Incoming Feed Items

In 1989, Justice Antonin Scalia cast the deciding vote to overturn the conviction of Gregory Lee Johnson, who was arrested and found guilty of violating a Texas statute after he burned the American flag outside the Republican National Convention. The author of the Court’s 5-4 opinion was Justice William Brennan, the leading liberal and advocate for the “living Constitution” on the Supreme Court. For conservatives, it was one of the two most widely criticized votes of Justice Scalia’s illustrious career (the other being his vote refusing to recognize that parents have a natural, constitutionally protected right to direct the upbringing of their children).

But the opinion by Justice Brennan, which Justice Scalia joined, is not as absolute as it has subsequently been portrayed.

It specifically held that Texas violated the First Amendment by prosecuting Johnson “in these circumstances”—that is, expressive conduct or symbolic speech as part of a political protest that was not designed to incite a crowd (nor did it have that effect). It also held that the “government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word.” Only laws directed at restricting the communicative nature of expressive conduct implicate the First Amendment, and even then they can be upheld for a valid governmental interest.

In this country we stand at a crossroads—as a movement, as a party, and as a nation. The world is not what it was a generation ago, nor is America’s place in the world. The unipolar moment is over. And yet many in the GOP seek to claim the mantle of America First while continuing the same failed adventurism of the past. National Conservatism as a movement agrees that these people and ideas must be stopped. But we have failed to check their influence in the party in large part because we have not offered an alternative that meets the real threats to American security and balances national interest, the deterrent effect, industrial capability, and political will.

In a piece that was recently published in the National Interest, I sketched out a framework for what a real America First foreign policy looks like. I called for developing a doctrine that I called “Prioritized Deterrence.” That essay was the first step toward spelling out a set of foreign policy principles that can unite National Conservatives and set the agenda for the Republican Party for the next generation.

When Pauline Hanson declared in her infamous maiden speech in the 1990s, “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate,” it was a statement driven by fear and division. I remember the impact it had—not just on public discourse, but on the lived experience of Asian communities.

The response was not defiance, but caution. People stuck together for safety, retreating into familiar cultural spaces. Ironically, this reaction reinforced the very stereotype she invoked: communities appearing insular, not out of unwillingness to integrate, but out of a need for protection.

This past weekend offered a powerful contrast between two visions of Australia. On one hand, the Premier’s Multicultural Gala Dinner was a vibrant celebration of diversity. Hundreds of people from across ethnic communities came together to share meals, dance, and connect. The evening began with a moving Welcome to Country from Uncle Shane Charles, grounding the event in respect for First Nations people.

It was a reminder that the success of multiculturalism in Australia is not by accident—it is the result of decades of deliberate effort, relationship-building, and trust. It is a project built by communities, advocates, and policymakers who believed in a more inclusive society.

I see Gabe Schoenfeld has attacked me again. I usually try to let these things go, but sometimes a little context is demanded.

The piece is, as usual, filled with bile and unrelieved nastiness. What Gabe leaves out is that we used to be friends, or at least friendly acquaintances. We met through Manhattan conservative circles, where we had many friends in common, including the late, great Fred Siegel (whom I am confident would be distressed at what Gabe has become).

Gabe snidely writes that one should not pity me. On this we agree. I do not need or deserve any pity. My life has gone and is going quite well.

Not so for Gabe. His first disappointment (that I know of) came when he finished a PhD in Soviet studies…just as the Berlin Wall fell. Like many disappointed academics, he bounced around the nonprofit sector until landing as an editor at Commentary. This was the Neil Kozodoy Commentary, when the magazine was good. I wrote for them back in the day. Gabe did not edit me; Gary Rosen did. But even then, Gabe and I were friendly enough.

Jaison R. Abel, Richard Deitz, Natalia Emanuel, Ben Hyman, and Nick Montalbano

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Matt and Elinor discuss the Australia’s latest economic growth data, Trump’s threat to hit countries with digital taxes with extra tariffs, and this week’s political fight over aged care.

Early bird tickets for our Revenue Summit at Parliament House in Canberra – Hon. Steven Miles MP, Senator David Pocock, Kate Chaney MP, Greg Jericho and more – are available now.  You can buy tickets for the early bird price of $99 – available for a limited time only.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available to pre-order now via the Australia Institute website.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 4 September 2025.

Host: Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute // @mattgrudnoff

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

At this moment in history, we face a choice: Will America’s second 250 years be greater than its first 250 years?

If we have the courage, the discipline, and the vision, I believe this generation can lay a foundation of renewal so deep that our descendants will look back on us with gratitude, just as we look back on the Founders. And the most important choice we can make together to ensure that the next 250 years of America are greater is to focus—through our laws, our labors, our loves—on making the family the centerpiece of everything we do.

No nation in human history has entrusted so much of its future to the virtue and vitality of its families as America. The great empires of Europe—France, Spain, and England—placed their hopes in armies and palaces. The stability of their regimes rested on the health of a king’s bloodline and the strength of his throne.

