An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Is Intellectually Serious Conservatism Dead?

There’s lots of pundit chatter on the topic these days…

Steven F. Hayward remembers William F. Buckley Jr. and wonders is conservatism brain-dead?

Today…the conservative movement has been thrown off balance, with the populists dominating and the intellectuals retreating and struggling to come up with new ideas. The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We’ve traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.

During the glory days of the conservative movement, from its ascent in the 1960s and ’70s to its success in Ronald Reagan’s era, there was a balance between the intellectuals, such as Buckley and Milton Friedman, and the activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, the leader of the New Right. The conservative political movement, for all its infighting, has always drawn deeply from the conservative intellectual movement, and this mix of populism and elitism troubled neither side.

Jacob Weisber remembers Irving Kristol as a savior of the American Right in the 60s and wonders, who will save it right from intellectual bankruptcy now?

In the heyday of Kristol’s influence in the 1980s, Republicans styled themselves the party of ideas. Whatever you thought of those ideas—challenging Soviet power, cutting taxes, passing power back to the states, ending affirmative action, cutting off welfare benefits to the undeserving poor—they represented a genuine attempt to remodel government around a coherent vision. Today, as during the pre-conservative stage of Kristol’s career in the 1950s, the Republican Party takes itself much more lightly. It has fallen back upon what Lionel Trilling once called “irritable mental gestures“—crankily rejecting liberal attempts to come to grips with the country’s problems without offering any plausible alternatives. Since the last election, it has been the brain-dead home of tea parties, pro-life amendments, and climate-change denial.

Peggy Noonan remembers William Safire and wonders who will keep America safe from the ranters?

I was once in a small joust with Roger Ailes about violence on television. I was worried about it. He responded, I paraphrase: But there’s comedy all over TV, and I don’t see people breaking out in jokes and laughter on the streets. True, I said, but depictions of violence are different. Violent images excite the unstable. Violent words do, too.

This is why, I think, so many people—I include, literally, every person I know, from all walks of life, and all ages—are worried that our elected leaders are not safe, that this overheated era will end in some violent act or acts.

Stop reading this and ask whoever’s nearby, “Do you find yourself worrying about President Obama’s safety?” I do not think you are going to get, “No.”

She calls on the new Elders, Left & Right, to do the job they once did. Who do you think those new Elders are? Where will they emerge from?

  • The Republicans and conservatives pandered to the lunatics for years because without their votes they knew they couldn't win. Now the lunatics have taken over the asylum and they can't win with them but they still can't win without them.
  • Leebot
    Good question and I'm curious to see what your respondents come up with. I've been wondering that myself as I enjoy reading well-reasoned and cogent viewpoints from a variety of sources. What's especially delightful are creative and original thinkers who do not follow a predictable path, who don't just regurgitate the talking points of their particular party and who hold Red and Blue feet to the fire equally. What saddens me though, is to see a conservative who seems like they're a more intellectual type thinker, embracing logic and reason, but then they start hewing ever more to the party line and then horrors (!) can't resist the slice-and-dice rhetoric. Disappointing.
  • Dr J
    I'll nominate George Will.
  • JSpencer
    ..."and who hold Red and Blue feet to the fire equally."

    Sure, hold them to the same standard by all means, just so long as we don't confuse the "equally" thing with the "false equivalence" thing. When we lose our ability to form accurate judgements in the service of artificial fairness, then we have lost all credibility. My point is this: Matters of degree DO matter. The possibility of bruised feelings worries me far less than does dispensing with intellectual honesty.





  • Almoderate
    Ah... Peggy Noonan...

    I don't always agree with her these days, but I sure as hell respect her so much more than some of today's pundits. Dare I use the word "classy"?
  • superdestroyer
    The problem with conservative intellectuals is that have found a way to overcome the incompetence, short sightedness, and failures of the Bush Administration. It is hard for conservatives to talk about more freedom, more individual responsibility, smaller government, or less spending after the Bush Administration did exactly the opposite. Why should conservative ever believe a politician who talks about shrinking the government or expanding individual freedom when the Bush Administration did exactly the opposite.

    Look at how consevatives refuse to use the idea of citizen lawsuits to limit the government even though it wound allow conservative activist to be as powerful as liberal activist. Look at how the conservative movement abandon the idea of separating government services from social engineering. The Bush Administration and their compassionate conservative lackies failed and conservatism will probably never overcome it.
  • JWindish
    Dr. J, George WIll was all alliterative this morning on This Week; too over the top for me. One person on the Right I'm interested to learn more about is named in the Hayward piece I linked above:
    Beck's distinctiveness and his potential contribution to conservatism can be summed up with one name: R.J. Pestritto. Pestritto is a young political scientist at Hillsdale College in Michigan whom Beck has had on his TV show several times, once for the entire hour discussing Woodrow Wilson and progressivism. He is among a handful of young conservative scholars, several of whom Beck has also featured, engaged in serious academic work critiquing the intellectual pedigree of modern liberalism. Their writing is often dense and difficult, but Beck not only reads it, he assigns it to his staff. "Beck asks me questions about Hegel, based on what he's read in my books," Pestritto told me. Pestritto is the kind of guest Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would never think of booking.

