The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit



From its earliest days, the United States saw itself as a nation with intense purpose. Not a static country, not a museum of inherited customs, but a project. Alexander Hamilton envisioned a commercial republic that would rival the great powers of Europe. The doctrine of manifest destiny pushed that ambition across a continent. After World War II, the same impulse extended outward into global leadership.

America, in other words, has always kept its eyes on the horizon.

But once the frontier had been settled, the U.S. seemed to turn inward, focusing its boundless energy and notion of destiny toward a social crusade. The progressive civil rights movement became the story Americans told about themselves more than any other. A nation built on outward expansion turned inward. The energy that once drove settlers westward and engineers skyward was redirected into a different kind of project: a moral and social crusade at home.

This narrative is so powerful that it now dominates both the conservative and liberal mind. This means that the U.S. no longer really has a conservative movement, but rather two competing versions of the same progressive teleology that only disagree about the pace at which the social revolution should be pursued.

Restless people settled the US; we barely complete the conquest of one challenge before some group splinters off to brave the next frontier.

The philosopher Aristotle is famous for his discussion of telos — the end or purpose of a thing. Many modern thinkers have discarded this notion of ultimate purpose in favor of a more materialistic understanding of the world, but Aristotle is right, and they are wrong. America was always a nation in tension, recognizing the need to solidify its identity as the first true product of the New World even as it was immediately compelled forward by ambition. Restless people settled the U.S.; we barely complete the conquest of one challenge before some group splinters off to brave the next frontier. The American advance has always been relentless. Our nation is one of great purpose and great energy that will be directed toward whatever end we put our minds to.

For most of its history, America’s telos was expansion. Not merely territorial, but civilizational. A restless people moved outward, solved one problem, then immediately sought the next. This produced enormous dynamism. It also produced tension. The country had to define itself even as it constantly outgrew its previous definitions.

The civil rights myth

North America is the natural domain of the United States, but once the West had been truly settled, there was nowhere left for that pioneering spirit to expand. World War II proved to be the nation’s most radical period of transformation, during which it emerged as one of only two real superpowers dominating the globe. There were attempts to redirect that impulse. The space race briefly reopened the horizon. The competition with the Soviet Union offered a global stage. But these proved temporary. The deeper shift was happening at home.

The civil rights movement had begun as a reasonable request for legal equality, but was quickly merging with hippie culture and anti-Vietnam protests into a full-blown revolutionary deconstruction of America. The story of the civil rights movement was no longer the effort to seek a temporary solution for a wrong done to a specific group. Instead the movement fully embraced the progressive and Marxist themes of its contemporaries. America was no longer a great nation that needed to make some adjustments to integrate black citizens better; it was an eternal oppressor that had to be entirely reconstructed.

That shift matters because it supplied a new telos. If the old purpose had been expansion, the new one was equality, understood not as a condition to be achieved, but as a process without end. Every disparity became evidence of unfinished work. Every institution became suspect. The project could not conclude because its logic required constant renewal.

Conservatives initially stood against the civil rights revolution. Barry Goldwater famously opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not because he supported Jim Crow, but because he understood the legislation as a revolutionary attack on states’ rights. Many conservatives initially objected to Ronald Reagan enshrining the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law because they still remembered that King was a communist sympathizer and serial adulterer who supported what we would later call DEI.

It was very clear that the CRA had already mutated well beyond its initial purpose and that civil rights law was expanding to consume every area of American life. But every movie, television show, novel, and news broadcast was selling the civil rights revolution as the new story of America. Conservatives never stood a chance.

The new telos of America was one of equality. The framers had written that “all men were created equal,” and it was now the purpose of the U.S. to make that a reality. While Thomas Jefferson may have penned those famous words, it is very clear that neither he nor most of the founding generation meant them in the way modern Americans do today. The continuation of slavery is the obvious example, but early American immigration laws restricted naturalization to whites of good character.

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of "Democracy in America," famously argued that American blacks and Anglos were incompatible and that a race war would likely come before any national civil war. Even Abraham Lincoln was not optimistic about the integration of black and white America, with plans to send former slaves back to Africa once the Civil War was concluded. Whatever previous generations meant by that famous phrase, they obviously did not believe in a never-ending quest to remake society in the name of equality.

