[Farm93]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

Accomplished folks at Stanford reaching beyond their area of expertise into pseudoscience with awful results is not peculiar to Hoover. From my time on campus, there was Linus Pauling, by 1980, more known for Vitamin C and eugenics than his areas of accomplishment. Long before my time, there were a series of big names that wondered into eugenics. See Stanford’s history with eugenics.

Eugenics creates an odd example for his discussion as the University has been working diligently to lower the on campus profile of those figures.  I am not sure that's where you intended to bring the Hoover Institution example.

For all of my time as a Stanford alum I have viewed the Hoover Institution presenting a conservative view as a positive thing.   IMHO it served as an excellent counter balance to the idea that everyone and everything in the SF Bay Area, or at least at Stanford, was too progressive, too liberal.

However, in the last decade some conservative positions have embraced alternative facts and conspiracy theories, friendly words for a fictional world view.  It may become difficult for a conservative think tank to continue to have a meaningful voice in that emerging ecosystem while still using available facts and data.  I certainly hope the Hoover Institution can continue to present a conservative, but reasoned, political view.  Though I worry about how the Hoover Institution remains relevant if prominent conservatives need to appeal to audiences fond of OAN, Newsmax and Parler.

[Farm93]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

Accomplished folks at Stanford reaching beyond their area of expertise into pseudoscience with awful results is not peculiar to Hoover. From my time on campus, there was Linus Pauling, by 1980, more known for Vitamin C and eugenics than his areas of accomplishment. Long before my time, there were a series of big names that wondered into eugenics. See Stanford’s history with eugenics.

Eugenics creates an odd example for his discussion as the University has been working diligently to lower the on campus profile of those figures.  I am not sure that's where you intended to bring the Hoover Institution example.

For all of my time as a Stanford alum I have viewed the Hoover Institution presenting a conservative view as a positive thing.   IMHO it served as an excellent counter balance to the idea that everyone and everything in the SF Bay Area, or at least at Stanford, was too progressive, too liberal.

However, in the last decade some conservative positions have embraced alternative facts and conspiracy theories, friendly words for a fictional world view.  It may become difficult for a conservative think tank to continue to have a meaningful voice in that emerging ecosystem while still using available facts and data.  I certainly hope the Hoover Institution can continue to present a conservative, but reasoned, political view.  Though I worry about how the Hoover Institution remains relevant if prominent conservatives need to appeal to audiences fond of OAN, Newsmax and Parler.