Why Conservatives on this Side of the Atlantic Lose

 

 

 

Why Conservatives on this Side of the Atlantic Lose

[drafted: August 26, 2026]

 

I am an expat U.S. citizen writing to you from Ireland. I doubt it will surprise you that here, in Ireland, and across the nearby islands of the East Atlantic archipelago (a/k/a the British Isles), there are few conservative newspapers, podcasters, and other pundits. Amongst the handful of conservative commentators is nothing like a spirit of cooperation. The larger number of them are prima donnas who will bad mouth other conservatives for no apparent reason at all. And for the crumbs of popularity and social media engagement, they are all too willing to engage in random anti-Americanism and TDS-driven commentary.

          Enter Laura Perrins—an Irish commentator, educated in University College Dublin & Cambridge University, member of the Irish and English bars, who had made a career in London, but who, now back in Ireland, writes a Substack: The West Brit. It is a daring title. ‘West Brit’ is a commonly used slur—directed by Irish nationalists against other Irish perceived as pro-British, or, at the very least, insufficiently Irish, politically or culturally, or both.

          On August 24, 2026, on her Substack, Ms Perrins entered the Lindsay Clancy culture war—firmly on side-Clancy. And she wants you to know that. Perrins wrote:

It was Ms Clancy’s deep, deep misfortunate to suffer serious side-effects from the cocktail of drugs she was prescribed by two practitioners who were not communicating with each other and never met her in person. Lindsay Clancy did not choose to suffer from serious side-effects that included 48 hours without sleep, the triggering of bi-polar disorder and perhaps hallucinations and psychosis.

No, I do not believe Lindsay Clancy chose, in a rational sense, to murder her three children, one by one, by her own hands.

I will make it simple. If Clancy was actually insane at the time she killed her three children, then under settled state law and consistent with prevailing law across the common law world, she should escape criminal punishment (although she might have to be committed until her sanity is (re)established). But if she was not insane, then she is a criminal, subject to the rigours of the law, as would be any other parent who killed their children. Perrins wrote: “Lindsay Clancy did not choose to suffer from serious side-effects that included 48 hours without sleep, the triggering of bi-polar disorder and perhaps hallucinations and psychosis.” Suffering from post-partum depression (assuming Clancy so suffered) does not amount to insanity. Drug-induced side-effects (assuming Clancy so suffered) does not amount to insanity. 48 hours without sleep (assuming Clancy so suffered) does not amount to insanity. And 100s of 1000s of persons (if not millions) suffer from bi-polar disorder—that, without more, does not amount to insanity. Hallucinations and psychosis—they do amount to insanity, but here, Perrins does not affirm that Clancy so suffered; instead, Perrins merely says “perhaps” Clancy was afflicted in that way. That’s a problem for Perrins. If Clancy was not suffering from hallucinations or a psychotic break, or both, then her killing her (and her husband’s) children amounts to murder, and as such, she should be prosecuted.

          I do not want to be overly harsh. There are so few journalists and commentators in these islands and in wider-Europe who hold anything akin to conservative sentiments, and for that reason, I would eschew making negative comments based on a single word. But … later in her Substack article, Perrins goes on to say:

 

Do you think this [case against Clancy] is likely or logical?

Or do you think that her postpartum depression, followed by the cocktail of drugs and negligent care, her declining mental state, a psychiatric emergency, her insomnia, anxiety, bi-polar, and perhaps mania, that she was having hallucinations and on that terrible day she did indeed hear a ‘male commanding voice’ telling her to kill her children and herself. That this was her only way out. (emphasis added)

Again, “perhaps” rears its ugly head—why? Everything that comes before “perhaps” is unfortunate—but those conditions do not, without more, support a finding of “insanity.” What follows Perrins’ use of “perhaps” if established to a jury could reasonably support an insanity defence—if and only if it happened. So why the “perhaps”?