Predictably, leftists took the revolution as far and as fast as they could. America’s original sin was slavery, and the country’s entire purpose was now a never-ending mission to atone for this great evil. The suppression of black Americans was systemic, so the United States had to deconstruct all previous hierarchies to avoid oppression. First race, then gender roles, then marriage, then religion, then the concept of biological sex itself. No matter how absurd the exercise proved itself to be, the hunt for one new oppressed minority to grant civil rights to became the telos of America.

Conservatives are the Washington Generals

Conservatives assumed their classic position as beautiful losers. They rejected the speed and intensity of the revolution but accepted the premise. Republicans went from rejecting MLK Day to worshiping the communist as some moderate paragon of the civil rights revolution. The conservative movement rapidly came to believe much of what the left was already asserting, but wanted the revolutionaries to drive the speed limit. Yes, the founders were racist. Yes, they had failed in their promise. Yes, the story of America was its eternal reinvention to achieve social equality. But also, the military and baseball are good, and maybe we can keep some of the Christianity because that also seems important.

This created a strange phenomenon: two competing progressive teleologies, one extreme and one more moderate, came to dominate the American mind. The conservatives began to manifest this ideology in areas of life where they held power. American foreign policy became one of eternal liberation, where our country would conquer the world in the name of liberal democracy.

Despite theoretically opposing feminism or gay rights in the U.S., conservatives would also cite violations of these civil rights as reasons to invade and control other countries. American churches, even conservative ones, began to center their message on race relations, liberation of the oppressed, and care for illegal immigrants. A real right wing no longer existed in America; the new frontier was the eternal civil rights revolution, and the only question was how far and how fast it should go.

This dynamic has created something of an identity crisis for the American right. On one hand, conservatives want to limit the excesses of the left; on the other, they have bought entirely into the progressive premise. American conservatives do not really want to return to the intention of the racist, sexist, and homophobic beliefs of the founders. They like the progress, they approve of the revolution, and they are ashamed of their past.

This subversion of the American vision is unfortunate, but it does not have to remain permanent. Instead of wasting our blood and treasure trying to turn every authoritarian backwater into a flourishing Jeffersonian republic, we could once again turn our eyes to the stars. Instead of trying to stamp out every form of inequality in our society, we could embrace hierarchy and the pursuit of greatness.

Instead of being ashamed of our founders, conservatives could follow manifest destiny to Mars and beyond. That requires rejecting the idea that the nation’s highest purpose is to endlessly remake itself in pursuit of abstract equality. It means accepting that hierarchy, excellence, and difference are not pathologies to be erased, but features of any functioning civilization. Before we can pursue the frontier once more, we must believe that we are a people with a purpose, a nation that deserves not just to survive, but to thrive.

Venezuela’s anthem pride put Team USA to shame



Anyone who watched the recent World Baseball Classic final in Miami — a thrilling matchup between the underdog Venezuelans and Team USA — saw a vivid display of national pride.

Before the game, both teams stood for the Venezuelan and American national anthems. Miami is home to the world’s largest Venezuelan diaspora community. The cheers were thunderous. Every Venezuelan player stood with his cap over his heart and sang every word with conviction. This from a nation scarred by decades of unrest, corruption, and more recently, liberation at the hands of U.S. troops sent by President Donald Trump. Through all that turmoil, they held fast to love of country. “It means everything. This is for our country,” starting pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez said afterward through tears.

A nation cannot survive on procedure alone. It needs loyalty, memory, gratitude, and a shared sense of belonging.

The contrast with the American team was hard to miss. Our players all looked stoic. No one sang. I wondered if they even knew the words.

That scene unfolded as the U.S. Senate debated the SAVE America Act, a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID at the polls. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) framed the matter correctly. “Our republic was founded on a daring claim that free people could govern itself. Not that a free people could drift forever,” he said.

“Liberty is fragile and so it requires structure.”

America’s founders would have understood the point.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington urged Americans not only to respect the law but to love their country. “Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections,” he said. “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism.”

Benjamin Franklin believed immigrants should assimilate, learn the language, and adopt American customs if they wished to become good citizens. Thomas Jefferson tied citizenship to literacy, civic formation, and military readiness. “Every citizen should be a soldier,” he wrote. “This was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state.”

The SAVE Act may never reach President Trump’s desk. Common sense rarely enjoys smooth passage in Washington. But Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has at least shown some backbone. “We’re going to stay on this bill until it damn well passes,” he said, even if that means “many, many weeks” of debate.

