Is this the Heritage of an intellectual backbone? Happy Halloween

Well. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, has tweeted out a statement regarding 'canceling' Tucker Carlson & Nick Fuentes, that went way beyond making a reasonable statement in defense of sometimes awkward friendships. FWIW, Real Clear Politics also has the video, and a (mostly accurate) transcript of it.

It may be late night on a worknight, but... it stirred up a response, soOooo, let's run through it, top to bottom:

KEVIN ROBERTS:" I'll have more to say on this in the coming days, but today I want to be clear about one thing. Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic."

To the extent that this equates to the obviousness that criticizing the policies of the government of the United States of America, doesn't make you anti-American, this is a purely 'duh' statement... so why say it?

"And of course, anti-Semitism should be condemned."

This also is, or shouldn't be, an issue, but still... again, it's pure 'duh' level obviousness - 'Never again' is understood and affirmed by most reasonable people - why would any reasonable person feel the need to come out and say this, or that the sky is blue... unless there was something that made it particularly concerning? In the context of this statement, and those he's responding to, it'd be interesting to hear why he thought it needed to be said. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into that.

"My loyalty as a Christian, and as an American, is to Christ first, and to America always.

Perhaps I'm being too picky here, but... with the fluctuating nature of politics, such as with the Biden administration's recent policy of putting Christian protesters silently praying at Planned Parenthood centers in jail, should you pair 'America always' with 'Christ first', as if they were equally weighty and eternally defensible statements? I can't help but question whether he's saying, "Christ first" and "America always" as statements of honest conviction, or as patronizing flattery.

When it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we do so with partnerships on security, intelligence, technology. But when it doesn't, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class, or from their mouthpieces in Washington."

Again, most of this is obvious, and one wonders why a representative of the Heritage Foundation, or any other organization, would feel the need to come out and state such obviousness? And the answer to that, seems to come with the insertion of 'reflexively', as that seems to imply something more than merely a difference of policy - simply saying 'be nice until it's time to not be nice', is plain speaking, but adding 'reflexively' into that, implies other purposes, one that - call me crazy - seems to imply that there is a 'they', that won't allow them to simply agree to disagree. Why phrase it so?

The Heritage Foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians, and we won't start doing that now.

IF the Heritage Foundation, or any other entity, can be said to be "the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement", it would presumably be for a solid reputation for stating what is true, backing it up with sound arguments and sources, and fearlessly questioning those who err, misrepresent, slight or slander those principles and history.

Right?

Assuming that is so, what is meant by 'our own people'? Does that mean American Conservatives? How do you define American Conservatives? Does that 'intellectual backbone' involve giving a pass to them? If someone egregiously violates the principles and history of American Conservatives, do you point those issues out, or dismiss it if they say or have said "Hey, I'm an American Conservative!"?

And what is meant by 'policing'? Would the possibility of people on X or some of your donors - or 'Friends' - charging you with 'policing', stop you from citing those issues and defending American Conservativism from such charges?

Similarly with the pairing of 'Christian' and 'America' at the opening, I'm very curious how you determine who is 'our own people', is it by being faithful to a set of principles, or by some form of 'friendship' or blood and soil? And presuming the former, if someone repeatedly, egregiously, strains and violated those principles, would you ignore that out of loyalty? Most of us understand that a person can still be friends with, even love someone, who behaves or speaks in a manner that is incompatible with many of your convictions and beliefs - and that is admirable trait - but does that friendship with them require that you ignore or even implicitly endorse their violations of those principles you (supposedly) hold dear? Would you let their slander or otherwise impugning of 'Christian' and 'America', go unanswered?

If not, why phrase it that way?

Is what you mean by 'Policing', simply using good judgement? Or is it using fraught terminology to excuse someone not using good judgement?

We don't take direction from comments on X, though we are grateful for the robust free speech debate. We also don't take direction from members or donors, though we are inherently grateful for their support, and we're adding more every day. This is the robust debate we invite, with our colleagues, our movement friends, our members, and the American public. We will always defend truth. We will always defend America. And we'll always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda.