But America bet her future on something humbler, yet infinitely stronger: not the pomp of royalty, not the machinery of a permanent bureaucracy, not the shifting will of mobs. We staked it all on what G.K. Chesterton called “the most extraordinary thing in the world”: an ordinary man and an ordinary woman, bound in covenant love, passing on their faith and virtue to their ordinary children.

We staked it all on the American family.

There can be a new era of democratic innovation for the federal NDP as it rebuilds from the ruin of the 2025 general election. Its upcoming federal leadership race, moreover, presents this chance to model the democratic transformation that the party ostensibly values. Nearly a decade ago, the combined federal and provincial NDP riding association that I was once a part of put forward my policy resolution to support “participatory budgeting;” a democratic process whereby citizens decide how to spend portions of a budget on capital and operational projects. These organizing efforts never became a policy priority for the party. Today, the federal NDP has an opportunity to use the leadership race to support in-person regional participatory assemblies and open-source digital platforms, such as pol.is or decidim, to amplify the voices of citizens. Democratic renewal of institutions like political parties, therefore, involves democratizing election platform development and internal party decision making structures. 

My colleague and friend Andrew Beck has written a useful and provocative essay about a subject that has been simmering in American politics for decades. The dual accelerants of events and ideology brought that simmer to a boil in 2020. The disputed question remains open: What is an American? It’s impossible to answer that question without its predicate: What is America? If we answer those questions, we are led to the primordial question of politics, which concerns justice: Are America and her institutions good?

These are the fundamental queries at the heart of the assimilation debate. What are we assimilating new Americans to—and why? The Right remains divided on these issues, as it has in different and shifting ways in the postwar era. Until the Left moderates on the topics of citizenship, assimilation, and civilizational stability, it will be up to the American Right (and its fellow travelers across the Atlantic) to have a rational argument about the preservation of American and Western civilization.

Creedal Mutations

By the grace of God, I was carried out of Somalia’s darkness and into the light of freedom. When I became an American citizen, I did so knowing exactly what it meant. I understood that renouncing one citizenship for another isn’t an exchange of passports, but a solemn vow to live by the principles my new country strives to uphold.

So when I am asked where I am from, I answer without hesitation: America. We are not defined by where we begin, but by where we choose to stand and belong. And from that belonging—rooted in my past, yet spoken as an American—I say Senator Ted Cruz is right about Somaliland. When he calls for U.S. recognition, he isn’t indulging in nostalgia or sentiment. He’s stating a fact.

For 34 years, Somaliland has governed itself. It holds elections that matter and maintains an army that defends its borders. It collects taxes and delivers services, and it issues passports that are used across the world. By every measure of sovereignty, Somaliland is a state. What it lacks isn’t legitimacy, but acknowledgment. And the time for acknowledgement is now.

I know this not as an abstract argument, but as lived experience.

Beverly Hirtle and Matthew Plosser 

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

A Grade of AI | The Roundtable Ep. 283

Copenhagen Business School, 11-12 September


More “Announcement
Finance and Society conference 2025”

On money and banking Ted Trainer Much of the last ERA Review was on money and the banking system, but I do not think that…

On this episode of Follow the Money, Clive Marshall, former CEO of the Press Association (UK), and Emma Cowdroy, Acting CEO of Australian Associated Press, join Australia Institute Executive Director Richard Denniss to discuss artificial intelligence and the news.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available now via the Australia Institute website.

Keep up with everything that’s happening at the Australia Institute by subscribing to our newsletter.

Guest: Clive Marshall, former Chief Executive Officer, The Press Association (UK)

Guest: Emma Cowdroy, Acting CEO, Australian Associated Press

Host: Richard Denniss, Executive Director, the Australia Institute // @richarddenniss

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Media and Democracy, the Australia Institute

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

“I've witnessed a lot of war and in that there is nothing that compares to the level of destruction, the level of [dis]proportionality, the absolute disregard for Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law and considerations of the laws of armed conflict. [Nowhere] in my career… have I witnessed anything close to the absolute escalation of violence and [unnecessary] force I witnessed in Gaza.”

As a Palestinian scientist and ecologist deeply rooted in Palestine’s landscapes and communities, I bear witness to a catastrophic unfolding—a systematic assault on our ecosystems, livelihoods, and survival. This assault is not collateral damage in conflict; it is ecocide.

“Ecocide” refers to severe, widespread, and long-term environmental destruction that undermines the ability of inhabitants to enjoy and sustain life. Although Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute recognizes wartime environmental harm as a war crime, this threshold has rarely been met or invoked in practice. Advocates now call for ecocide recognition as the “fifth international crime against peace,” to hold perpetrators to account in both war and peace contexts. In Palestine, environmental degradation is not incidental—it is intentional, protracted, and aimed at breaking the eco-sumud (ecological steadfastness) of the Palestinian people.

Since October 2023, Gaza’s environment has suffered nearly unimaginable devastation: