This is an absolutely terrific piece. If you wanted to add another detail: Koch funded the teaching of Skousen's nonsense a couple years ago when the funded a well-known neo-Confederate to teach prison inmates about our country. https://altrightorigins.com/2018/03/28/sheriffs-racists-koch/
I've noted also the rise of Skousen-style theories (also promoted by groups like Oathkeepers and CSPOA). To what extent do you think that the initial rejection of Skousen was due to anti-Mormon sentiment from the National Review crowd? One of the aspects of the sort of populist far-right in the current moment is a rejection of intellectualism and embrace of conspiracy, which both point to the popularity of Skousen, but I wonder if these groups also now see more common cause with Mormonism -- either because of an embrace of millennialism or because there is just less anti-Mormon sentiment of the right?
Good question. The Mormon piece of the story is complicated because, as McKay Coppins talks about in his Romney bio, Mormons tended to be LESS enamored of Trump and his conspiracy theories than other white religious conservatives. It's probably the case that the NR crew harbored some suspicions about Mormonism in the 60s and 70s, but that's just a supposition based on what I know. My sense of the politics of contemporary Mormonism is that the community is quite divided by the more far right Bundy-inclined types and others who are still "conservative" but are repulsed by Trump's buffoonery.
I am never sure what to make of the links to Mormonism and how (or if) this lineage connects to. mainstream Mormonism. Even the so-called constitutional sheriffs are often suspect of Trump and Trumpism, to Coppins's point. They appear to view Trump as useful in terms of bringing about cataclysmic change, but don't care a lot for the man himself.
The distinction between conservatives who don't love Trump because he hasn't gone far enough and conservatives who don't love Trump because he HAS gone too far is really important, IMO, but often hard to detect. This is a very familiar historical dynamic to me that even played out back in '64-5 with Goldwater. Some folks on the right were like "Goldwater was a squish anyway, time for something harder like George Wallace" while others were like "Goldwater was kind of an extremist nut, why don't we nominate a more reasonable conservative like Nixon?"
“Ideas are not actions, but actions are informed and inspired by ideas.
Well said.
This is an absolutely terrific piece. If you wanted to add another detail: Koch funded the teaching of Skousen's nonsense a couple years ago when the funded a well-known neo-Confederate to teach prison inmates about our country. https://altrightorigins.com/2018/03/28/sheriffs-racists-koch/
I've noted also the rise of Skousen-style theories (also promoted by groups like Oathkeepers and CSPOA). To what extent do you think that the initial rejection of Skousen was due to anti-Mormon sentiment from the National Review crowd? One of the aspects of the sort of populist far-right in the current moment is a rejection of intellectualism and embrace of conspiracy, which both point to the popularity of Skousen, but I wonder if these groups also now see more common cause with Mormonism -- either because of an embrace of millennialism or because there is just less anti-Mormon sentiment of the right?
Good question. The Mormon piece of the story is complicated because, as McKay Coppins talks about in his Romney bio, Mormons tended to be LESS enamored of Trump and his conspiracy theories than other white religious conservatives. It's probably the case that the NR crew harbored some suspicions about Mormonism in the 60s and 70s, but that's just a supposition based on what I know. My sense of the politics of contemporary Mormonism is that the community is quite divided by the more far right Bundy-inclined types and others who are still "conservative" but are repulsed by Trump's buffoonery.
I am never sure what to make of the links to Mormonism and how (or if) this lineage connects to. mainstream Mormonism. Even the so-called constitutional sheriffs are often suspect of Trump and Trumpism, to Coppins's point. They appear to view Trump as useful in terms of bringing about cataclysmic change, but don't care a lot for the man himself.
The distinction between conservatives who don't love Trump because he hasn't gone far enough and conservatives who don't love Trump because he HAS gone too far is really important, IMO, but often hard to detect. This is a very familiar historical dynamic to me that even played out back in '64-5 with Goldwater. Some folks on the right were like "Goldwater was a squish anyway, time for something harder like George Wallace" while others were like "Goldwater was kind of an extremist nut, why don't we nominate a more reasonable conservative like Nixon?"