The Saving Elephants Blog

Featuring original content on classical conservatism, current affairs, and everything in-between, these weekly blog posts will illustrate how the wisdom of the past can be applied to the challenges of today.  The blog is organized by the following categories: Conservative Values (taking a deep dive into specific conservative ideas), Competing Worldviews (comparing and contrasting conservatism with other worldviews), Trumpism (posts related to the Trump phenomenon), Elections (observations on upcoming and past elections), and Cornucopia (posts that don't fit in the previous categories).

Select a category from the menu, or read the most recent weekly post below:

What Conservatives Believe: Dwarfs Among Giants

“Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.” Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles* In our last post we discussed the belief conservatives hold that traditions should only be abolished with trepidation and much deliberation because they provide a foundation for a stable society. In this post I’d like to focus further on why conservatives have a peculiar reverence for ideas of the past. What is the primary reason we Americans can simultaneously enjoy a standard of living and maintain a national defense that is the envy of the world? Depen

What Conservatives Believe: The Right Side of History

“The thinking conservative understands that PERMANENCE and PROGRESSION must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.” Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles* Have you ever heard it said of someone that they were on the “wrong side of history”? Though the charge is ubiquitous in politics today it’s most often used by progressives accusing conservatives of being stuck in the past. Obama said of Mitt Romney during the 2012 Presidential debates: “When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.” When people talk about a “right” or “wrong” side to

Rebuttal: Donald Trump and the Pharisees

As some of my friends are wont to do these days, I have been asked to provide my thoughts on another article written in support of Trump. The piece in question is Donald Trump and the Pharisees written by James Riley. Riley’s post seems specifically directed at taking to task Max Lucado’s own now famous post Decency for President. Lucado’s post is famous because, for the first time, this renowned Christian author and pastor broke his political silence to criticize the Republican nominee (a decision that Riley equates with misplaced priorities “just like the people who killed Christ.”) This is a long piece, but it appears Riley’s basic argument can be boiled down to this: Vote for Trump be

Repost: Two Kinds of Voting, Two Kinds of Disruption, and Two Kinds of Unrighteousness

After the ashes settle in the wake of the 2016 elections, the Republican Party will be in dire need of fresh leadership among those who refused to buckle under the pressure to support an unfit and offensive authoritarian nominee. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse would be a strong contender to articulate a conservative vision to the next generation as evidenced by his open letter about "what voting means and about the kind of candidates we want in the future — so that this never happens again."

Rebuttal: Why Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice

This article has been making the rounds and a friend recently asked what I thought. The author makes some valid points and has obviously put a lot of thought into what he wants to say. His argument at first appears persuasive because it is so long and covers so much, which is why my rebuttal is also lengthy: “A good candidate with flaws” – Technically speaking, all good candidates are “a good candidate with flaws”. Romney and McCain had their flaws. So did Reagan, Lincoln, and Washington. No one’s disputing whether Trump has flaws, but whether or not he’s a “good candidate”. “There is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nati