no way possible, that they were immune to anything that might happen. Try again, dumbass... Look at what's going on in the major Democrat-run cities, again. Then, try to tell me that the politicians will have your backs, and you won't see things change, 'cos of how "necessary" you are.
I'd laugh, but I can't keep the note of hysteria hidden enough to do that. We're all going to be diminished, as this gets worked out.
takirks said...
...
Y'all are not going to like what happens once they reach the conclusion that they're being fitted-out for chains and grave-shrouds; I promise you that la Terreur of the French Revolution won't have jack on what comes once the inflection-point of all this is reached. You will be horrified and amazed at just how rapidly and how hard the backswing on the cultural pendulum will come, and I seriously doubt that anyone who is currently "in charge" has the slightest understanding of what will happen. ...
They haven't the slightest idea what will happen if it does turn out that the so called "vaccination" does have a permanent effect on fertility and causes ill health. Because the people who entered the military in the last few years who were forced to submit to the shots will be the people at the point of the spear with control of the guns.
Is it being talked about? I can't say. Or maybe I won't say. Figure it out.
More revenge porn fantasy @ 6:50PM.
Claremont recognizes that the governing elite is intellectual and morally bankrupt and that very much includes the conservative movement or the conservative Establishment. They also recognize that the country is in trouble. So where do we go from there? There's going to be a lot of fumbling and stumbling until we find out what to do. There will be a lot of dead ends and backtracking, but at least they are making a start.
Incidentally, magazines and websites publish a lot of things to get discussion started. Blogs and commenters jump on the publication or site, but one ought to step back sometimes and reflect that they aren't always pushing a party line, but are publishing a variety of contributors to express who don't always follow a party line.
Robert Cook said...
"'Scholars at Claremont have long subscribed to the belief that the American republic has been dismantled, the Constitution corrupted by left-wing ideas....'
"That statement is not arguable, but the Commie-pinko left will do it anyway."
The statement is not arguable because it is nonsensical.
Where in the US Constitution is it written that same sex "marriages", gun control laws, and abortion are all Constitutionally protected?
It isn't in there anywhere?
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is actually in there?
Gee, then I guess "the Constitution corrupted by left-wing ideas" is an entirely true statement, as is "the American republic has been dismantled", since rule of law and votes by the Legislative bodies have been replaced by judicial dictatorship
Inga fails reading comprehension and/or cannot distinguish between fantasy and fear.
Are you too young to have lived through being at ground zero?
Much like the SNL skit, "Que es Mas Macho?" comparing manly men such as Lloyd Bridges and Jack Lord, the claim that Trump exhibited "boorishness" must be addressed with comparisons.
Who was more boorish, Trump or Clinton (pick either one)?
Who was more boorish, Trump or Kennedy (pick any one)?
Who was more boorish, Trump or Johnson (thank God there was only one)?
Quien es Mas Macho?"
https://vimeo.com/365899455
SNL skit done entirely in Spanish, some of it plagiarized out of a Spanish language textbook.
Claremont recognizes that the governing elite is intellectual and morally bankrupt and that very much includes the conservative movement or the conservative Establishment. They also recognize that the country is in trouble. So where do we go from there? There's going to be a lot of fumbling and stumbling until we find out what to do. There will be a lot of dead ends and backtracking, but at least they are making a start.
Incidentally, magazines and websites publish a lot of things to get discussion started. Blogs and commenters jump on the publication or site, but one ought to step back sometimes and reflect that they aren't always pushing a party line, but are publishing a variety of contributors to express who don't always follow a party line.
From the article:
"...a hectoring, vindictive, resentful, leveling, hypocritical equality that punishes excellence and publicly denies all difference while at the same time elevating and enriching a decadent, incompetent and corrupt elite."
BAP may not understand - or perhaps he does - that this is the way socialism works. In order to achieve equity, as defined under that system, overperformance cannot be rewarded, initiative must be reined in lest it disrupt the leadership's plan, and all behavior must conform to the dictates of the State.
Recently, in Wisconsin, I saw a bumper sticker that said, "It's not about left vs. right; it's about top vs. bottom." That's a misleading statement. When socialists accede to power, they replace the capitalist 'top' with a socialist 'top.' Often it's a new set of players, but sometimes some of the old guard players manage to ingratiate themselves with the regime and quietly fit in. The difference is that economic classes are not abolished, but movement between them is strictly regulated by the State, usually based on ideological purity rather than ability. Socialists may yammer on about being 'wage slaves,' but I think that's better than being a 'State slave.'
Post a Comment