Perhaps the more objective question would be presented this way?
Why do some people, lacking the ability to identify factual data, pose questions while at the same time, lack the ability to articulate the answer to any question at all?
It is indeed a mystery. Historically, the specific conclusion is that answers are attributed to people who publish declaratives, whereas persons who lack the ability to identify facts, never advance beyond single sentence compositions in the form of interrogatives.
The neglect of this is as known, cared, or written.
Notwithstanding, the source presented to us, neglects to identify “good writers”.
Still, I can identify “good writers” and “conservatives”; but there is a singular qualification that I consider, and it is just this; Is it worthy of my efforts in communication, to present objective data to a person or persons who lack the ability to recognize objective data when it is presented?
Consider if you will, the philosophical discourse presented to the world by William Shakespeare in the 15th Century:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."-----Hamlet
Analysis therefore, presents a unique proposition:
Should insight be derived from persons who demonstrate the ability to compose a single sentence which presumes some basis in fact?
Alternatively, is it more reasonable to presume the insight of a “good writer” to be qualified by the ability to compose a lengthier exposition which is intended to enumerate relevant data as to the meaning of “good writer” or its contrary?
I propose that I be considered as a “good writer”. I wonder then, what criterion has been applied to obtain the conclusion that I am not a “good writer”. Is it not indeed the case, that a “good writer” Some relevant data is available online, as follows:
This page proposes 4 qualities of a good writer, which are presented, in brief, as follows:
(1) Clarity (2) Regularity (3) Risk (the ability to challenge yourself. (4) Persistence
In that regard, my response here is indeed, “persistent” My response offers Clarity, rather than unsupported assertion, and my expression does serve for an indication of Regularity.
Examined further, Risk is met by the willingness to expose name and reputation or analysis by critical thought and literary standards. Clarity is self evident, as the assertion embodied in the question is not so obscure by definition that complex explanations are required to recognize the subject.
It has not, by any objective standard of analysis, that there is any truth at all to the claim that no conservatives are “good writers”.
Therefore, what reason can be given that it is necessary for me to pursue naming “good writers” when I can assume that burden in regard to myself, or attribute “good writers” to even other members of the Quora Community. There are many “good writers” on Quora and these certainly can qualify as “conservatives”.
‘ I mean, 2 parties must be willing to identify comparable abilities meriting the characterization as “good writers” in the context of conservative conceptions. What is lacking in the question, is the self-evident qualification of a single interrogative as a knowledge criterion in any context, whether Conservative or otherwise. It is certainly the case that “good writer” must be determined by something more than a Literary Device such as the “Glittering Generality” offered in this question. It is a dubious proposition at best my friend, to propose that a singular Interrogative qualifies any individual to be regarded as authoritative as to what does, or does not, qualify anyone to be a “good writer”.
Finally, a particular insight which serves as a challenge, might be the observation in order to reasonably claim a knowledge of a “good writer” or “good writing” the party posing the question, should be able to identify and logically justify, “good” itself in a rational context, and thereby illustrate how the identification and logical justification warrant crediblity. .
As a conservative writer, I can cite William Shakespeare as a standard for “good writing” or Mark Twain, or Edward Feser, or Peter Kreeft, David Berlinski, David Horowitz, Mortimer J. Adler, David Marshall, or Morris Kline. As indicated, I can even offer myself in the acceptance of a challenge in the context of challenging myself. In what way can others demonstrate the ability to accept a challenge?
Contrary to popular opinion, I am not the South End of a Northbound Horse —- at least, not in the context of what any other person can prove…in writing, and this includes those engaging in conjecture about the nonexistence of conservative writers who are effective communicators.
As the proverb goes, “Denial ain’t a river in Egypt”.