Today, I came across two articles that bring squarely to light one of the fundamental stumbling blocks to advancing conservatism today: the insatiable desire by some oft-described “intellectual” conservatives to dissect the supposed problems with the movement, none of which ever seem to involve the use of a mirror.
On National Review Online’s The Corner, I read post by John Derbyshire regarding a cover-story he wrote for The American Conservative entitled “How Radio Wrecks the Right.” Mildly frustrated by someone I normally I find enlightening and entertaining, I then turned to Ramesh Ponnuru’s article on NRO entitled “In Buckley’s Shadow.” While I like Ramesh, my frustration quickly turned to full-fledged aggravation.
To begin with, I consider the conservative movement to be much like the economy in its psychological weakness (recognizing weakness in the fundamentals, of course). Much like Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Congress et. al. – followed by Obama, Geithner, Congress, et. al. – screamed that the sky was falling and have perpetually talked down the economy, I believe conservatives – particularly those often described as the “intellectuals” of the movement – spend far too much time talking about how off-track the conservative movement is and what supposedly is wrong with said movement.
Now, take Derbyshire’s article entitled “How Radio Wrecks the Right.” Besides coming off as quite arrogant, I think he over-generalizes “conservative talk radio,” and places on them far too much blame for the Republican implosion. I will come back to the arrogance point, later.
It is not possible to lump Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham or any others in the same group. They have different styles and focus on different things. Some were more critical of the Bush Administration, some less – and on different topics and different days, ranging from Immigration (which Derbyshire acknowledges) and No Child Left Behind, to Harriet Miers and many other issues. I do wish they had been more consistently critical of massive government expansion, but this generalization is too broad and not completely accurate. But even if they were all just hacks for Republicans (a contention I do not fully accept), so what? Derbyshire attempts, oddly, to blame talk radio for our current state thusly:
“With reasons for gratitude duly noted, are there some downsides to conservative talk radio? Taking the conservative project as a whole—limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad—has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?
“They surely did.”
The reason for the Republican implosion is not talk radio. It is simply put, gutless Republican leadership – at all levels, from the Bush Administration on down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where it is by far the worst. Republicans stood for nothing – particularly not freedom or limited government. They tried constantly to divine what Americans wanted to hear instead of leading from principle and firm ideology. They shunned conservative ideals in favor of politically expedient ones. They sent staffers to the corners of rooms to come up with “consensus” solutions and legislation they “could be for.” They (with a very few notable exceptions) were – AND ARE – gutless buffoons, undeserving of the great honor bestowed upon them.
Then, I almost fell out of my chair when, in an article in which he criticizes conservative talk radio for “yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration,” Derbyshire actually quotes Fred Barnes. I like Fred, just as I generally like Derb and Ramesh… but Fred Barnes may well be the worst of all talking-point-reading offenders, parroting the Bush talking points constantly (note, the Harriet Miers episode was particularly egregious).
Now, to the point about arrogance. This brings me to the overlap with Ramesh’s piece – in which are a number of fine thoughts and observations, but which cannot help but come back to the haughty arrogance of “intellectualism,” this time put forth as pragmatism. I will start with this passage from Ramesh:
“When Buckley’s son, the novelist Christopher Buckley, endorsed Barack Obama in the presidential election, many saw it as a dramatic illustration of the conservative soul-searching that has marked the last year. Republican politicians are wondering whether it is any longer possible to appeal both to conservatives and to moderates, or whether conservatism has become an isolated subculture. Right-leaning thinkers are wondering where they went wrong, and whether the conservative movement even wants intellectuals on its side any more.”
First of all… Christopher Buckley’s endorsement of Obama means that 1) McCain was not appealing, 2) Buckley is not a conservative, and 3) that I therefore do not worry much about Christopher Buckley’s position on the matter. Now, I assume that some will say this “proves the point.” Nonsense. It is flat out impossible – TOTALLY impossible – to justify a vote for Obama and consider yourself anywhere in the same zipcode of conservatism. Not possible. So why should I spend time “soul-searching” because of something such a person did?
