Misplaced Pages

Claremont Institute

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by User2004 (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 3 October 2005 (→Disputes with Ludwig von Mises Institute: add Rangerdude's compromise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:49, 3 October 2005 by User2004 (talk | contribs) (→Disputes with Ludwig von Mises Institute: add Rangerdude's compromise)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Claremont Institute is a conservative think tank based in Claremont, California. The institute was founded in 1979 at the Claremont Colleges. Its leading scholar is Harry V. Jaffa, a professor at Claremont McKenna College and the Claremont Graduate University. Its current Vice President is Thomas Krannawitter, a recent graduate of the college.

The institute publishes a quarterly literary magazine entitled the Claremont Review of Books and as publications of its own, mostly Jaffa's works. It is known for espousing a legal philosophy called Declarationism whereby the United States Declaration of Independence is treated as a legal document and component of the government's organizing doctrines along side the United States Constitution. Most of the Institute's members are followers of the teachings of Leo Strauss including Jaffa, who was a student of Strauss.

The Institute calls its neo-conservative philosophy "Claremont Conservatism." This philosophy encompasses the Institute's interpretations of historical figures, particularly the American Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill. Uncommon for a conservative organization, the Claremont Institute tends to reject the constitutional philosophy of strict constructionism and often publishes material that is critical or derisive of conservative strict constructionists such as Robert Bork, William Rehnquist, and Antonin Scalia.

According to some Institute writers, their legal philosophy is closer to that of Clarence Thomas, although outside of the Institute Thomas is widely considered a strict constructionist in the model of Scalia.

The Institute has a variety of nicknames, some derisive and others embraced willingly, including Super-Hawks, Jaffanese Americans, Claremonsters, Lincoln Conservatives, and Claremontistas.

Criticisms

Disputes with Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) is one of Claremont's most frequent sparring partners among conservative think tanks. Though both fall on the political right and hold similar positions on many moral and economic issues in general, the two differ greatly inideology. The LvMI has a paleolibertarian persuasion, emphasizes economic philosophers such as Adam Smith and the Austrian Economists, and espouses a southern Jeffersonian ideology. The LvMI is called "neo-Confederate" by the the SPLC, which is described as a "leftist hate group" by right-wing pundit David Horowitz.

Claremont, by contrast, is of a neo-conservative persuasion, emphasizes moral philosophers such as John Locke, and espouses a northern Hamiltonian ideology. The two differ radically in their opinions about Abraham Lincoln and have engaged in several public criticisms of each other revolving around whether Lincoln should be embraced or shunned by conservatives. This controversy over Lincoln's meaning to conservatives predates either think tank, and encompasses Jaffa's debates on the subject with National Review editor Frank Meyer and scholar M.E. Bradford.

Associates of LvMI have attacked the Claremont Institute with a variety of charges. Referencing the organization's view of the 16th President, philosophy professor Marcus Verhaegh calls Claremont "the prime font of Lincoln-worship in our times." Daniel McCarthy asserts that the Claremont Institute's treatment of Lincoln is particularly cultish, describing its members as having a "genuinely religious zeal directed toward the 16th president." McCarthy cites Institute scholars who frequently use religious imagery such as "Father Abraham" and references to the "scripture" of the Declaration of Independence as evidence of this approach. According to McCarthy, these viewpoints are the source of the Claremont Institute's tension with other conservative organizations despite their common views on such issues as limited government, abortion, and morality:

"On many specific issues Claremontians and other members of the right are in agreement, and the Claremontians often provide some of the most intelligent and effective criticism of our mutual foes on the left. Unfortunately though whatever our common ground there will always be this fundamental, religiously-grounded incompatibility between those of us who want autonomy of one kind or another and those who want to impose their version of natural rights on the rest of us. The problem with Claremontianism is not so much that it is a kind of religion, but that it practices forced conversion."

Other criticisms

Paleoconservative pundit Joseph Sobran, responding to Claremont's criticisms, accused Harry Jaffa of venerating a "Mythic Lincoln" possessing "immaculate" and Christ-like qualities of redemption and purity. The historical Lincoln, asserts Sobran, was a "lesser, more complicated figure" with human characteristics and human flaws. Political writer Derek Copold similarly satirized the Claremont Institute in 2001 by likening the it to a radical Islamic sect headed by the "Abratollah Jaffa" and poked fun at the Institute's Ken Masugi for his tendency to liken opposing viewpoints to nihilism

Book reviews

In recent years the some of the institute's writers have penned highly critical book reviews of popular conservative book titles, typically published in the Claremont Review of Books. Included are Robert BorkThe Tempting of America and Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln and most recently Thomas Woods' Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. The subjects of these reviews have responded directly, accusing the Institute of waging character assassination campaigns.

Publications

Notable staff and fellows

Notable Lincoln Fellowship alumni

External links

Other Claremont McKenna College ("CMC") related institutes:

Category: