Associate Vice President, U.S. Strategies & Communications @RFInstitute

Washington, DC
Joined July 2017
A few days ago, I posted a brief statement of what I, as a conservative, seek to conserve. The first item on the list was what I regard as the foundational principle of all sound morality: the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family. Everything else I believe about ethics and politics in one way or another stands upon or presupposes that principle. Any form of “conservatism” (or “liberalism”) that denies it in principle or transgresses it in practice is alien to me. That is why I believe that the conservative movement, though it can and should be a broad tent, simply cannot include or accommodate white supremacists or racists of any type, antisemites, eugenicists, or others whose ideologies are incompatible with belief in the inherent and equal dignity of all. As a conservative, I say that there is no place for such people in our movement. So, while I understand and appreciate that politics is about “adding and multiplying, not subtracting and dividing,” and though I welcome conservatives representing a range of viewpoints on a wide swath of issues, I will not—I cannot—accept the idea that we have “no enemies to the right.” The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots, must not be welcomed into our movement or treated as normal or acceptable. Is this a call for “cancelation”? No. It’s a reminder that we conservatives stand for something—or should stand for something. We have core principles that are not negotiable. I am—notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—committed to the principle of free speech for everybody, including people with whom I profoundly disagree even on the most important issues, indeed, including racists and other bigots. But defending their rights does not mean allying with them, welcoming them into our movement, or treating them as representing legitimate forms of conservatism. I am also—again, notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—willing to engage people with whom I deeply disagree, so long as they are honest and are willing to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse, a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments. (It is pointless to engage bad faith actors, charlatans, and con men.) But, again, engaging and forcefully arguing against people who deny the inherent and equal dignity of all is one thing, welcoming them into the movement or treating their ideas and ideologies as representing legitimate forms of conservatism is something entirely different. Let me be plain. American conservatism today faces a challenge. That challenge comes from those who reject our commitment to inherent and equal human dignity. They are seeking acceptance in the conservative movement and its institutions, and they do so with the ultimate objective of transforming them by undermining that commitment. They openly preach white supremacy and the hatred of Jews, among other noxious ideas. They no longer feel the need even to try to hide their bigotry. It is incumbent upon those of us who maintain the “ancient faith” (to borrow a phrase from Lincoln) to make clear to friend and foe alike that we will not permit the integrity of our movement and its institutions to be compromised. We will not treat its foundational principle of inherent and equal human dignity as optional. On the contrary, we will insist on it, defending and advancing it with renewed dedication.
957
1,154
393
6,012
2,001,399
Nathan Berkeley retweeted
Eleven years since the #YazidiGenocide began. Hundreds of women and girls are still missing. Families continue to live in camps, waiting to return home. The #Yazidis are resilient, but they need our help: Help bring justice. Help bring the girls home. #HumanRights #FoRB #IRFBA
3
12
17
1,439
I had the opportunity recently to speak on the podcast of a tremendous organization — @NapaLegal — on challenges to religious freedom in states that legalize physician assisted suicide. It is available here: youtu.be/YVm7jcYraNQ.
1
2
4
303
Faithful Christian universities do not have answers to all questions, and they are not perfect places with perfect people, but they are able to engage a number of big questions about human nature, human flourishing, our world, and the God who created them in ways that other kinds of schools simply cannot. Nathan Berkeley @nberkeley5
1
1
1
3
373
My latest in @PublicDiscourse on U.S. v. Skrmetti in which “Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson appear blind to the chasm btw medical interventions that foster natural human development & those that frustrate that development. The consequent blind spots & errors are enormous.”
1
104
Nathan Berkeley retweeted
SCOTUS has granted cert in this important @BECKETlaw case, in which the Wisconsin Sup Ct found that Catholic Charities isn’t religious enough to qualify for a religious exemption. As @nberkeley5 and I wrote for @NRO, this is a dangerous precedent now ripe for correction. nationalreview.com/2024/03/w…
2
6
258
The assisted suicide debate in the UK has been startling. Graham Tomlin, former Bishop of Kensington, wrote what I think is an excellent piece on the matter for @spectator: spectator.co.uk/article/why-….
26
If you tell the truth about Clinton/Biden/Harris, their partisans say, "See! He's for Trump." If you tell the truth about Trump, his loyalists say, "See! He's for [the Democrat]." But what we need, especially in these worrying times, is for people to tell the truth ... period.
43
158
14
1,003
40,056
NEW ARTICLE: "Celebrating America’s Independence and First Freedom" by @nberkeley5 | READ: religiousfreedominstitute.or… #IndependenceDay2024 #4thofJuly
1
2
2
182
“A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision puts the state on a collision course with the First Amendment, with troubling consequences for ministries -- even churches -- engaged in charitable work there.”
Ministries in Wisconsin are now in danger of losing religious exemptions that the law plainly affords them. | @RFInstitute's Ian Speir & @nberkeley5 trib.al/2xi3Vqg
1
1
286
Very well said, @MikeCosper. It should go without saying that the baseline demand of every group, regardless of their capacity to express it, is to have their life preserved. Rev. Lambert may have good motives, but his reasoning is outrageously deficient. We live in strange days.
This quoted post is unavailable.
1
98