How big a tent?

A successful conservatism will be broad while also excluding cranks and bigots

The Freedom Conservatism project began as a conversation among activists, policymakers, scholars, and leaders about the future of the American Right.

We had common concerns about our movement — its intellectual rigor, its vitality and relevance to new generations, and the ways in which populism had contorted its traditional commitments to liberty and virtue.

At the same time, we recognized that American conservatism has never been monolithic or monochromatic. It has always encompassed a wide variety of people and institutions as well as a broad spectrum of views on philosophical, theological, and practical matters.

Freedom Conservatism is an alliance, not a unity. We endorse a set of shared principles but not necessarily the same electoral tactics or policy designs. Many FreeCons think of themselves as fusionists in the tradition of Frank Meyer, M. Stanton Evans, or William F. Buckley — but others decline to use the label and resolve the tension between liberty and order in other ways.

To succeed, any political movement must strike a prudent balance between breadth and depth.

Most American voters aren’t particularly ideological and resist attempts to force them into rigid categories or to politicize large swaths of their professional and private lives. And those who are more ideological often disagree with those in their own political tribe — be they self-styled conservatives, liberals, socialists, libertarians, “centrists,” or something else. Without breadth, no faction can ever hope to obtain power and exercise it for long.

Take this strategy too far, however, and a movement will either collapse into chaos or become publicly defined by its kookiest elements. Among the current challenges to American conservatism is the presence of cranks and bigots.

By cranks, we mean those who embrace conspiracy theories, for example, or reject core principles of the American founding such as limited government, individual liberty, and religious pluralism. And by bigots, we mean those who traffic in racism, sexism, antisemitism, or other hateful prejudices.

To exclude cranks and bigots from American conservatism is not to “cancel” them. They retain the right to speak, publish, and assemble. We are simply exercising our own rights to do the same — and to choose with whom we are willing to work to promote human freedom, human flourishing, and American greatness.

Today we feature FreeCons helping to build and sustain a conservative movement worthy of the name.

Draw the line

Marc Thiessen is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a FreeCon signatory.

A columnist for The Washington Post, Thiessen is also a contributor to Fox News, appearing regularly on “The Story with Martha MacCallum,” “America’s Newsroom,” and other programs.

He previously served as chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush and to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Before joining the Bush administration, Thiessen spent more than six years as spokesman and senior policy adviser to U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms.

In a recent Post column, Thiessen argued that conservative leaders and institutions should never adopt a “no enemies to my right” position.

“While the number of voices willing to defend or excuse Tucker Carlson’s softball interview with self-professed ‘Team Hitler’ member Nick Fuentes has been shocking, it has been even more heartening to see how many on the Right have spoken out and even given up their jobs to prevent the virus of antisemitism from entering the conservative mainstream.

“Which raises a question: Where is this pushback against antisemitism on the Left?”

While such bigotry exists across the political spectrum, Thiessen argued, right-wing antisemitism has heretofore been largely a fringe phenomenon. “You don’t see students and faculty at Ivy League schools holding neo-Nazi rallies. Left-wing antisemitism, by contrast, is an elite phenomenon.”

For conservatives to counter it effectively, he wrote, they must ensure their own ranks are free of conspiracy theorists and bigots. “Conservatives can’t complain that Democrats call us fascists if we let actual fascists into our movement.”

“If we want to convince the American people to support our cause,” Thiessen concluded, “then we need to be clear what conservatism stands for — and what it does not. That requires we keep out Nazis, along with their enablers. These cranks want to hijack the MAGA movement for their own vile purposes. We need to stop them from doing so.

“There can and should be vigorous debate among different factions inside the conservative tent. But we must draw a line somewhere — and it should be self-evident that fascism is over that line. If conservatives can’t agree on that, then we will end up like the Left — beholden to antisemites in our midst.”

False friend

Adam Mossoff is a professor of law at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He’s also a FreeCon signatory.

A widely recognized expert on patent law and innovation policy, Mossoff has testified many times on Capitol Hill and filed some three dozen amicus briefs.

His work on intellectual property has appeared in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, The Hill, and Politico. He serves as chair of the Forum for Intellectual Property and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Mossoff was until recently a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, as well, but chose to resign after its president, Kevin Roberts, posted a controversial video defending the think tank’s ongoing relationship with the increasingly unhinged Tucker Carlson.

