It’s Friday, September 18. This is The Front Page, your daily window into the world of The Free Press—and our take on the world at large. Today: Is your pastor using ChatGPT? Hasan Piker says America is worse than al-Qaeda. Will these New York nuns ever get their money back? And much more.
But first: What’s gone wrong with the right?
One of the more disturbing trends in American political life is the way in which once fringe ideas are forcing their way into respectable conservative institutions. Erick Erickson, a rock-ribbed conservative and influential writer and radio host, is one of the people raising the alarm. He believes a network of wealthy donors, activists, intellectuals, and online personalities are pushing a radical vision for the American right, shaped by racial grievance, authoritarianism, and a rejection of liberal democracy. At the center of the movement is Charles Haywood, whose donations and writings have gained him influence within conservative organizations.
In his piece for us today, Erick traces those connections through think tanks, churches, and advocacy groups, and he tracks the spread of a new philosophy: No enemies to the right. Even Vice President J.D. Vance is implicated, he says.
This is a story about what happens when a movement stops policing its own boundaries, and instead treats its own longstanding principles as a problem to eradicate. If you want to understand what is happening on the right today, it’s a must-read.
—The Editors
EDITORS’ PICKS
There is a little-known philosophy shared by many of the tech executives who are trying to slow down AI, and its principles don’t always square with American values. It’s called effective altruism, and this week, Palantir chief technology officer Shyam Sankar argued that its focus on existential risks and the distant future could set back American progress. Sankar traces effective altruism from its intellectual roots to the rise of AI “doomerism,” and he argues that behind the warnings about extinction lies a much bigger question: Will elites get to choose how quickly America develops the most consequential technology of the 21st century, or will the public decide?
For more coverage of the debate about AI and the future of humanity, don’t miss Niall Ferguson on whether it’s AIpocalypse now, and Tyler Cowen on why the AI lab slowdown is not what it seems.
Sydney Sweeney’s beauty has apparently become a political problem. A sports-betting ad featuring the actress this month triggered a cultural freakout, including accusations of objectification, and a debate about how women are allowed to appear in public. But Caitlin Flanagan saw something more revealing behind the outrage. People have become determined to complicate the age-old fact that sex sells—or they insist that women apologize for it. The controversy over Sweeney, she writes, is really about whether we can still talk honestly about beauty, sex, and feminine power.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali took aim at one of the most fashionable ideas in Western commentary, recently boosted by The Economist: the notion that Islamic extremism and the European far right are essentially two symmetrical threats. But as Ayaan argues, this neat formulation ignores differences in ideology, history, and institutional power. The result is a kind of moral symmetry that may sound enlightened, but which overlooks uncomfortable realities about Islamism, immigration, and the future of Europe.
Patrick Clancy lost all three of his children, ran the Boston Marathon in their memory, and raised money for the hospital that cared for his son. Two years later, strangers watching his wife’s trial are scrutinizing that marathon, and have decided that a grieving father who can still run, smile, and function must be hiding something. Amanda Knox became an unwilling celebrity after being convicted and then exonerated of murder, and she understands Clancy’s nightmare. Once the internet decides you must be a monster, Amanda writes, every action you take becomes evidence against you.
