When conservative undergraduates look around for mentors these days, who do they find? Not conservative professors, at least not very often. Our ranks have been slowly vanishing since the 1980s. Instead, those students find organizers from the MAGA-verse who teach them how to own the libs. That’s who is instructing the next generation of Republican leaders, modeling how to act and think like good conservatives.
Not my problem
Liberal professors have the power to help solve this problem. They can show their conservative students how to become thoughtful and knowledgeable partisans — by exposing them to a rich conservative intellectual tradition that stretches back to Enlightenment thinkers like Edmund Burke, David Hume and Adam Smith. They could mentor their conservative students, set up reading groups, help vet speakers and create courses on the conservative intellectual tradition.
Why am I doing your job for you?
To make those awakenings commonplace, there must be a coordinated national campaign to broaden our curriculums. Every American university should offer a course on what is best in conservatism.
lol
Conservative-American studies, but even ethnic studies aren’t as one sided as what’s being proposed
Of course, none of this would fully inoculate the next generation from embracing a reckless populism. Senator Josh Hawley was close to his thesis adviser, David M. Kennedy. A prominent historian and visiting fellow at the center-right Hoover Institution, Dr. Kennedy even helped Mr. Hawley turn his thesis on Teddy Roosevelt into a book. That didn’t stop Mr. Hawley from going all in on Donald Trump’s claims of election fraud, infamously raising a clenched fist as he entered the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6.
But this seems just as true: It’s hard to imagine how the next generation of Republican leaders will become thoughtful conservatives if all they’ve ever been tutored in is its Trump-style expressions. Professors have the power to make sure that doesn’t happen; it’s time they use it.
Why are you ending your piece on an example that invalidates the thesis that comes right after it?
The incoherence is intentional. Part of the Rich Intellectual Tradition of American conservatism is muddying the waters to mask the naked racism and shameful selfishness. They’d claim Bernie Sanders as a conservative if it would help them obscure their objectively evil goals.
This headline irked me. Making a headline pretty blatantly loling at another country’s misfortune is par for the course for WSJ.
Article itself isn’t bad, but missed the fact that post-2009 Zimbabweans were using the old inactive currency to make change for USD since the old currency was being sold as souvenirs and was finally in limited supply. Also, coin shortages aren’t that uncommon around the world to begin with.
But check out the comments section to see just how deplorable the WSJ readership actually is. Yikes.
Most local news shows have a slogan like that. It makes sense. People can get their national/global news all over the place, but the news shows are saying people should watch them because they are the best source for what’s happening in their area.
Old school journalism people will think that platforming people like this will make everyone think “OMG she’s so stupid!”, they don’t realize that like half of Americans that get access to MTG will think “She makes some good points!”
Actual malice is considered a very tough standard that helps protect the U.S. press and make it the envy of the world. Whatever evidence Dominion presents in court, it needs to show that Fox knew – or had reason to know — that the statements it aired against the company were false, Tobias says, and that’s what makes defamation cases in the U.S. particularly muddy.
However in this case, Dominion has acquired an extraordinary trove of evidence reflecting knowledge from Fox producers, hosts, executives, and corporate bosses that what they were putting on the air about Dominion was untrue.
A fresh batch of evidence that would seem to aid Dominion’s cause in proving actual malice was released publicly for the first time earlier Friday.
For example, in a newly surfaced exchange, on Nov. 12, 2020, star host Dana Perino emailed a colleague that “this dominion stuff is total bs.” The network continued to carry such claims for weeks.
It’s going to be tough. Given the ruling, the Fox people testifying can’t claim that they didn’t know the information was false or that it was just them expressing their opinions. If they try to say that, the judge will stop them and strike it from the record (similar to the Alex Jones trial where he was not allowed to dispute that his claims were false). That is why Dominion wants Tucker, Hannity etc. to testify - they’ll have to go on the stand and admit that they knew the information they were reporting was false but reported it anyway.
I think Fox will be under lots of pressure to settle now. The trial will likely be televised and I think public testimony of Tucker saying yeah, I knowingly lied to you, could hurt (even if many Fox News viewers don’t care they are being lied to).
Right, but I could see Newsmax/OAN covering it to fuck Fox. Also, I don’t think the bubble is that complete that Fox viewers will not hear anything about the testimony.
