Thank you Kelly! I appreciate it--it is so interesting to see how people respond to this: there seem to be some readers who can't bear to see the word "conservative" in their inboxes, while for others, I seem to have tapped into a question they have wanted to engage for some time.
This is such an important piece, Claire. When I used to lecture on campus the most interesting student--there was usually only one--was often a conservative. Having to hold their own in a sea of liberals made them work things out for themselves.
I agree! And of course, having taught at Wesleyan for decades, we did have conservative students, but it was hard to figure that out except in office hours, because they often chose to stay under the radar in class. At The New School, they seem to self-select to go elsewhere--but I too have found lively interlocutors on other campuses.
Thank you Claire! I think there's a definite blindspot on college campuses for how students with conservative (not radical MAGA, but just right-of-centre) views get treated.
Thanks, Katrina; and I would add, the tendency to lump them together, as if they were all equally irrational. There really is a difference between being devoted to QAnon, or Trumpism, and being starry-eyed over Milton Friedman. It doesn't make Friedman more attractive to me personally that there are so many other, less palatable, ideological options, but Friedman was functioning within a legitimate set of debatable ideas.
Also, college is exactly where students are supposed to explore things and ask questions. If some of these questions are upsetting to faculty, they need to get over it and teach.
So the "mainstream conservative political tradition" would be ...? What "more conventional political parameters" are out there these days within which they could cultivate their conservatism? And what would such a cultivated conservatism look like? Stand for? And stand against?
Hi Murray: I am thinking about William F. Buckley (post-1970 version), Saul Bellow, Stephen Carter, Robert Kagan--also the great Books crowd, like William Bennet. I am not saying I want to *be* them--I am saying that they were/are people one could have principled and productive disagreements with that didn't include arguing about whether science is real and JFK was murdered by the Clintons.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is what do these young conservatives actually believe. What is "conservatism" today apart from the Republican party's goals of lower taxes for the wealthy and deregulation of industry & business? Oh, and control of women's bodies. And keeping minorities from voting.
Actually, it goes well beyond that and combines what you just described with nativism, a fear of what they call "replacement," and Randian ideas about personal freedom. They are pro-tariff, a form of regulation. They would like the finance industry to be more regulated, and they are deeply anti-war--not because they are anti-violence, but because they don't think what happens outside the US matters, and military service preys on the poor and raises taxes. Many of these kids are not just anti-abortion on religious principles, but because they believe strongly that white people should be incentivized to have more babies. I could go on, but the differences should not be dismissed.
I underplayed how much fun it was--you seriously run into senators and congressmen in the hall and they will go on the record without even noticing what press outlet you work for. But I think that is one reason that it is attractive to conservative youth: they can make serious connections. There is nothing like it for liberal kids, which is also a problem.
Great piece, Claire. I keep looking for people who are working at the intersection of our Great Political Divide and your description of the value of engaging nascent conservatives is very thought-provoking. (Also appreciated the call-out!)
I'm really glad you're writing about this.
Thank you Kelly! I appreciate it--it is so interesting to see how people respond to this: there seem to be some readers who can't bear to see the word "conservative" in their inboxes, while for others, I seem to have tapped into a question they have wanted to engage for some time.
This is such an important piece, Claire. When I used to lecture on campus the most interesting student--there was usually only one--was often a conservative. Having to hold their own in a sea of liberals made them work things out for themselves.
I agree! And of course, having taught at Wesleyan for decades, we did have conservative students, but it was hard to figure that out except in office hours, because they often chose to stay under the radar in class. At The New School, they seem to self-select to go elsewhere--but I too have found lively interlocutors on other campuses.
Thank you Claire! I think there's a definite blindspot on college campuses for how students with conservative (not radical MAGA, but just right-of-centre) views get treated.
Thanks, Katrina; and I would add, the tendency to lump them together, as if they were all equally irrational. There really is a difference between being devoted to QAnon, or Trumpism, and being starry-eyed over Milton Friedman. It doesn't make Friedman more attractive to me personally that there are so many other, less palatable, ideological options, but Friedman was functioning within a legitimate set of debatable ideas.
Also, college is exactly where students are supposed to explore things and ask questions. If some of these questions are upsetting to faculty, they need to get over it and teach.
So the "mainstream conservative political tradition" would be ...? What "more conventional political parameters" are out there these days within which they could cultivate their conservatism? And what would such a cultivated conservatism look like? Stand for? And stand against?
Hi Murray: I am thinking about William F. Buckley (post-1970 version), Saul Bellow, Stephen Carter, Robert Kagan--also the great Books crowd, like William Bennet. I am not saying I want to *be* them--I am saying that they were/are people one could have principled and productive disagreements with that didn't include arguing about whether science is real and JFK was murdered by the Clintons.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is what do these young conservatives actually believe. What is "conservatism" today apart from the Republican party's goals of lower taxes for the wealthy and deregulation of industry & business? Oh, and control of women's bodies. And keeping minorities from voting.
Actually, it goes well beyond that and combines what you just described with nativism, a fear of what they call "replacement," and Randian ideas about personal freedom. They are pro-tariff, a form of regulation. They would like the finance industry to be more regulated, and they are deeply anti-war--not because they are anti-violence, but because they don't think what happens outside the US matters, and military service preys on the poor and raises taxes. Many of these kids are not just anti-abortion on religious principles, but because they believe strongly that white people should be incentivized to have more babies. I could go on, but the differences should not be dismissed.
Thank you, Claire, for making the effort to attend CPAC and listen. We need to understand the experience of these young voters.
I underplayed how much fun it was--you seriously run into senators and congressmen in the hall and they will go on the record without even noticing what press outlet you work for. But I think that is one reason that it is attractive to conservative youth: they can make serious connections. There is nothing like it for liberal kids, which is also a problem.
Great piece, Claire. I keep looking for people who are working at the intersection of our Great Political Divide and your description of the value of engaging nascent conservatives is very thought-provoking. (Also appreciated the call-out!)
Thanks Micah!