Yawn. Yes, admirable as well. And also 100% bromide. Why would someone like the Heritage Foundation, issue such a statement? And it should be pointed out that 'Truth' is easy to defend. What is, or isn't true, OTOH, takes a wee bit more commitment... seemingly quite a bit more than you're expressing here.

That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.

Ahh... there's the answer. Let's leave aside for the time being the notion that a person can be the 'friend' of a foundation, and put it into a terms that actually makes sense, such as Roberts himself being friends with Tucker Carlson. Ok, fine. I've got some friends, that I've been friends with for decades, whose political ideas I find horrific. When the occasion of those topics come up, I tell them so. If we're in a gathering of friends or a public setting, and they express some of those horrific beliefs while leaning on my shoulder, I do not let them slide by as if I in any way support them, and when the moment to raise my voice comes around, I do just that. That doesn't mean that I would do so in an unfriendly way, and it doesn't mean that I'd be any less friends with them for doing so, or because of their statements, but it does mean that I believe the principles involved are important enough to highlight and defend, and that doing so doesn't infringe upon our friendship, which is based upon other issues than philosophical and political principles.

So the question that comes to mind is, does Roberts not find anything that Tucker Carlson has said - with Fuentes or elsewhere - to be objectionable? Or does the mere appearance of 'friendship' - or political party polling - override the importance of pointing out when your cherished principles are being violated or impugned? Does that in some way involve having a 'intellectual backbone'?

The venomous coalition attacking him are sowing division.

Is pointing out that something has been said that is untenable and in conflict with your deepest principles, an attack? Can you not disagree, without 'sowing division'? And if the comments are in fact violating your principles, is it best to characterize that as dealing with disagreements in a principled manner, or as "sowing division"? And if the former, what does it accomplish to express it as the latter? And perhaps most pressing, if your 'intellectual backbone' doesn't clarify when someone impugns or violates your principles, won't that sow division amongst Conservative Americans?

Their attempt to cancel him will fail.

What is meant by 'Cancel'? Does the mention of 'canceling', mean you can't criticize where criticism is due? Does it meant that principled disagreements should be ignored, because, ya know... 'principles' aren't something that are worth explaining or defending, if doing so would mean causing embarrassment or discomfort to those who violate them?

What is it you mean by Principles, and how highly - or lowly - do they rank in what you 'value'?

Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.

Maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but I think the American people are sick and tired of people who use political excuses to minimize or ignore those who do something objectionable or flat out wrong. I'm beginning to think we need a clearer explanation of what you mean by 'intellectual backbone', could you supply that?

I disagree with, and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says.

Why? Did something HE say, violate your principles? Does it not also violate those principles if Tucker Carlson - your friend - says, or seems to condone, those statements? What are those principles, and what was it he said that you abhor? Or... can you not say so without 'canceling'? Is that another example of that 'intellectual backbone'?

But canceling him is not the answer either.

Again, what do you mean by 'canceling'? Does it mean unreasonable condemnation of a friend, or are you using the flavor of unreasonable condemnation, to excuse your saying nothing about someone impugning or speaking out in a way that violates your principles?

When we disagree with a person's thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas and debate, and we have seen success in this approach, as we continue to dismantle the vile ideas of the left.

Again, obviousness, and simply a bromide that did not need to be announced in such a public manner. But... I do wonder, in what way does challenging the 'vile ideas' that someone has expressed, differ from 'cancelling'?

As my friend Vice President Vance said last night, what I am not okay with is any country coming before the interest of American citizens.

I too agree with that. But... does that mean that you're saying that something that Tucker said, or that those who disagreed with what he said, are somehow putting another country before the interest of Americans? Are you... 'cancelling' those who find fault there?

And it is important for all of us, assuming we are American citizens, to put the interests of our own country first. That's where our allegiance lies. And that's where it will stay.

Again, a good and obvious truth. I wish that the preceding hadn't gone so far as to call the sincerity of the Heritage Foundation, and its 'intellectual backbone'? into question.

But it most definitely has.