In his resignation letter, republished by Reason, he told Roberts that the latter’s statement about Carlson and Nick Fuentes “was not a mere mistake” but rather “reflects a fundamental ethical lapse and failure of moral leadership that has irrevocably damaged the well-deserved reputation of Heritage as ‘the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement.’”

“Your October 30 video was indefensible. So were your purported explanations and backtracking in subsequent interviews and social media posts. The October 30 video was worse than a poor choice of words or a mere mistake; it was a profound moral inversion to use the language of ancient antisemitic blood libels, such as ‘globalist class’ and ‘venomous coalition.’”

“Aristotle observed in his seminal treatise on ethics that, in a choice between truth and friendship, it is to truth that we must always give our primary allegiance,” Mossoff continued. “Even with your mixed messages, one thing is clear: By your words and actions, Heritage is wedded to Tucker and everything he has come to represent on the periphery of the Groyper movement created by Fuentes.

“Instead of the truth, you have chosen a false friend of the American ideals that Heritage has represented.”

New rules help China

George Landrith is president of Frontiers of Freedom, a pubic policy think tank founded by former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop. He’s also a FreeCon signatory.

Landrith previously served as vice president and general counsel of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest and practiced law in Virginia. He also served on the Albemarle County School Board.

In a recent column for RealClearPolicy, Landrith explained how European policymakers are attempting to impose new restrictions on American businesses.

“The law holds any large company operating in Europe liable for environmental or human rights violations that occur anywhere in their global supply chain — anywhere in the world,” he wrote.

“European governments have choked off their own economies over the last two decades by adopting a thicket of rules, levies, price caps, and red tape that make it increasingly difficult for businesses to operate. This regulatory overreach has bled the continent of its economic vitality. But it’s not our fault the Europeans decided to tie both hands behind their back.

“The biggest beneficiary of these rules won’t be European companies. It will be the Chinese.”

Because American businesses play by the rules, Landrith concluded, the new EU law “will tie some of our most successful firms in knots trying to comply. China — and Chinese businesses — aren’t encumbered by the same fidelity to the rule of law.”

In the mix

• At The Free Press, FreeCon signatory Tanner Nau reported that more than 10% of incoming students at a prestigious university are taking math that covers what they should have learned as far back as elementary school.

“The worst of the learning loss epidemic still isn’t behind us,” wrote Nau, a fellow at The Free Press. “The latest Nation’s Report Card, released by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), showed record lows for proficiency in math and reading among 12th graders.

“Just 22% of students were proficient in math and 35% in reading.”

• In The Washington Post, FreeCon signatory George Will describes Ken Burns’s new documentary The American Revolution as presenting “a tale sometimes dismaying but ultimately exhilarating.”

“In the 20th century, the fates of other continents were shaped by the material and moral resources our Revolution unleashed,” Will wrote.

“A European general aiding the Patriots discovered the secret of America’s success, its inveterate individualism. To a European friend he wrote: ‘You say to your soldier, ‘Do this,’ and he does it; but [here] I am obliged to say, ‘This is the reason why you ought to do that,’ and then he does it.’”

Will urged readers to consider the documentary “the unofficial beginning of our 250th birthday party.”

“Given today’s pandemic of crankiness, the party might trundle downhill from here. But for six nights, the view from the hilltop is riveting.”

• In the Washington Examiner, FreeCon signatory David Harsanyi defended Ben Shapiro’s recent advice to New Yorkers that if the city’s affordability crisis worsens under its newly elected socialist mayor, they should consider moving to lower-cost jurisdictions.

“The post-liberal ‘heritage American’ NatCon faction on social media immediately piled on,” wrote Harsanyi, but Shapiro’s observation was entirely reasonable and in keeping with America’s long history of relocation and reinvention.

“There are, of course, a host of policies that drive housing prices up across the nation,” he added. “Rezone, deregulate, get rid of tariffs on lumber and steel, and build more homes. Pass school choice laws so public schools don’t artificially inflate the price of homes in good districts. Get a hold of inflation and bring down interest rates.”

“But in some places,” Harsanyi concluded, “it is unlikely anything will make a significant dent in costs, and people have to come to terms with reality. We all make trade-offs. The problem with economic statists is that they think the state can, and should, provide a solution to all your problems.”