Friedersdorf pretends to be engaged in an intellectual debate, but he is actually a rather crude propagandist. This can be seen by his straw dog arguments, false flags, co-option, and belittling word choice. Here is an example of all four.
“You'd think … "constitutional conservatism" is an end in itself. It isn't. Advancing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—that is the end. I, like many conservatives, believe that for the most part those ends are best advanced by working within the constitutional framework. Like many liberals, I also believe that slavery and Jim Crow were such abominations that, if the choices were to strictly construe the constitution or to free the slaves and end Jim Crow, to hell with originalist notions of states rights.”
Friedersdorf says, “it is not a fraud by design, it need not be incompatible with a prosperous society, and it need not destroy our liberty. That is so even if it is unconstitutional.”He is wrong. Dangerously wrong.
He states that constitutional conservatives believe “The truth is in the text, so why grapple with the world as it is?”
That is “the world as it is.”