Second, this quote really does come across as somewhere between self-loathing and self-aggrandizing, or both. Ramesh thinks of himself – as do many of the NRO contributors – as one of the “intellectuals” whom he wonders here whether the conservative movement “even wants.” This is, simply put, arrogant. Derbyshire tries to suggest we need “middle brow” conservatism instead of the “low brow” version. I don’t even know what “middle brow” means other than a hat-tip to the word “middle,” which is the intellectuals’ word of the moment (along with moderate, bipartisan, etc…).
Then there is this:
The free-market Catholic Buckley collaborated with Sidney Hook, an atheist and socialist, on anti-Communist projects. The conservatives of today have smaller bridges to build. If Buckley could work with Hook, surely we can make the effort to reach out to environmentally conscious suburbanites and new Hispanic citizens.
Seriously? So WFB worked with someone with whom he disagreed vehemently on certain things to accomplish certain other things on which they agreed. GREAT. That you then make the leap to making the effort to “reach out to environmentally conscious suburbanites and new Hispanic citizens” is absurd. You conflate two totally different situations. I am HAPPY to work with those folks on any item on which we agree or halfway agree – as did WFB and Mr. Hook. If a Hispanic wants to work on anti-abortion issues, anti-drug-trafficking or any other issue on which we agree, GREAT! But that is not the same as “moderating” on the environment or on some supposedly hispanic issue (read: immigration).
This is all a little more than I can take.
I mean, come on… you have a platform… and you have a pen. People either buy your ideas or they do not. Ramesh often produces great ideas – and often not so good ones. That is fine. Derbyshire, also – and everyone else who opines regularly in that forum and others. That is how it goes.
So, then, what is the problem? Go forth and conquer. Make sure that something north of, what… a hundred thousand?… people know who you are and what you believe. Go start a new magazine, website or radio show. Or, increase NR’s readership such that your reach is far greater than it is. Convince the masses that your “intellectual” ideas are the winners – but that the talk radio guys are off base.
But stop already with the circular firing squad whereby you tout nothing but your own status as intellectual cloaked not-so-subtly behind an attack on those whose audience is 10 time the size of your own and whose presence represents one leg of a movement that is possibly only today only a one-legged stool in the first place.
And please stop piling the weight of random ideas rooted in feel-good populism rather than in fundamental principle on top of the wobbly stool… such as “solving traffic jams.”
Excellent post again guys
EagleWatcher Friday, February 27th at 12:57PM EST (link)I have to say the writing at RedState just gets better all the time. These are important discussions we should be having.
The Dems just elected the most far Left President in the history of the country. Can the pseudo-intellectuals and NRO show me where the Dems took any kind of “big-tent” position on any issue? Abortion? Big government? National security? Taxes? No! McCain was Mr Moderate and he got trounced. So should we pitch another moderate in 2012 based on how well it worked for us this time?
People want a real choice.
Adopt a Congressman
Soldiers’ Angels SarahPAC
Top Conservatives on Twitter
Ditto.
itrytobenice Friday, February 27th at 2:41PM EST (link)Writing like this is what makes RS great.
Thanks for your efforts Hogan.
The problem with America is stupidity. I’m not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don’t we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Dittos.
ColdWarrior Friday, February 27th at 5:20PM EST (link)Great post.
Hogan said:
The reason for the Republican implosion is not talk radio. It is simply put, gutless Republican leadership – at all levels, from the Bush Administration on down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where it is by far the worst. Republicans stood for nothing – particularly not freedom or limited government. They tried constantly to divine what Americans wanted to hear instead of leading from principle and firm ideology. They shunned conservative ideals in favor of politically expedient ones. They sent staffers to the corners of rooms to come up with “consensus” solutions and legislation they “could be for.” They (with a very few notable exceptions) were – AND ARE – gutless buffoons, undeserving of the great honor bestowed upon them.