          Perrins repeated use of “perhaps” undercuts all her efforts to persuade the reasonable reader that Clancy is innocent. And that is as it should be. Because the real question is a difficult one. There are two possibilities. One possibility is that Clancy was insane at the time she did the deed. The other possibility is that she was not insane at that time, and at that time and since, she pretended to be insane to escape punishment. That’s essentially going to be a determination for the jury, under guidance from a judge, after hearing from witnesses and experts and arguments from the state’s counsel and her own. In regard to the jury’s making that determination, Clancy will have all the traditional legal protections, including: a unanimous jury, the presumption of innocence, the burden of persuasion placed on the prosecution, and every element of the charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Today is August 26, 2026—the presentation of evidence and argument is yet to conclude. So why is Perrins convinced of Clancy’s evidence? Perrins makes several arguments, but they are each thoroughly unconvincing. In saying that, I am not asserting Clancy’s guilt—I’ll leave that question to the jury charged with hearing all the evidence. What I am criticising is Perrins’ putting forward arguments and evidence in her Substack that have little persuasive force.

First, Perrins reports that Clancy’s killing her children was a complete break from her prior conduct, and that she had no recognized priors. That’s true, but that is equally true for every mass murderer’s first murder. We all have good records until we are caught doing something wrong. Until a wrongdoer is caught, many will continue to believe the wrongdoer is virtuous. Second, Perrins reports that Clancy’s family, including in-laws, saw her as a good, dedicated mother. And that’s true too, but it is not convincing. The question is: Were these people on notice of red flags? And having reached this juncture, are these people now afraid to report and to admit what (if anything) they had noticed in the past but chose not to act upon? Third, Perrins points to the fact that Clancy injured herself in her failed suicide attempt and is now partially paralyzed. Perrins sees this as evidence of a psychotic break. And it could be. It could also be the outcome of a crime that failed to play out as planned. Our jails are full of people who miscalculated being caught and who miscalculated the injuries they’d cause and suffer from during the commission of their crimes. Poor planning is not evidence of insanity or innocence. Finally, Perrins reports that Clancy worked in a hospital as a labour and delivery nurse. That’s all true too. Hospitals are full of patients who are totally dependent on staff—to be educated and to be moral. But not all staff are. For those committed to do wrong, hospitals are places where the dependent can be murdered almost with impunity, and the skills taught to save lives can be misused to accomplish evil ends that terminate lives. All know this—at least all know this who remember the trials of Lucy Letby, a British neonatal nurse, which ended in 2023 and in 2024—not so long ago. Perrins’ article is devoid of any reference to Letby, and that’s a tell.

And that’s also the heart of the dispute here. Perrins cannot bring herself to imagine the possibility that some persons, and in particular some women and some nurses, may actively choose to do evil. And the many, many men who have heard the sorts of arguments advanced by Perrins and others on behalf of Clancy know—we know—to a 100% certainty, that those types of arguments are not likely to be advanced (and, concomitantly, much less likely to be advanced successfully) in defence of a man with an arguably similar (alleged) psychotic break. In comparable circumstances, a man (or father) would be seen by a jury (even if composed entirely of men) as just as a stone-cold killer. More importantly, neither would men’s organisations nor male-focused media nor men’s marches cry, scream, or carry placards on behalf of such male defendants. For better or worse, Clancy’s case is part of the culture war. Ms Perrins’ not seeing what many, many men do see comes across as, at best, ill informed, and at worst, as cowardly.

There are far too many conservative politicians and commentators who lack spines. They are afraid to stand tall, and they will retreat even before being criticized. Their worst nightmare is an accusation directed against them for being racists, and then, a close number two—being called misogynists, and finally, being characterised as heartless, compassionless conservatives. Surrender is their only true creed. Here, on this side of the Atlantic, all too many conservatives have all these defects, supplemented with additional helpings of Anti-Americanism and TDS. Remember Roger Scruton and The New Statesman? In these islands, to be a conservative, is not so much a refusal to die on this or any hill, as it is a continuing refusal to take any stand, on any issue, at any time. Surrender is not put forward as a pragmatic response to a public beyond persuasion, or even as a recognition of the political realities of a fallen (political) world, but embraced as a (if not the only) guiding (political) principle. This is why conservatives lose—even, here, in the land of Burke. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Associate Professor

Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology

Scoil an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad

(academic affiliation for identification purposes only)

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Why Conservatives on this Side of the Atlantic Lose,’ New Reform Club (Aug. 28, 2026, 11:16 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/08/why-conservatives-on-this-side-of.html>;