If the MAGA base roars loudly enough, maybe it will.

But the deeper problem runs beyond election law. It concerns whether Americans still understand citizenship as something more than legal status. A nation cannot survive on procedure alone. It needs loyalty, memory, gratitude, and a shared sense of belonging.

RELATED: America’s founders risked the gallows. What are we risking?

Daniel Shirey/WBCI/MLB Photos via Getty Images

That is why the contrast on display in Miami matters. The Venezuelans played as men who still believed their country — mess that it may be — deserved their love. Too many Americans now act embarrassed by their own inheritance.

If we do not protect our elections from illegal votes, we weaken our sovereignty. If we do not insist that new citizens learn English, we weaken national cohesion. If we cannot teach our children to love their country, sing its anthem, and thank God for its blessings, we will hand the nation to elites whose only loyalty is to appetite, profit, and power.

I saw the alternative recently at a Hillsdale College seminar. Before each meal, a student led us in prayer. Then we stood together and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. I had not spoken those words aloud in years. The moment carried real force — 800 voices joined in gratitude, memory, and common purpose. It reminded me that patriotism is not an abstraction. It is a habit.

We should bring the pledge back to schools. We should teach the Bible again. We should teach Western history and literature without apology. We should make English the official language of the United States.

After Venezuela beat Italy in the semifinals, President Trump posted on Truth Social, “Wow ... statehood #51 anyone?” He understood something larger in the moment. America does not need another state. It needs more citizens with that kind of spirit.

These are the questions I explore in my new novel, “Trump’s Superpower: A Historical Novel About the Founding Fathers and One Founding Mother,” out in May. In it, the founders return for America’s 250th anniversary and confront what we have done with the republic they risked their lives to build.

Whether we still deserve it may depend on whether we are still willing to sing for it.

No kidding: 'Ecofeminist' course at UVA has students consulting goats and lichen about oppression



An alumni group is questioning the academic value of a course on offer at the taxpayer-subsidized University of Virginia — a course taught by a non-straight poet who apparently encourages students to consult animals about their supposed oppression.

The Jefferson Council, an alumni group "committed to leading the University of Virginia back to Thomas Jefferson’s legacy of freedom and excellence," noted Wednesday on X, "A course titled 'Ecofeminist Poetry & Poetics' being taught this spring at the University of Virginia has students 'listen' to plants and animals to better understand how 'settler colonialism' and slavery 'thrive off of the intrinsic interconnectedness between species.'"

'Birds, goats, willow oaks, and lichen will accompany us through the semester.'

"This is a real taxpayer-funded class," the group continued. "Is this what higher education has become?"

The description for the graduate course on the UVA English department's website — which contains quotes from identitarian feminist and LGBT activist Alexis Pauline Gumbs — states:

This interdisciplinary course will interweave brief readings from ecofeminist theory, ecopoetics, and black and indigenous environmental theories with books of contemporary ecofeminist poetry. This curriculum will encourage each of us to see what happens when we “rethink and re-feel,” writes Gumbs, our own “relations, possibilities, and practices” in conversation with the more-than-human world.

The course syllabus notes that "birds, goats, willow oaks, and lichen will accompany us through the semester as we too attempt to listen across species," reported the College Fix.

University records show that associate professor Brian Teare, a "queer"-identifying climate alarmist who specializes in environmental humanities and "queer theory," has taught versions of the ecofeminist course for several years.

RELATED: Why do state schools bankroll people who despise the state?

Photo by Carol M. Highsmith/Buyenlarge/Getty Images

John Gardner, president of the Jefferson Council, told the College Fix, "It is surprising to the extent that such an inane and clearly agenda-based politicized course could find its way into the curricula of any respectable institute of higher learning."

"It is not surprising to the extent that over the past decade or more the increasingly left-wing politicized faculties of most universities have turned their curricula into woke fantasylands," added Gardner.

'It is more suitable to be a course taught in Orwell’s "1984."'

Teare and the university did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Gardner referred to three other radical courses at the university that warrant concern: "Women and Gender in the Deaf World"; "Gender, Body Image, and Social Activism"; and "Queer Judaism," which poses the question, "What if we approached Judaism as a queer religion?"

"There are many others with the common theme that they are mostly narrowly focused on allegedly marginalized ‘identity groups’ based on race, gender, or ethnicity and are often intended to promote a predetermined agenda," said Gardner.