<<<<<
This is exactly why everyone who considers themselves to be a conservative should join the Republican Party. Even here in Arizona, I’m learning (haven’t lived here too long), according to some long-time conservative party officers, we have far too many elected Republicans who simply don’t feel the need to stand on principle because there aren’t enough conservatives in the Party to have any meaningful impact on them.
Hogan also wrote:
First of all… Christopher Buckley’s endorsement of Obama means that 1) McCain was not appealing, 2) Buckley is not a conservative, and 3) that I therefore do not worry much about Christopher Buckley’s position on the matter. Now, I assume that some will say this “proves the point.” Nonsense. It is flat out impossible – TOTALLY impossible – to justify a vote for Obama and consider yourself anywhere in the same zipcode of conservatism. Not possible. So why should I spend time “soul-searching” because of something such a person did?
<<<<<
Rush today played a clip of Barney Frank essentially saying that all the voters shouldn’t be surprised by what Teleprompter Man-child (my term, not his) is doing regarding moving to socialism because that intention was made clear by Teleprompter Man-child when he was candidate Teleprompter Man-child. Rush’s commented something along the lines that the mainstream media did its best to hide from the American people what Teleprompter Man-child really believed — all they had to do was read his two autobiographies and a few of the books that dissected his beliefs. As Christopher Buckley apparently did not.
I had supposed a few months before the election that a whole bunch of voting blocs would overwhelmingly reject Teleprompter Man-child once they learned what he really believed as to the issues near and dear to their hearts. I was wrong. Since the election, those I know who voted for Teleprompter Man-child are all strangely quiet when the subject of politics enters a conversation. I get the sense they actually can’t believe that things are not more rosy right now with respect to the economy. And coming to the realization that maybe Teleprompter Man-child really is a socialist and maybe they should have paid a little bit more attention to his background and lack of real experience before entering the polling place.
On a happy note, about 250 people showed up today for the Tea Party at Tempe Town Lake hosted by the AZ chapter of Americans for Prosperity, and it was nice to be in their company.
American first, conservative second and Republican precinct committeeman by necessity.
http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com, so you can say, “I became a precinct committeeman before it was cool.”
“Elections have consequences, my friends.” — John McCain
Barney Frank: The people voted for socialism
ColdWarrior Friday, February 27th at 9:48PM EST (link)Here’s the exchange I mentioned above from Rush’s program today (copied from http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022709/content/01125114.guest.html ):
RUSH: Yes, ma’am. I agree a hundred percent. All right, here comes the Barney Frank sound bite. Thanks very much, Joanne. I appreciate it. Last night on Chris Matthews’ show, Barney Frank was the guest and Chris Matthews said, “What do you make of this big shift away from Bushism, if you will? Away from tax cuts, from people who make certain amount of money — and to begin a health fund, you know, national health care? What do you make of the big shift back to all this?”
FRANK: I think it’s what people voted for. There was no secret that this was going to happen. John McCain kept predicting that if Obama won, this would happen, and I think Obama felt an obligation to make an honest man out of John McCain — or to keep him honest. One John’s always been pretty honest. Of course the private sector is the engine to create wealth. But we also know, as Franklin Roosevelt knew and as others have known, that the private sector works best when it’s got a set of rules and a cooperative set of arrangements with the public sector.
RUSH: So during the campaign, remember now, the Democrats said that we –McCain, Joe the Plumber, we — were crazy for warning that Obama was a socialist! Now Barney Frank says everybody knew it? Everybody knew this was going to happen? I did! I guarantee you that a majority of people that voted for the Bamster did not know this was going to happen. He was talking tax cuts. He wasn’t talking about this. He was talking about lowering the sea levels four feet. He wasn’t talking all this detailed, massive spending. I “disagwee” with Mr. “Fwank” on this, folks.
American first, conservative second and Republican precinct committeeman by necessity.
http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com, so you can say, “I became a precinct committeeman before it was cool.”
“Elections have consequences, my friends.” — John McCain
Bull's Eye
vinnster2 Friday, February 27th at 1:04PM EST (link)Excellent post.
