The 2022 midterms should have been a bloodbath. It should have been a huge sweep for the Republicans, relegating the Democrats to the depths of minority rule. Instead, the Republicans managed to win the House only respectably, whilst the Dems kept the house. It’s widely believed that better candidates could have kept the house.
Good candidates do exist. Ron DeSantis managed to make gains in Florida. Glenn Youngkin flipped Virginia. Brian Kemp safely won re-election in Georgia. Unfortunately, there were also many poor candidates. A competent Republican could have beaten John Fetterman in Pennsylvania. Somebody else could have beaten Katie Hobbs.
The same is true for Presidential elections. The Republicans have only won one election in the 21st century outright, with both the Electoral College and popular vote – George W. Bush in 2004. 2000 and 2016 both saw Electoral College wins but popular vote losses. Whilst external events came into play, it’s not a great look.
That being said, it almost seems that the Republicans like losing. They’re not making any real attempt at winning. Whilst they might choose decent candidates, there’s a high chance they won’t.
This is an excerpt from “Provenance”. To continue reading, visit The Mallard’s Shopify.
-
On Science and Conservatism: Is the Relationship Dead?
Why have conservatives have turned against science? This question is a fundamental mischaracterisation of the relationship between science and right-wing thinkers. As a young scientist and a conservative, I find myself straddling this so-called divide and in the unique position to offer analysis on the state of the relationship between the right-wing and science. It is true that today, with issues such as climate change and vaccine efficacy, right-wing criticisms of the scientific elite have overwhelmingly dominated the discourse on scientific distrust. But if one is to truly interrogate the disconnect between modern day conservatism and the scientific mainstream, you must also consider the converse; why has science turned against right-wing thought? Or perhaps more notably, how have left-wing idealogues used science against conservatives?
The left-wing bias of modern academia is well documented, with one recent study published by Nature revealing that only six percent of researchers self-identify as conservative and less than ten percent of academic political donations support conservative candidates. With this troubling trend of progressive overrepresentation in scientific circles, the left has used their advantage to co-opt and manipulate science for its own political ends. This threatens to undermine the very principles of intellectual freedom and academic integrity upon which scientific inquiry depends.
With the left having such a hold over modern science, the tendency on the right has, somewhat justifiably, been outright rejection of scientific thought and practice. This seems a self-defeating proposition. Sustainable prosperity will only be practically achievable if we look to make technological progress within our own borders. To do this we must address some major flaws which have become inherent to scientific thinking, causing both alienation of conservative thinkers and degeneration of the scientific practice.
Suppression of Dissent
Central to the ethos of scientific inquiry is the freedom to question the prevailing orthodoxy and challenge established thought. Yet, in recent years, the left has sought to suppress dissenting voices and enforce ideological conformity within the scientific community. This manifests itself in two ways, firstly through the development of a culture within academic institutions which is antithetical to conservative viewpoints and, perhaps more importantly, through political discrimination in grants and publication, prohibiting conservative viewpoints from being spread in scientific literature.
An often-understated consequence of the leftward shift in academia is the comprising impact on peer-review. Peer-review is the process which underpins science. Academics review the work of other researchers to assess the scientific validity and rigour of their experimentation and argument before the work can be published. Whilst a noble concept, it is easily victim to confirmation bias. If only six percent of academics identify as conservative, how likely is it that the handful of reviewers of a grant proposal or paper will be ideologically conservative or even supportive of controversial proposals? This fear is not merely the musings of a scorned conservative scientist but a reality backed up by research. Half of academics would mark down a right-wing grant application. Four in ten American academics admit they wouldn’t hire a Trump supporter. A third of British academics would not hire a Brexiter. Not only does this inhibit the volume of conservative scientific literature, but it restricts a conservative’s earning capacity from grants and promotion, and therefore their academic influence. What this leads to is the self-censorship of conservative thinkers looking to progress their careers, thus creating a spiral of worsening conservative intolerance on campuses and in academia.
