Recently, two progressive students approached me seeking guidance on entering the intellectual arena. I struggled to offer meaningful suggestions.
Their inquiry wasn’t unexpected: We were at a left-leaning conference focused on modernizing progressive frameworks for contemporary challenges. Both wanted to pursue ideological analysis professionally, while I’d come to host a discussion on political philosophy.
Practical pathways proved elusive. Traditional routes like progressive media internships or think tank roles emerged as options—yet these remain oversubscribed and underpaid. Academic routes appeared equally precarious, with faculty positions dwindling even before recent political assaults on higher education.
What’s glaringly absent are structured initiatives that bridge academic studies with practical engagement, connecting emerging thinkers with established intellectual leaders.
Had these youths leaned conservative, I might’ve suggested National Review’s fellowships for emerging writers or Claremont Institute’s three-week intensive program offering stipends, networking, and mentorship from influential right-wing thinkers.
On the Right
The intellectual currents shaping conservatism, analyzed by senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp.
Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Such programs exemplify how conservative networks nurture young talent through well-resourced initiatives. Ambitious graduates across the ideological spectrum—from libertarians to staunch Trump supporters—find multiple entry points into policy discourse.
My progressive interlocutors longed for equivalent opportunities, yet none exist. Where there should be bridges connecting academia to public intellectualism, progressives face a vacuum—a disparity increasingly favoring conservative influence.
This gap grants conservatives strategic advantages in shaping tomorrow’s political landscape.
Conservatives’ blueprint for youth development
While conservatives often exaggerate liberal dominance in intellectual spaces, data confirms left-leaning majorities in academia and media endure. This perception fueled postwar conservative organizing, exemplified by William F. Buckley’s critiques of academic liberalism and subsequent creation of alternative media and educational ecosystems.
Modern conservatives benefit from parallel institutions: students might attend ideologically-aligned colleges like Hillsdale, join legal networks like the Federalist Society, then transition to think tanks like Heritage—all while consuming conservative media ecosystems.
Pipeline initiatives foster personal connections between established figures and rising talent, creating vested interests in protégés’ advancement.
These systems thrive through intellectual stimulation rather than mere logistics. Participants debate foundational texts with peers equally passionate about political theory—breeding future influencers predisposed to conservative values.
Access matters: emerging conservatives mingle with prominent figures through fellowships. Journalist Nate Hochman, who shifted from liberal roots to working with DeSantis and Schmitt, described formative experiences dining and debating with conservative luminaries during fellowship programs.
“Suddenly you’re conversing with intellectual heroes over late-night drinks,” Hochman recalled. “Their genuine engagement makes you feel valued—laying groundwork for future professional support.”
Personal bonds forged through these programs translate into career opportunities. Organizations like Claremont—rooted in Harry Jaffa’s philosophical legacy—maintain spaces for big-picture ideological debates rarely matched on the left.
Progressives’ institutional complacency
Liberal intellectual infrastructure developed differently, banking on traditional pathways through mainstream academia and media. These channels emphasized professional development over ideological cultivation, framing themselves as neutral rather than purposefully progressive.
Consequently, liberal career pathways silo interests: political theorists pursue academia, policy experts specialize in technical fields—neglecting the integrative worldview-building central to conservative training. Right-wing frameworks teach ideology as connective tissue between principles and practice, whereas liberal institutions treat philosophy and policy as distinct domains.
While pragmatic approaches previously shielded liberalism from ideological rigidity, current challenges demand cohesive visions combating existential threats to democratic norms. Conservative radicals at Claremont and similar institutions fill this void uncontested, as progressives lack equivalent mechanisms for nurturing young ideological architects.
The right’s pipeline issues mirror liberalism’s ideological blind spot: failure to systematically groom next-generation thinkers capable of reimagining progressive principles for contemporary crises.
This analysis was adapted from the On the Right newsletter, published weekly. Subscribe here.
Source: vox.com
