Deist on the Claremont Institute Review of Books, Straussian/Jaffaite Roots, and the Erudite Right

Every so often the @ClaremontInst Review of Books has an essay or two hinting at deviation from its Straussian/Jaffaite roots. So does its American Mind sister site. Call it an occasional softening toward Old Right/Paleo traditions, and a slight but detectable distancing from Con. Inc. This is also evident in the numerous Claremont alums active in the Trump administration– a fact not escaping the ire of National Review types. In short, Claremont has at least attempted to update its operating system in light of an entirely new landscape.

But then… a new edition of CRB arrives at my doorstep full of relapses into the worst Boomer constitutionalism and silly hagiography to some founding Father. Throw in another dose of Lincoln idolatry and anti-Southern animus, or another tired ode to Churchill, and the issue is a complete bust. Not even a reflection on Fowler’s Modern English Usage at 100 can save it.

I credit Christopher Caldwell mightily for attacking the most sacred cow in his Age of Entitlement book, and there are some very good voices in the CRB bullpen (Michael Anton, @ToryAnarchist). But the inertia may be too strong. It’s hard to ally with people who want to write about China or Ben Franklin at this very late stage of what they themselves contend is a propositional American experiment.

The Right needs serious, erudite publications for lay audiences, and Claremont Review is the closest thing. But we need populist, pragmatic, anti-interventionist organs of the same magnitude, perhaps expanding on @ChroniclesMag. This requires actually paying writers real sums of money for serious articles, something almost totally lost in the digital age.

— Jeff Deist (@jeffdeist) August 9, 2026

Every so often the  @ClaremontInst Review of Books has an essay or two hinting at deviation from its Straussian/Jaffaite roots. So does its American Mind sister site. Call it an occasional softening toward Old Right/Paleo traditions, and a slight but detectable distancing from Con. Inc. This is also evident in the numerous Claremont alums active in the Trump administration– a fact not escaping the ire of National Review types. In short, Claremont has at least attempted to update its operating system in light of an entirely new landscape.

But then… a new edition of CRB arrives at my doorstep full of relapses into the worst Boomer constitutionalism and silly hagiography to some founding Father. Throw in another dose of Lincoln idolatry and anti-Southern animus, or another tired ode to Churchill, and the issue is a complete bust. Not even a reflection on Fowler’s Modern English Usage at 100 can save it.

I credit Christopher Caldwell mightily for attacking the most sacred cow in his Age of Entitlement book, and there are some very good voices in the CRB bullpen (Michael Anton,  @ToryAnarchist). But the inertia may be too strong. It’s hard to ally with people who want to write about China or Ben Franklin at this very late stage of what they themselves contend is a propositional American experiment.

The Right needs serious, erudite publications for lay audiences, and Claremont Review is the closest thing. But we need populist, pragmatic, anti-interventionist organs of the same magnitude, perhaps expanding on @ChroniclesMag. This requires actually paying writers real sums of money for serious articles, something almost totally lost in the digital age.

***

Related