John Galt is alive and well.
Awesome Post....nt
Attack Mode Friday, February 27th at 2:02PM EST (link)“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
I sent Derbyshire a note yesterday
katesmith Friday, February 27th at 2:06PM EST (link)I mentioned much of what you did. You don’t mention Savage but Derby. does. Bunching the radio guys in one blob is a mistake. eg I cannot listen to Hannity–think he’s great, hard working, etc., I can’t take his show. Each of the guys is a totally different experience, the 2 most important being Savage and Rush (Savage has a failing mark for his Sarah Palin business, but aside from that he is very important). Chris Buckley is nothing more than a slimy person and has no reason to be mentioned anywhere. Derby does not mention the GOP gave us no candidate so we had a choice of Hemlock or drano, McCain being a liberal, global warming, cap and trade, pro-illegal alien person, a suicidal and homicidal platform. The Right and the GOP barely exist right now, so what is Derby’s point in kicking a dead carcass? It must be a pretty good one.
Give Dennis Prager
AKSteveB Friday, February 27th at 3:05PM EST (link)a listen too
Hell is other people - Sartre
Derbyshire's writing is the purest ...
skorrent1 Friday, February 27th at 2:42PM EST (link)Arrogant twaddle. “Low-brow conservativism”, indeed! What passes for “high-brow”, “intellectual” conservativism in his mind? The big-government conservatism of Bill Kristol and friends? He wants us to include “patriotism, realism abroad ” among conservative attributes, and then approvingly quotes the “blame America first” Ron Paul, whose idea of “realism abroad” is to curl up in our shell and hope the world will love us, or at least leave us alone. Paul’s criticism of financial affairs echoed both Bush and McCain, and Dr. No was no more successful than they in countering the blind optimism of Dodd and Frank. And what this has to do with “intellectual conservatism” only Derby knows.
If he is suggesting that the mantle of “intellectual conservatism” has fallen from the shoulders of WFB onto his son Chris, then he has a different definition of both words than do I.
hogan smacks Ponnuru
E Pluribus Unum Friday, February 27th at 3:11PM EST (link)In general I like RP’s writing and thinking. But he does have this fatal flaw, that he gets bogged down in philosophy and forgets what the core is.
I agree with you totally on this one, hogan. I’m tired of this act from the so-called conservative brain-trust. The day VDH leaves NR, I’m done with them.
Carthago delenda est
Do your conservative t-shirt shopping at EPU Gear. Save the conservative muse, save the world.
Excellent post, as others have already told you.
Steph C Friday, February 27th at 3:25PM EST (link)We should tell them to keep it up, though, and follow the other mags down the rabbit hole … no, not that rabbit hole… but one where the rabbits chew them up for nests.
What the brain trust is doing is pushing mainstream America further and further away. People are angry. Before they weren’t sure why they were angry but it’s become clearer every day and they’re gearing up for an explosion. The talking heads’ heads will be the first to roll.
“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics
Elitism is more important
TxCon Friday, February 27th at 3:45PM EST (link)to these guys than conservatism, it seems to me. These intellectuals dogged Palin, they dogged Jindal (who I would say is far more educated than any of these writers or TV people). To them it’s ok to be conservative as long as you’re from the east coast and do not associate with those “rubes” from the South or West.
No kidding
usrbinperl Friday, February 27th at 3:53PM EST (link)The day I refer to some barely 30 kid whose greatest accomplishment in life is obtaining a Bachelors in History and writing a book that sold approximately 17 copies as an “intellectual,” please just shoot me.