One striking example of this phenomenon is the case of postdoctoral researcher, Dr Noah Carl. Dr Carl graduated from the prestigious University of Oxford with a thesis titled ‘Cognitive ability and sociopolitical beliefs and attitudes’ and was subsequently awarded the Toby Jackman Newtown Research Fellowship at St Edmund’s College in Cambridge. For early-career researchers, such a postdoctoral fellowship is invaluable in gaining a foothold in the cut-throat academic industry. Yet Dr Carl was never able to assume his position as he was dismissed by St Edmund’s College for his alleged association with far-right figures. This so-called association involved attending a conference also attended by race researchers and publishing in a journal with a controversial editor. He advocated for free inquiry into how stifling debates around race can do harm and his research examined common stereotypes. Even a cursory assessment of this reasoning shows how Dr Carl was only guilty of challenging the left-wing orthodoxy. The University had no issue with his research when they appointed him, but guilt by association was sufficient to effectively end a young researcher’s career after left-wing student backlash.
Another case is that of esteemed Professor of Public Law at Macquarie University in Sydney, Andrew Fraser, who published a letter in 2005 in his local newspaper calling for restriction of African immigration, due to its effect on increasing crime rates. Macquarie University initially defended Fraser’s right to free speech, but after pressure from the local Sudanese community, Fraser was suspended, with the University citing how Fraser had affected the university’s ability to operate and offering a public apology to those who were offended. Again, absent from the response was any criticism of Fraser’s scientific rigour. Fraser has long been a proponent of the role of immigration in increasing Australian crime rates, the evidence for which remains strong to this day.
Regardless of your own views on these issues, its inarguable that both scholars faced vilification and professional repercussions for conducting research and providing comment which deviated from the left’s ideological agenda. The cancellation of scholars like Carl and Fraser serves as a chilling reminder of the dangers of ideological conformity in scientific discourse. By stifling dissent and enforcing orthodoxy, the left undermines the very foundation of scientific inquiry, to question and hypothesise, thus relegating it to a tool of political expediency rather than a genuine quest of understanding.
The Rise of Scientism
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the left’s control over science is the rise of scientism,a quasi-religious belief in the infallibility of scientific authority. In the eyes of leftist ideologues, science has become not merely a tool for understanding the natural world, but an all-encompassing worldview that supplants religion and morality. There is no phrase I personally detest more than, ‘Trust the science.’ This phrase has become a mantra of progressive politicians, but it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific practice. In trying to project science as objective truth, they are committing a major offence of scientific thought, presenting a theory as fact. The scientific method is built around making hypotheses and proving them wrong based on observation and evidence. Anyone that tells you science can prove truth is lying to you. It is fundamentally impossible to prove truth by using the scientific method, as more evidence can always be uncovered to refute any such assertion. In the leftist zeal to elevate science to the status of an objective truth, they conflate empirical evidence with ideological principles, compromising the integrity of the scientific process.
Science was never intended to replace religion or morality but rather to complement and enhance our understanding of the world. Renowned scientist Isaac Newton, for instance, integrated his Christian faith into his exploration of natural laws, aiming to inspire others to appreciate the beauty of divine creation.
“When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.”
– Isaac NewtonModern scientists are increasingly unravelling new frontiers, from artificial intelligence to genetic modification, prompting profound ethical questions. But unfortunately, as science has progressed, secularism and scientism have gained traction in intellectual circles, causing the influence of religion on scientific discourse to wane. This trend has left a moral vacuum within the scientific community at a time when it is most needed. As we look to address the ethical questions of new scientific frontiers, the increasingly fervent belief in the infallibility of science among the elite is a dangerous precedent to set in our quest for knowledge.
How do we fix it?
It was easy during the Covid-19 lockdowns to argue against science, as it was used to justify draconian government laws. But now this period has passed, such a trajectory is self-defeating. Countless right-wing figures have continued to prosecute against science, yet they largely remain excluded from serious political discourse. Clearly though, a total embrace of the scientific establishment ignores a long-standing hostility and prosecution of right-wing thought.
