Not sure if this is the correct subreddit, but I am sure I will be advised. Anyway, this was in the “Bagehot” column of The Economist recently, a publication whose writing style I have always admired: ——- in Reform UK, the traditionalists think their hour has arrived. James Orr, a Cambridge theologian and confidant of J.D. Vance, the American vice-president, is in charge of policy. Danny Kruger, a former Tory mp, leads its preparations for government. When in 2024 Nigel Farage, its leader, unveiled the staunchly traditionalist slogan, “Family, Community, Country”, it seemed, said Mr Orr, like a Damascene conversion of a Thatcherite libertarian. What the self-styled “trad bros” believe is in vogue with the populist right everywhere. Things took a wrong turn three centuries ago with Hobbes, Locke and the Enlightenment’s emphasis on individual liberty, writes Mr Kruger in “Covenant” (published in 2023). ——- I found this incredibly opaque and very difficult to read. In particular, the first sentence of the second paragraph was like a drystone wall that took me three attempts to hurdle. Can anyone explain what the writer did wrong? Or is it just me?   submitted by   /u/Ok-Push9899 [link]   [comments]