Excellent blog and excellent points ! nt
streetwise Friday, February 27th at 5:44PM EST (link)The Middle Brow vs low brow comment says all one needs to know
AceInTX Friday, February 27th at 7:00PM EST (link)basically he’s saying we need to stop appealing to the riff raff through talk radio and look to enlightened and educated idiots and effete snobs like themselves like themselves
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
So his best shots at talk radio quote Barnes and C Buckley instead of
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, February 27th at 8:21PM EST (link)talk radio hosts. figures
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Tell me about it nt
AceInTX Friday, February 27th at 11:09PM EST (link)heh
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
Once Again - These Guys Aren't Our Friends
IJB Friday, February 27th at 8:43PM EST (link)Anyone who thinks the vast majority of these guys who parade themselves around as “conservative intellectuals” are “our guys” is dead wrong.
Yeah, sure, there are a few of them, like Byron York, and possibly Bill Sammon, who may actually be our friends.
But most of them aren’t, and should be ignored somewhere between most and all of the time.
Explain Ragnar Danneskjöld's statement that Robin Hood is the one man he is out to destroy. What is the deeper moral meaning of his claim?
izoneguy Saturday, February 28th at 1:07AM EST (link)http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_contests_as_winner_2008
Some excerpts:
If theft from the rich and alms for the poor are held—by themselves, out of context—to be the moral good, then the resulting moral standard is hostile to wealth and success while encouraging misery and failure.
The idea of “stealing from the rich” omits the question of how the riches were obtained. It does not differentiate between wealth obtained by force and fraud and wealth produced by man’s individual effort.
If the productive are regarded as evil, it is not only the most brilliant productive minds who suffer: each man suffers according to the benefit he could have received from each producer.
Under such a system, neediness becomes an ideal, because the only way man can serve his interests is by not having earned that which he requires to survive. Therefore, one lives by dying.
In punishing the productive and rewarding those who fail to be productive, the symbol of Robin Hood stands in direct opposition to the proper ideal of justice.
The category of “the rich” necessarily includes the productive men whose work enhances each man’s ability to live. To deal with these thinking individuals with physical force is to undercut the source of life. Danneskjöld, through his role as a “reverse Robin Hood,” returns life to those who are capable of living it.
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson
Not for anti-intellectualism
Woody Saturday, February 28th at 12:29PM EST (link)The basic idea of “conservatism” is a philosophy and a world-view. There are rational arguments surrounding it that state why spending less on government will have a greater positive effect on the public good. These arguments have long historical roots in ethics and other philosophical fields.
While some folks may prefer a more “naive” approach, this runs the danger of being purely ideological as opposed to being rooted in sound arguments. Fiscal conservatism is not a “fundamental principle” (trying to create the greatest good for as many people as possible is) and when radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh spout things that this should be blindly accepted, it is simply preaching to the choir and not doing the GOP any good.
I think it s a time for some real soul searching. While a number of things caused the economic woes we’re in now, we do have Greenspan basically stating that free market principles failed and people without regulation won’t necessarily do things to sustain themselves.
mere semantics - and as for Greenspan, he failed
Mike gamecock DeVine Saturday, February 28th at 12:34PM EST (link)In his job by keeping int rates too low for too long. No conservative is for no regulation and the problem in the 2000s was too much regulation by quasi-private/govt entities like Fannie/Freddie distorting the market while lenders were coerced into proving they weren’t racists or discriminating against the poor by making bad loans lest they get hauled up to Congress for a show trial.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Exactly. Unlike the tech bubble of the late 90s,
6eorge Jetson Saturday, February 28th at 1:28PM EST (link)the housing bubble was government-induced. In both cases, way too many resources jumped on the bandwagon. In the tech bubble, the private market foolishness happened to be systematic (or highly correlated decision-making). In the housing bubble, the systematic risk incurred from the highly correlated decision-making of individuals that merely chased the short-term incentives put in place by our government, namely low interest rates and the guarantees issued by Fannie and Freddie, which were ultimately backstopped by the taxpayers.
And even where lenders weren’t “coerced” by the loosening of lending standards championed by Fannie, Freddie, and the left, these loosened standards sure provided the regulatory cover for financial institutions to bet on the housing market (via what were then deemed to be juicy interest rate spreads.) Putting on the juicy spread trade worked well in the early 2000s as housing prices increased. That is, until this left-advocated position went to hell after the affordable housing price bubble burst.
I am not suggesting "anti-intellectualism"
hogan Saturday, February 28th at 12:56PM EST (link)In fact, I believe the opposite. I believe that conservatives have long enjoyed - and continue to promote - vigorous debate on the issues. I do not believe Rush - or most other prominent talk radio hosts - spouts things that should be “blindly accepted.”
You state that “a fundamental principle” is not fiscal conservatism but rather something like “trying to create the greatest good for as many people as possible.” OK - while I don’t necessarily accept that on its face - let me just assume it for a moment.
I believe that freedom is essential to creating the greatest good for as many people as possible. I believe that personal responsibility is essential. I believe that Faith in God is essential. So, I go about life trying to promote those things.
The point of this post was to suggest - perhaps more respectfully than came across - that this notion that there is a group of conservatives, including talk radio hosts, who shun the intellectuals of the movement is just plain false, and is arrogant in its premise. It is suggesting that Rush is not an intellectual, or that those who espouse their fundamental beliefs in liberty, personal responsibility, Faith and basic freedom are somehow misguided dolts who are not factoring in the “complicated layers of socio-economic misfortune, economic realities and geopolitical forces at play” or some such nonsense that is best found in study groups at Harvard.
Alan Greenspan is a smart guy. Alan Greenspan has done a lot of great things. Alan Greenspan may very well have more to do with the current financial mess we are in than anyone else. He may not. Different people have different views… but it is fair to say that the absurdly low interest rates that we “enjoyed” for such a long time are at least one sizable part of the very big problem we have today. So if he is suggesting that “free market principles have failed,” then I would simply take issue with that characterization.
We need to start focusing simply on good ideas and stop worrying about who thinks what and why. I want people to actually listen to Rush and tell me what, specifically, they disagree with. Not his use of feminazi or “talent on loan from God,” and other tools he uses for entertainment. You either enjoy that or you don’t. Millions do. But tell me what - very specifically - he is standing for that you disagree with, and why. Seriously… have a real debate…
Agree with some but not all
Woody Saturday, February 28th at 3:52PM EST (link)I think there are logical arguments to be made for both fiscal conservatism as well as social government roles. I do not reduce such arguments about socio-economic misfortune or geopolitical forces as nonsense as you do. I also do not see eye to eye with you about the role of faith (nor did the elite Thomas Jefferson), but I will not make any claim that your view is nonsense just because I do not agree, because we will never reach mutual understanding that way. And, this is my main issue with Rush.
I think Rush polarizes, from the use of “feminazis” to his claims that Col. Powell primarily supported Obama because of race (as opposed to numerous other political reasons). I agree that some of this can be entertaining (such as the “talent on loan from God”), but entertainment isn’t exactly a logical or even intellectual argument. I do not look to entertainers (throw in Bill Maher, Bill O’Reilly, or Comedy Central) for political analysis. Millions also love McDonalds, but it does not mean it is nourishment.
I definitely agree with we should focus on good ideas, but if we don’t ask why someone believes something, then there isn’t really a debate other than “I’m right, you’re wrong”…
The issue is in defining "intellectual"
hogan Saturday, February 28th at 4:36PM EST (link)My only problem is that I believe too many people want to define “intellectual” in terms of trying to reach compromise or “understanding,” more than in offering well thought out reasoning for a particular belief or argument.
Thus, my point about things like “geopolitical forces” - what I mean is that OF COURSE there are geopolitical forces at play. Or, of course there is “socio-economic misfortune’ in the world. The problem is that you aren’t intellectual just because you talk about these kinds of things or the myriad other fancy terms people like to talk about.
Rush may polarize. Not sure I care - particularly if I believe he is correct. He is not negotiating anything - it is not his role. He simply expresses opinion. It is his role to discuss ideas, which he does every day for 3 hours. And I think he one of only a handful of people who are focused on the right things right now… and that is defeating Obama’s agenda, standing up for freedom and reminding America what made this the greatest nation on earth.