The alumni group's president noted that Thomas Jefferson founded the university because "he felt it was important to have an educated and informed citizenry to sustain a successful republic."

Gardner suggested that courses like Teare's "are not meant to follow truth, but to advance a political/social agenda. It is more suitable to be a course taught in Orwell’s '1984' than at Mr. Jefferson’s university."

In 2025, UVA received over $338 million dollars in funding from the state.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If leftists can’t cancel 1776, they’ll cancel the founders one frame at a time



A Democrat state senator in Nebraska last month decided to remove portraits of America’s founders from the Capitol in Lincoln. Security footage shows state Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh taking down images from an exhibit designed by PragerU, marking the nation’s 250th year with portraits of Declaration signers and prominent women.

“Celebrating America during our 250th year should be a moment of unity and patriotism, not divisiveness and destructive partisanship,” Republican Gov. Jim Pillen wrote on Facebook. “I am disappointed in this shameful and selfish bad example.”

The left now treats America’s founding principles as cover for sin rather than a constraint on it.

I’m disappointed too. But I’m not surprised. The left has poured gasoline on the founding for years.

In 1927, historians Charles and Mary Beard published “The Rise of American Civilization,” portraying the American Revolution as a struggle driven less by ideals than by economic self-interest. Their Progressive Era “economic interpretation” challenged what they saw as romanticized narratives about the founding and helped shift elite opinion toward suspicion of the founders’ motives.

Nearly a century later, the left moved from economic critique to moral indictment. Slavery became the founding’s “original sin.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the United States was “created” in large part “on racist principles.” The New York Times championed Nikole Hannah-Jones’ project urging schools to teach that America’s true founding occurred not in 1776 but in 1619, when the first enslaved Africans arrived. That framework recasts the Revolution less as a rebellion against tyranny than as a defense of slavery’s economic advantages.

Then came 2020. In Portland, mobs tore down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Protesters smeared them with graffiti and slapped a sticker on Washington’s forehead: “You are on Native land.”

My new book, “Trump’s Superpower: A Historical Novel About the Founding Fathers & One Founding Mother,” stages a rebuttal in story form. I bring the founders down from heaven to participate in a re-enactment of the founding on its 250th anniversary. They collide with modern America in darkly comic ways. Ben Franklin gets arrested for misgendering someone. George Washington fixes his teeth. Will Lee, Washington’s enslaved valet, discovers online commentary and becomes a social media sensation.

Those scenes deliver laughs, but the book’s center holds a serious conversation: Did America become what the founders hoped it would become? That debate carries its own evidence against the modern indictment. These men believed they were handing Americans tools — freed from Britain’s rule and debts — to pursue their own dreams and build lives worth living.

RELATED: America tried to save the planet and forgot to save itself

omersukrugoksu via iStock/Getty

In the book, Thomas Jefferson and the others see Jefferson’s memorial for the first time and learn about the campaign to cancel him. Franklin reads the moment with unnerving clarity. “I am beginning to think,” he says, “that they’re not trying to discredit us as people so much as to dishonor us for what we achieved. In a way, they are denouncing not only the founders but the nation we founded and the Constitution we left behind.”

Jefferson’s Declaration insisted that rights come from God, not man, and that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In his first draft, Jefferson also condemned Britain’s role in the slave trade, accusing King George of waging “cruel war against human nature itself” by trafficking human beings. The Continental Congress struck the passage, fearing disunity on the eve of war.

That context matters. The founders lived amid contradiction and compromise, yet they articulated principles that gave later generations the moral language and constitutional structure to attack slavery, defeat it, and expand rights. The left now treats those principles as cover for sin rather than a constraint on it. That inversion forms the point of the portrait-taking: It’s not merely about flawed men. It’s about discrediting the founding itself.

Lately, watching riots in Minneapolis and other blue cities tied to federal immigration enforcement, I wonder if we will even make it to July 4. Blue jurisdictions openly defying federal authority in 2026 sounds uncomfortably close to the pattern of states putting themselves above the Union in 1860.

The country should treat that warning seriously — not as a pretext for more cultural demolition, but as a reason to recover what America’s founders built: a constitutional order that binds us together, even when we want to tear it apart.

History Supports Trump’s Operation To Take Down Maduro

History shows that President Trump is on firm ground when he orders troops into combat – even without congressional approval.