As we look to wrest control over our own countries back from the leftist elite, conservatives and nationalists ignore science at their own peril. Across the Anglosphere we see conservative parties stagnating. Young people are disengaging from politics. Idealogues are pursuing their agendas. If a truly right-wing presence is going to be felt in politics it must champion cultural revival, national progress, and self-reliance. By leveraging national resources and driving scientific and technological innovation, we can build a future focused economy to our own benefit. Importantly, science can be reclaimed from leftist control by promoting independent domestic research to replace our current bureaucratic institutions, prioritising the protection of conservative thought in academia and rebuilding confidence among the right-wing populace.
So, is the relationship between conservatives and science dead? From suppressing dissenting voices to the promotion of quasi-religious faith in scientific infallibility, the left’s agenda threatens to degenerate scientific practice and undermine its capacity to investigate the world around us. But this should not catalyse right wing rejection of science. Science may have turned its back on right-wing intellectuals, but in a constantly evolving world it would be counterproductive for conservatives to concede science to the Left. It’s only with the input of conservative thinkers that truly free scientific endeavour can help lead us away from regression and embrace a vision for right-wing progress.
-
The Moment of Decision
In the throes of the culture wars, it’s easy to get acclimated to the situation after some time has passed. It feels like a lifetime ago that the battlefield that has become of the issue of transgenderism was little more than a few videos on YouTube imploring viewers to cringe at ‘Die Cis Scum’, and if anything demonstrates the futility of the adage ‘twitter is not real life’, it would be the recent admission from Jamie Wallis that he considers himself a woman.
There is almost certainly some kind of meaning to the fact that Jamie’s desire to be a woman emerged after he was raped, as though he psychologically associates a lack of autonomy to womanhood. But I am not a psychologist, and Jamie’s warped feelings about his identity are irrelevant in and of themselves. What this turn of events creates however, is a moment of decision for the Conservatives.
For a long time, the Conservatives have enjoyed playing both sides of the culture wars. At conference, they can laud Maggie Thatcher as the first female Prime Minister and reap the benefits of appearing to be progressive – knowing that opposition can be quickly labelled sexist, and something that even the Conservative party has outgrown. Simultaneously, they can point to the Labour party and remind us of what happens if we abandon them. A few cringeworthy remarks about supporting women into politics is certainly a preferable alternative to those same “women in politics” sporting a five-o’clock shadow and suspiciously broad shoulders.
Governments, political parties, and states, like individuals, can hold simultaneously contradictory beliefs. Those who do not act are fortunate enough to never have to confront these contradictions – for they never implement them. But it is through existential participation in life that these contradictions make themselves plain, and a moment of decision must occur. Constitutional monarchies justified themselves with recourse to the people – but what happens when the monarch and the people (or at least, the institutions representing the people) are at odds over a decision? Who decides? The logic of constitutional monarchy legitimises the king with recourse to the people, and so those institutions closer to the people in the mind of the populace ultimately set the laws. It’s these moments of decision that move history – a constitutional monarchy may retain the state form of monarchy but rest atop the principle of democracy, but the moment of decision reveals the incoherence of this state form and opens up a state of exception to alter it.
Equally, the Conservatives present themselves as being opposed to wokeism, but like the constitutional monarch – justify themselves on the principles of equality, and the moment of decision reveals the incoherence of their rule. Whilst the party had no skin in the game, and whilst it had no existential participation, it could ignore the incoherence because it never actually had to make any decision based on these two contradictory principles. But the moment of decision has arrived, and what is in store for us as members of the party?
Jamie Wallis has been supported by Boris and Oliver Dowden, the CEO of the party. It is clear the Conservatives have no intention of removing this person from the party or even coming close to asserting that transgenderism is in no way conservative. Jamie Wallis will most certainly be in attendance at Conference and all Conservative events in the future. The Conservative party will now have to decide:
- How will it refer to Jamie, should he ask to be referred to by female pronouns?
- What will they do if Jamie Wallis decides he wants to use the female bathrooms?
