Getting Right With the Founders By Michael Anton for American Greatness
If blatant misinterpretations such as this are all that stand in the way of Claremont and the paleos making common cause, that should be easy enough to overcome.
People on both sides of the “Claremont-Hillsdale” versus paleoconservative divide tell me that the ongoing dialogue between our two schools is useful. Hence, while I have little doubt that some will dismiss yet another article on the subject as beating a dead horse, I’m confident that at least as many others will welcome its appearance.
In any case, Grant Havers’ latest entrant demands a response. One recognizes in his at best inaccurate, at worst dishonest (I will make good on this claim below) piece, a sort of good-cop, bad-cop routine emerging from Chronicles editors. For every sensible, conciliatory statement from Paul Gottfried (to whom, for what it’s worth, I wish a full and speedy recovery), Darrell Dow, or Pedro Gonzalez, there appears another accusing my side of historical obliviousness coupled with messianic insanity.
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
Such is Havers’ line. I assume, or suppose, that the editors publish both types for coalition management reasons, to which I am not unsympathetic. Since my aim is to build as many, and as sturdy, bridges as possible, I will keep engaging in good faith with those who seem to want to find common ground. But if there is to be a rapprochement, it must be built on a foundation of truth and mutual understanding of each side’s positions.
Unquestionably, there remain serious disagreements between my school and the paleos. But Havers zeroes in on none of them, preferring instead to erect and burn down strawmen. His piece culminates in a great non sequitur, supported by quotes not merely wrenched out of context but, as we shall see, that mean almost the opposite of what Havers presents them as meaning.
Before even reaching that point, Havers gets a lot wrong.
For instance, his assertion that the Claremont Institute “has never been shy about speaking for the entire conservative movement” is laughable on its face. In addition to its geographic isolation—40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles is hardly an auspicious location from which to direct the activities of the American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation, much less the Republican Party—the Claremont Institute has long criticized these very institutions for their various errors, pusillanimity, thirst for elite acceptance, and failures of execution. And our standing with Conservatism, Inc., did not (to say the least) improve with our embrace of Trumpism in 2015 and afterward.