Digital tyrants want your face, your ID … and your freedom



Thomas Sowell’s warning fits the digital age with brutal precision: There are no solutions, only trade-offs. When governments regulate technology, they seize your privacy first. Every “safety” mandate becomes an excuse to collect more personal data, and the result is always the same. Bureaucrats claim to protect you while making you more vulnerable.

Age-verification laws illustrate this perfectly. Discord’s recent breach — more than 70,000 stolen government ID photos taken from a third-party vendor — shows how quickly privacy collapses once platforms are forced to gather sensitive data.

Millions of citizens should not be forced to trade away privacy because policymakers refuse to acknowledge the risks.

To comply with the U.K.’s new Online Safety Act, Discord began collecting users’ documentation. That data became a target, and once breached, attackers reportedly demanded a multimillion-dollar ransom and threatened to publish the stolen IDs. Discord failed to monitor its vendor’s security practices, and thousands paid the price.

Age-verification mandates require digital platforms to confirm a user’s age before granting access to specific content or services. That means uploading government IDs or submitting to facial scans. The stated goal is child safety. The actual effect is compulsory data surrender. These laws normalize the idea that governments can force citizens to hand over sensitive information just to use the internet.

Centralized data collection creates a jackpot for cybercriminals. As the Discord breach proves, one compromise exposes thousands — or millions — of users. Criminals can sell this information, reuse it for identity theft, or weaponize it for blackmail. The problem isn’t a one-off failure. It is structural. Age verification mandates require platforms to create consolidated databases of personally identifying information, which become single points of catastrophic failure.

The libertarian Cato Institute captures the problem: “Requiring age verification creates a trove of attractive data for hackers that could put broader information about users, particularly young users, at risk.”

Governments may insist that the Discord breach was an outlier. It wasn’t. Breaches of sensitive information are predictable in systems designed to aggregate it. Even if the motives behind the U.K.’s age-verification regime were noble, undermining privacy to advance those aims is a trade-off free societies should reject. That is why the Online Safety Act triggered an outcry far beyond the U.K.

And, as usual, legislative mandates fail to achieve their stated goals. Days after the OSA took effect, VPN downloads surged as users — including children — bypassed verification systems. Laura Tyrylyte, Nord Security’s head of public relations, told Wired that “whenever a government announces an increase in surveillance, internet restrictions, or other types of constraints, people turn to privacy tools.” Predictably, age-verification laws encourage evasion instead of compliance.

RELATED: The UK wants to enforce its censorship laws in the US. The First Amendment begs to differ.

mikkelwilliam via iStock/Getty Images

The pattern is simple: Age-verification laws degrade privacy, heighten the risk of identity theft, and fail to keep minors off restricted platforms. They make the internet less safe for everyone.

Meanwhile, policymakers remain determined to spread these mandates in the name of protecting children. The U.K. pioneered the model. Many other governments followed. Twenty-five U.S. states have adopted similar laws. The list grows each month.

But governments cannot treat data breaches as acceptable collateral damage. Millions of citizens should not be forced to trade away privacy because policymakers refuse to acknowledge the risks. The result of this approach will be more surveillance, more breaches, more stolen personal data, and a steady erosion of civil liberties.

Privacy is the backbone of liberty in a digital world. Thomas Jefferson’s warning deserves repetition: “The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”

Age-verification mandates accelerate that progress — and citizens pay the price.

Idiot Media Ignore 40 Years Of History To Pretend Trump Attacks On Cartels Are Unprecedented

Right or wrong, Trump isn’t doing anything new with these choices, which are all well within the range of long-established political norms.

Demanding Homage To Islam, Mamdani Proves Migration Without Assimilation Is Just Conquest

During Thursday’s New York City mayoral debate, socialist Zohran Mamdani implied former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is unqualified to be mayor because he hadn’t visited a mosque. “He had more than 10 years and he couldn’t name a single mosque at the last debate we had that he visited,” Mamdani said, before going on […]

The Medal Of Freedom Was Created For People Exactly Like Charlie Kirk

For years, the Presidential Medal of Freedom has been awarded to celebrities and political allies. But on Tuesday, President Donald Trump will posthumously award Charlie Kirk the highest civilian honor, reviving the medal’s original intent of recognizing those who have made extraordinary contributions to the security, ideals, and freedoms of the country. Kirk was assassinated […]