- If they wish to affirm Jamie’s wishes, how will they then define what a woman is, since it clearly no longer conforms to a simple definition?
Once again, the failure of Conservatives to engage in philosophy rears its ugly head. When you don’t attempt to delve into your beliefs, when you rest everything on ‘Common Sense’, you actually rest your political order upon the principles of those who do wish to assert and articulate their beliefs. Then, when you inevitably go to implement your beliefs: you’re struck with the inability to implement them in accordance with the principles you’ve justified your beliefs on. It’s simply not enough to have a political philosophy which resolves political (read: economic, technical, bureaucratic, etc.) problems. Your political philosophy must blend, gel, mesh, and harmonise with your ontological beliefs about the very essence of what it means to be anything at all. The idea that culture, economics, and philosophy are distinct and separate spheres is an optical illusion brought about by extended periods of peace. Any of these things, driven to a sufficient extreme become political, and our only tool to navigate these new political realities is philosophy. Those who don’t use it will find themselves lost, both politically and spiritually.
-
Reform will lead us to victory
Reform UK, lead by Nigel Farage, is a once in a century opportunity to destabilise the status quo and displace the political establishment in Great Britain. A unique window of time has opened up in which the British people are discontent enough to reject both the Labour party and the Conservative party, throwing their votes behind what currently amounts to a populist vessel without any record of governance.
A recent poll by Ipsos shows Reform UK with 34 percent, 9 points ahead of Labour, continuing its rapid transformation from an irrelevant third party enclave for disgruntled Tories into a serious electoral force; one threatening to be responsible for the first election since 1910 in which a party other than Labour or the Conservatives won the most seats. Whatever your assessment of Nigel Farage’s character, or Zia Yusuf’s intentions, or how sound Reform UK’s policy proposals are, or even just the party’s tactics and rhetoric – I think it’s important to remember both the existential threat this country faces and how important it is for us to gain political power. That is ultimately all that matters – power. If we aren’t working towards winning councillors (thankfully, Reform is), and if we aren’t working towards winning seats in the House of Commons (thankfully, Reform is), then we are wasting our time.
Many people on the right of politics seem to be stricken with reservations when it comes to supporting Reform UK. A caveat with that is when I say “many people on the right of politics” I specifically mean the most politically engaged, most active online group of people on the right. The general logic concludes that Reform is:
- Appealing too much to old people.
- Is ideologically incoherent.
- Has become soft on its core issues (immigration, identity, etc.).
On point one, they have astutely assessed that the Labour party is weakest from its left flank. As such, coming out against the cuts to the Winter Fuel Allowance and in favour of scrapping the Two-Child Benefit Cap is a good way of exploiting fragmentation within Labour’s electoral coalition. On point two, Reform has realised that the primary barrier to their electoral success is the degree to which people see Reform as being associated with the Conservative party (by history, by figures within the party, but most importantly by policy and rhetoric). This means that for the next 4 years they will be selling themselves as a fresh, new third party with ideas detached from the old constraints of red-blue, left-right partisan lines.
Regardless of your assessment of how committed they would be on delivering this; they are fundamentally a populist party. If you want Reform to sound like Margaret Thatcher on taxes, welfare and state intervention in the economy you will never be satisfied with them. Finally, on point three, by the nature of us living in a democracy, Reform inevitably has to win votes from the broad, apolitical masses in order to gain a majority in parliament. If that means Reform politicians have to sound like soft, liberal centrists in order to win votes from women aged 30-50 then sobeit.
A predictable wedge emerges from the fact that Nigel Farage needs to appeal to the country but Robert Jenrick needs to appeal to his base – in order for either of them to achieve their current goals. Plenty of figures in politics, predominantly Conservative MPs , currently have the luxury to be able to throw around as much rhetorical red meat as possible because the stakes are so low and they are nowhere near power. Farage, and Reform UK, have no such luxury. They have the weight of a desperate, panicked people on their shoulders and a country that is putting unearned hope into their project.
