Last week, conservative blogger Erick Erickson shared an essay on Substack titled “The Midwestern Führerbunker Driving the Right Off a Cliff,” where he criticized the Claremont Institute, which we have some connections with, including donor relationships and alumni.
In response, Claremont Institute senior fellow Steve Hayward kicked off a series on his Political Questions Substack, titled “Is Conservatism in Crisis?” which rebuts Erickson’s tone, tactics, and the overall content of his piece. Hayward points out that Erickson tends to rely on guilt-by-association tactics and insinuations to make his points.
It seems quite evident that Erickson aims to selectively present information to generate outrage among his followers.
Many of the sources he cites are questionable at best and often hostile, such as articles from the Guardian, which has a history of publishing negative pieces about Claremont. Overall, Erickson’s argument seems more like a shallow exercise in motivated reasoning.
Interestingly, he begins his essay with a note claiming he “worked on this for weeks.” It’s unfortunate because had he contacted any of the individuals or organizations he mentions for their perspectives, he could have clarified many inaccuracies along the way. But he didn’t bother.
In fact, according to his own remarks, Erickson employed AI to gather his sources. He states, “I wrote the piece and Claude found the links relevant to my claims. When Claude thought I was making weak claims or arguments, it challenged me to improve and clarify my writing and claims.” This might shed some light on why many of his references are from less-than-friendly outlets.
As a result, some of Claremont’s friends, who aren’t deeply entrenched in the social media disputes on the right, might be left scratching their heads. So, here’s a concise overview: Claremont’s mission, since its establishment in 1979, remains to “restore the principles of the American founding to their rightful, preeminent place in our national life.”
At the heart of our work is something that Harry Jaffa referred to as “the scholarship of the politics of freedom.” Unfortunately, some critics mistake the application of that scholarship to current events as turning away from our principles.
Going through every insinuation in Erickson’s essay would be rather tedious. However, addressing some of his more significant claims should be a bit easier. Let’s take a look at four specific points he makes: one about a donor, another regarding a fraternal group, a third concerning an essay in the American Mind, and finally about Nick Fuentes.
The first person he targets is Charles Haywood, a retired industrialist and philanthropist who manages the Worthy House website, where he reviews a variety of books enthusiastically. Those familiar with Haywood are likely aware of his rather pessimistic outlook on the current American regime. He has envisioned a new societal framework in his “Foundationalist Manifesto.”
Erickson perceives Haywood’s “Manifesto” as overly statist. He seems to expect us to be shocked by Haywood’s criticism of democracy. However, what Haywood advocates isn’t entirely disconnected from the thoughts of early American thinkers—it’s a vision of republicanism that incorporates some aristocratic elements, like elected officials rather than direct democracy in decision-making.
Moreover, Erickson critiques Haywood for claiming that the central government has “unlimited means,” neglecting to share the entire context of the sentence: “In pursuit of its limited ends, it will have unlimited means.” It’s been the belief at Claremont that the philosophy behind the founders should serve as a guide in our constitutional analyses and reforms. Interestingly, Haywood’s views don’t align precisely with Claremont’s perspective, and there’s room for respectful disagreement.
Nonetheless, it’s clear that Erickson aims to misrepresent the document simply to incite outrage among his readers.
This indignation serves as a backdrop for him to suggest that Haywood’s annual low six-figure donations to Claremont and his advisory designation somehow indicate a distortion of Claremont’s mission in favor of Haywood’s foundationalism.
Just to clarify: no donor dictates our agenda, and Haywood has never done so. He supports right-leaning institutions because he believes in the work they’re doing, aligned with their own goals of restoring constitutionalism and preserving the American way of life.
Erickson’s next target is, somewhat ironically, myself. He calls into question my role in establishing a Christian fraternal organization, the Society for American Civic Renewal, making a significant accusation that merits a response. He claims that one of SACR’s foundational documents refers to its members as “un-hyphenated Americans,” implying racial bias. This is a misrepresentation. The term “unhyphenated Americans” harkens back to a call from Theodore Roosevelt in 1915 for immigrants to assimilate and fully embrace American identity, without any qualifications. SACR is open to trinitarian Christian men of all racial backgrounds.
Appropriately enough, Roosevelt delivered that speech to the Knights of Columbus, a long-standing Christian fraternal group. Such organizations are an integral part of American history, dating back to our nation’s inception.
In 2020, the founding board of SACR aligned with the principles outlined in Yuval Levin’s book, “A Time to Build.” We thought creating a decentralized fraternal entity for like-minded men could serve as a valuable resource in our divided and corrupt institutional landscape. Seeing lodges established across various states, promoting friendship, patriotism, and collaborative initiatives, has been quite rewarding.
Erickson’s allegations regarding the American Mind are even graver. He asserts that “Claremont’s American Mind has published the argument that conservatives must now be willing to commit violence of their own.” However, the essay he seems to reference, written by Hillsdale College’s Kevin Slack, does nothing of the sort. The line he’s attempting to dissect mentions that many conservatives have come to believe that unless they allow their churches to be desecrated, their properties taken, and their children indoctrinated, they must be prepared to resort to violence.
It’s important to recognize that Slack is cautioning against violent action, not advocating for it:
Finally, the use of actual violence, which underlies the enforcement of all laws, including the natural law, has quickly become part of our machinations. And while I sympathize with any defense of natural right, I also fear it. Our first civil war was between states, but this new terrible war would be city against country, neighbor against neighbor, in the aisles of grocery stores, restaurants, and churches. I would not choose to live in this world, but America is fast becoming no country for old men. I still hope that we can appeal to genuine nationalism, celebrating America’s principles and its remarkable achievements, rejecting a false patriotism and tribalism.
In essence, Slack is articulating a growing belief among conservatives, not suggesting it’s the right course of action. Erickson twists a description into a directive.
For good measure, Erickson weaves in Nick Fuentes and his “groypers” towards the end of his piece. While he correctly notes that he doesn’t believe anyone he has mentioned is “coordinating with Fuentes,” his framing leaves readers to infer that these various groups and individuals collectively represent efforts to undermine the American Constitution.
During the time Erickson’s piece was circulating, I was traveling to Mount Vernon with colleagues from Claremont to commemorate Constitution Day and honor Charles Kesler with the Salvatori Prize for his contributions to the American founding.
The event featured speeches from our Washington fellow Matthew Peterson, who extolled George Washington’s virtues; Glenn Ellmers, our Salvatori Research Fellow discussing the significance of the Declaration 250 years post-progressivism; and myself, reflecting on Charles Kesler’s enduring impact in scholarship, editing, and teaching throughout his impressive five-decade career.
It was a night dedicated to celebrating Claremont Institute and its scholars, surrounded by alumni, supporters, and friends. That work—not the skewed portrayal in Erickson’s essay—embodies what Claremont stands for.
We are eager for a constructive discussion with serious and sincere dialogue partners—let iron sharpen iron. The stakes are nothing less than the future of America and the West.
