[82 Card]

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.

I see parallels between the eugenicists and the work of Atlas and John Yoo. I see very bright ambitious people loosing touch with any sense of humanity. It's not a left-right thing. Pauling's origin was not the right wing. People styling themselves "left" have gone down similar roads. One of the things I have appreciated about Hoover in the past has been their efforts to out horrors when most of academia refused to look. It pains me to see Hoover associating with advocates of monstrous policies. This should not be used as an excuse to boot them off campus anymore than Stanford would consider getting rid of the Chemistry or education departments because of the eugenicists. However, Hoover has some work to do taking out the trash.

I don't see FOX, OWN, Newsmax and the whole Trump/McConnell universe as "conservative." Hoover does not need to be relevant with the radical right. In the past, Hoover has gone long periods without constant media attention. It would do better without the kind of attention it is now getting.

[82 Card]

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.

I see parallels between the eugenicists and the work of Atlas and John Yoo. I see very bright ambitious people loosing touch with any sense of humanity. It's not a left-right thing. Pauling's origin was not the right wing. People styling themselves "left" have gone down similar roads. One of the things I have appreciated about Hoover in the past has been their efforts to out horrors when most of academia refused to look. It pains me to see Hoover associating with advocates of monstrous policies. This should not be used as an excuse to boot them off campus anymore than Stanford would consider getting rid of the Chemistry or education departments because of the eugenicists. However, Hoover has some work to do taking out the trash.

I don't see FOX, OWN, Newsmax and the whole Trump/McConnell universe as "conservative." Hoover does not need to be relevant with the radical right. In the past, Hoover has gone long periods without constant media attention. It would do better without the kind of attention it is now getting.