It has come to the attention of the Cougar Chronicle that an article of interest titled “The Closing of the Conservative Mind,” has been written in an attempt to discredit us and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Upon reading, it is obvious that those who have drafted such an erroneous article are becoming the very thing they accuse others of: closed-minded.
We at the Chronicle do not profess the intrinsic liberty of “open-mindedness,” and I would go further to suggest that open-minded tolerance taken as anything more than a prudential virtue leads to the dissatisfactory outcome of leaving one’s brains outside one’s own head. Regardless, in a time of political turmoil and ever-increasing political encroachment by the political left, it seems that the authors of the article have forgotten the basic political truth of coalition building. A fact that ironically underscores their own “big-tent” philosophy.
On April 9, 2025, ISI brought a contributor from the Chronicle to a private dinner with Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones. Beginning with the latter, it is no secret that some of Jones’ opinions reside outside the social realm of acceptable. Regarding his uncouth comments about 9/11 and Sandy Hook, we leave it up to the readers to judge their accuracy. At least for the author, I dismiss any conspiratorial claims about Sandy Hook or 9/11.
However, despite some unsavory comments and beliefs, Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson remain some of the most influential voices on the political right. So why does it remain a mystery to the authors that influential Conservative political organizations such as ISI would find themselves in a working relationship with Carlson, formerly the number 1 late night news host? While Jones has certainly been turned into a pariah, Carlson has not, as evidenced with his recent attendance at Turning Point USA’s America Fest.
Furthermore, while it is true that Tucker represents a form of “post-liberal” thought, the accusation toward the Chronicle and ISI is the pot calling the kettle black. Beyond the first five pages, the authors merely desire to list the perceived misdeeds of Carlson and Jones, leading the entire conceited piece to read more closely to a New York Times op ed than a good faith critique at some of the less orthodox members of our party.
However, in the spirit of grace, it is clear that the critiquing authors may simply be behind the political times, making their indignation over the growth of what they call “post-liberal Catholic integrationists,” quite revealing. Indeed, it would appear that they have been living in the era of post-cold war “conservatism,” without considering the ever-moving coalitions that animate American politics. Their entire thesis, namely that the “new” ISI that sponsors a small, selected group of journalists to dine with Tucker Carlson, is abandoning their “big-tent” vision, is hypocritical at best, and downright destructive at worst.
It is painfully obvious to even the most casual political observer that the fire of liberalism has failed to ignite the hearts of many young Conservatives, but can you blame them? For those in generation Z, there have been little to no political wins when it comes to Conservative ideology. Even under the supposed Conservative presidents such as W. Bush, mass migration, marriage, and morality have all degraded. Do the authors really suppose that managed decline is the only way to be a true conservative?
I sincerely doubt they would profess to such, but the moral framework they present, namely alienating a growling number of post-liberals from the Conservative cause, only present institutional roadblocks that will lead to continued leftist domination of the culture. Their dogmatic insistence on “big-tent,” simply means acquiescing to the left on many social fronts, without taking in serious fighters who, despite their flaws, can ally themselves with us during a time where leftists are demanding your daughters share locker rooms with men.
Instead, it’s time for Conservatism to return to its more traditional sense. I propose a slightly different understanding of “big-tent” Conservatism. At its core, being Conservative is about faith, God, and country. Without these three principles, there is nothing to conserve, because it all becomes relative. However, even under these three principles, we can create a new “big-tent,” not beholden to a particular ideology around foreign policy or tax policy. Instead, it identifies people on a much more important metric, and sorts society into those who believe in a deeper purpose for mankind, and those who do not.
The author’s insistence on the founders’ classical liberalism to undermine people like Tucker and the Chronicle is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst a leftist tactic to silence the debate beneath the veneer of tolerance. The values espoused in the Constitution are sacred, and as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe it to be written by divinely inspired men, but to suggest a warping of Constitutional principles that demands tolerance and inclusivity above morality is a deliberate attempt to hide the deeper moral truths upon which our country resides.
The unspoken truth is that liberalism, at its core, is only a procedural political system. It cannot answer the deeper question regarding the purpose of society. However, as leftists have twisted the meaning of the Constitution to de facto ban God from the public square, it becomes necessary to dismiss any concerns about respectability with the ruling class. It is no coincidence that less than a decade after banning God from the public square, that human sacrifice in the form of abortion became the law of the land, leading to tens of millions of babies being sacrificed on the altars of convenience and autonomy.
In the article, the authors make a point that unintentionally undermines their argument. They say, quoting Michael Federici, “The old ISI was more like a place that was interested in political ideas for their own sake, and the new ISI is more interested in political ideas as an instrument for political action.” It is absurd to suggest that political ideas for their own sake can even exist at all, or given any weight. An idea that lives only in theory poses no practical consequences, and if the authors believe ISI should only exist as a Conservative think tank, then it is clear that managed decline is their only goal for the organization, hence their dedication to potshots at unorthodox right-wing thinkers.
There is nothing inherently anti-conservative about being post-liberal, and under the simple banner of faith, God, and country, or even under the original framework of the authors, they have no leg to stand on. After all, if the left has been on a steady march for the past two decades, why should unorthodox ideas not be tried, tested, and experimented in pursuit of the ultimate purpose?
Instead, the authors, in their pursuit of “open-minded” discourse, have arbitrarily decided on an Overton window that mirrors 2015, rather than 2025. Their witty one-liners exist to discredit, rather than seriously discuss, the ideas that they consider so abhorrent as to dedicate a substantial hit piece against them.
What ISI and the Chronicle strive to do is make a positive difference in our communities and the world through Conservative political principles. The so-called Neo-Conservatives, who are often maligned in unfair ways, still have a place in the coalition. Yet, their time of steering the party and its goals has passed, as evidenced through the populist sentiment stoked by President Trump. As such, it may require making strategic political alliances on individual issues with political actors who are tangentially on the right.
We at the Chronicle are perfect applications of this principle. The so-called Catholic Integrationists find themselves at odds with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, making us political chimeras. In principle, many of their moral teachings align with ours, but when it comes to irreconcilable theological differences, we can, and will find ourselves at odds in the future.
However, these relationships are important to cultivate in the present day, so that when those discussions arise, we have a seat at the table. Instead, the authors of “The Closing of the Conservative Mind,” would rather sever their connections from potential allies in the hopes of pursuing a version of conservatism best known for losing. There are lines that need to be drawn, but it’s evident from decades of social decay that cultivating conservatism to be palatable towards elites who spit in the face of God will not lead to prosperity.
Therefore, it is rational to assume and listen to other strains of the Conservative movement. Ironically, it is organizations like us, who profess open-mindedness and tolerance as a virtue of prudence, not substance, that provide the greatest degree of thought diversity. It wasn’t until the election of President Trump, an unorthodox politician with a pragmatic Conservative bent, that Conservatives began to find success on some issues. So, in the spirit of victory, it’s time to maintain that momentum, and pursue the Good, the True, and the Beautiful with political allies rather than alienate those whose votes will help us at the ballot box.
Cover Photo Source: https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image-film?phrase=locked+mind&tracked_gsrp_landing=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.istockphoto.com%2Fphotos%2Flocked-mind