By Reform’s luck, the Conservative party is playing perfectly into their hands. A Midnightian miracle is unfolding, whereby Nigel Farage and Reform UK are becoming the sensible right wing party with broad appeal across the country and the Conservatives are becoming the fringe, impotent party obsessed with a handful of issues and unable to step outside of pandering to a noisy, narrow clique online.
The two parties are switching places, and yet Reform continues to position itself to the left of the Labour party. In a strange twist of fate, irrespective of the genealogy of the viewpoints of Reform’s officials or its membership, it will actually end up being the Labour party that replaces the Conservative party. What room is there remaining for the Conservative party if Labour are the fiscally responsible, steady-handed, sensible experienced party pleading with the electorate to continue on with the status quo and Reform are the party promoting a radical, progressive populism in opposition to that? Pictured below is the current state of British politics, the lines of attack each major party is making and their direction of travel. On present trends, by 2029 Reform will be the “left wing” option and Labour will be the “right wing” option in our two-party system. Do these terms really mean anything anymore?
I have my own reservations with Reform – I would like a much more radical economic policy from them. I would like to see a party that really lent into nationalist, or even just Corbynite, arguments on banks, big businesses, free trade and the overfinancialisation of the economy. I would like to hear “nationalisation” and “reindustrialisation” a lot more. I would like to hear that Nigel wants to continue fighting “multinationals and the big merchant banks.” I would like Reform to promote an isolationist foreign policy position in defence of Britain’s national interest, rather than being content with the £12.8 billion spent on the Ukraine War and our continued involvement in that proxy war on behalf of American imperialists. Given the state of our public services, infrastructure and just about every facet of British society – I don’t think Reform should be tacitly in favour of 5 percent of GDP, an extra £80 billion, being put into military spending. Nor do I think we should be getting further involved in Middle-Eastern conflicts, something which we haven’t gained from since the Sykes-Picot Agreement. But that’s just me!
Reform UK does not get enough credit for being as broad a tent as it is. It’s open for internal dissent on a whole number of issues. It more closely resembles a National Government in waiting than it does a singular political party. With the help of brilliant figures like Zia Yusuf in prominence, Reform UK is primed for a kind of internal mass line policy pragmatism. I continue to support them irrespective of disagreements because that is the nature of the operation of a political party – you subordinate yourself as an individual to the collective will in order to achieve results. Perhaps right wing people today struggle with this premise because they have never understood the necessity of trade unions, or perhaps because they are too committed to their personal “freedom of speech”.
Primarily, my support for Reform UK is derived from my personal loyalty to, and trust in, Nigel Farage. Secondarily, it is derived from two assumptions on what would occur should Reform win a majority and Nigel Farage be made Prime Minister.
The first assumption is that in such a scenario, half of the seats in the House of Commons predominantly will have been granted to fresh faces and strangers to Westminster. That in and of itself would be an astonishing political event the likes of which this country has never seen before. I’m not really sure the current political and journalist elite can weather a moment that destabilising. All grip on the Overton window and news cycle would be lost and a whole new batch of political advisors, think tanks and journalists would gain patronage overnight. The old regime and its comfortable net of nepotism that is currently maintaining everyone’s position either disintegrates or is seriously diminished in that scenario –before any legislation has been passed.
The second assumption is that, rather than calling for another referendum on electoral reform, they would instead in 2029 run on Proportional Representation and implement it once in power. This would break up our ossified two-party system and put us more in line with the fluid, active democracies of continental Europe. It would mean concern over pressing issues such as demographic change due to mass immigration could never be sidelined again, with all views in the country granted the political representation they deserve.
For those reasons and more, I back Reform UK. It is a calculation, but it’s not as cynical as it used to be. Put simply, my gut tells me to be optimistic about the future of the country and to put my support behind the only party capable of damaging the two parties that have so thoroughly wrecked our beautiful country. We can still save it, we can still restore it, we can still give it a new era to be proud of – but Britain will never have that opportunity unless you put your support and trust in those best placed to gain power.
