(Ezekiel Loseke, Headline USA) The Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank founded by—among others—the magnanimous Larry P. Arnn, has been frequently slandered by the media because Claremont is successfully raising awareness over what many consider a stolen election and the kulturkampf.
One writeup may be found in the New York Times magazine and was authored by Elizabeth Zerofsky.
A member of the Claremont Institute, Christopher Flannery, called the article “substantial.” Flannery stated that the piece is also “fair-minded, generally accurate, and intelligent.” This praise applies to most of the article, but not its treatment of “John Eastman’s role as an attorney advising President Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.”
Eastman is a senior member of The Claremont Institute and advised President Trump of the unconstitutional nature of the 2020 election.
Josh Hammer writing for The American Spectator, agreed that, except for the blatantly false treatment of the 2020 election and Eastman, the Zerofsky writeup was fair. Still, he argued that this was an exception.
Hammer pointed out that the Washington Post published a piece by Marc Fisher and Isaac Stanley-Becker, that was “disproportionately focused on the Jan. 6, 2021, jamboree at the U.S. Capitol.”
The Atlantic, Hammer noted, published a “moderately fair” interview with Claremont president Ryan Williams, only to give the piece a misleading and inflammatory headline.
The New Republic, per Hammer, posted an unfair article entitled “The Radical Young Intellectuals Who Want to Take Over the American Right,” which also depicts the head of the GOP elephant on a pike.
Of course, the Neocon have an anti-Trump center, The Bulwark, has perpetually obsessed over Claremont, Trump and election denial, according to Hammer.
“The ‘anti-Claremont hit piece,’ [is] the most overwrought and oversaturated sub-genre in the leftist literary arsenal,” per Hammer.
According to Hammer, Claremont is on the receiving end of these attacks because it “knows what time it is.”
The Claremont Review of Books published the—then—pseudonymous essay entitled “Flight 93 election,” written by Claremont fellow and Hillsdale College professor Michael Anton. In that essay, Anton showed that the 2016 election was the last chance for substantial social conservativism and that anyone not onboard with leftist social policies needed to embrace Donald Trump.
Claremont and its fellows have continued to sound the alarm that the kulturkampf is now and that America can no longer afford to cave on social issues or election integrity.
This defense of American values and the defense of the Republic has gotten the attention of the leftist media, Hammer argued.
Accordingly, he concluded that “The fact that Claremont ‘knows what time it is’ and that it has proven capable of operationalizing that sentiment at the highest levels of the American right despite its modest institutional size, poses a unique threat to the ruling class and its corrupt regime.
“The more success Claremont has, then, the more scathing the future hit pieces may become. So be it — such is a small price to pay to salvage the American way of life from the ruling class’s treacherous talons.”