    I have to say I have also found some of what David Frum has said recently to be very interesting as well.
  • shannonlee
    To Windish: "engaged in serious academic work critiquing the intellectual pedigree of modern liberalism"

    The future of conservatism...attacking liberalism. Even the young conservatives concentrate on attacking liberalism as opposed to enhancing conservatism. I guess the Rep party will be the party of NO for another generation.

    Also, Beck is a raving lunatic. I don't understand why the right wing works so hard to try to legitimize the man. He is exactly what the Rep party doesn't need.
  • Leonidas
    Is intellectually serious liberalism dead?

    No and the same for Consevatism, just because you don't see Liberals and Conservatives filling blogs with deep thought doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thinkers don't post as much, those posting, writing, broadcasting, etc. generally don't think as much (some exceptions).

    Want more deep thoughts, pick your ideology and go to one of the following
    http://www.brook.edu/
    http://www.heritage.org/
    http://www.cato.org/

    Just be ready to spend more than 5 minutes looking at something.
  • StockBoySF
    I'm sure there are lots of good intellectual conservatives out there willing to engage in an exchange of ideas. However the conservative movement is strictly populist and rewards only loyalty. Not a difference of opinion. Under George W. Bush there was a biopsy of the intellectual conservative piece of the national conservative body in America. Unfortunately much of what remains of the conservative movement in America is the cancerous part. The biopsy took out the wrong piece.

    At least the intellectuals still exist, even if they are in a petri dish, where they do not have any influence. Perhaps some stem cells will join them and a new (and reasonable) conservative body will emerge for the betterment of America.
  • superdestroyer
    It does not matter what ideas, policy proposals, or theories that any conservative thinker comes up with because the Republican politicians will absolutely refuse to even try to implement them. The Republican politicians has demonstrated that they are incapable of implementing any idea. Do you really think that any conservative thinker proposed NCLB or the expansion of Medicare or country building in Asia.

    Between the RINO, incompetents, and hack politicians, there are no Repubicans capable of implimenting any conservative agenda. That is another reason why the U.S. will soon be a one party state. The hack Republican politicians refuse to think ab out the long term thus intellectuals are unimportant and think about implementation, thus policy is unimportant.
  • JSpencer
    Let's not let the electorate off the hook here. Without a market for intellectuals the vacuum will be filled with the likes of Beck and ilk. Our culture rewards baffoons and madmen, if we expect more intellectuals, there has to be more of a demand, which means we as a society need to raise our collective standards.
  • Silhouette
    "Is Intellectually Serious Conservatism Dead?"
    ******

    If you're referring to the far right, Yes, Yes it is.

    Next subject...




  • redbus
    I like Frum, having read one of his books back in the early days of GWB. Solid guy, with some real meat to his thinking.
  • JeffersonDavis
    Is that really a fair statement, Shannon?

    To disagree does not equal "attack".
    Young conservatives want small government, maintaining God in government, and personal accountability.
    Young liberals want bigger government, humanism, and a nanny-state.

    Those are diametrically opposed points of view.
    Can a liberal like a conservative's idea? Sure. But that never happens within intellectually serious schools because those in Congress are being too Partisan on both sides to listen.

    And for the um-teenth time..... Beck and the Tea Party movement are excercising libertarian ideals, not GOP. I am a democrat, and I too go to the tea parties. I'm a conservative, libertarian, democrat. Go figure.








  • JeffersonDavis
    And what of Pelosi and Reid? Are they listening to intellectuals? I mean other than former communists and radicals.

    As I've said countless times, I'm a democrat but I refuse to blame it all on the Republicans. In fact, if you look at my voting record, you'd see a pretty even amount in each column. If my elected representatives get in and represent me and my ideals and stay away from the partisan crap that ends up taking them downt he road of corruption, then I vote for them again. Presently, none of my representatives do that. Thus, they will NOT get my vote in 2010. And I've voted for them for the past 12 years.
  • The problem with expecting "intellectually serious" conservatism is that modern day conservatism has become an incoherent, internally inconsistent ideology.

    Think of the challenges that a conservative spokesman has in defending the various aspects of modern day conservatism. On one hand, he has to defend fiscal conservatives, who wish to decrease the size and scope of government. On the other hand, he has to defend social conservatives and foreign policy hawks, who wish to increase the size and scope of government in one form or the other.

    The three or four wings of modern day conservatism espouse ideologies that are contrary to one another. Even the most intelligent conservatives would have a difficult time trying to defend these various strands of conservatism without sounding self-contradictory.

    Of course, the same can be said about modern day liberalism or progressivism or democratic socialism or whatever term the left wishes to call itself these days. Modern day liberalism has also become an incoherent self-contradictory ideology. You can't argue for tolerance and civil liberties on one hand while defending anti-smoking laws and campus speech codes on the other without sounding inconsistent.
  • JSpencer
    "The problem with expecting "intellectually serious" conservatism is that modern day conservatism has become an incoherent, internally inconsistent ideology."

    ...not to mention morally on the blink.

  • Dr J
    The three or four wings of modern day conservatism espouse ideologies that are contrary to one another.

    Well sure, but the binary liberal/conservative classification was always a simplification. Fiscal conservatives can be intellectually serious even if they don't thump the Bible. In fact that probably boosts their intellectual credentials.
  • Rudi
    I enjoy reading two paleo-cons, even if I don't agree with all of their thoughts. Bacevich and Larison are two intellectual conservatives, but their criticisms of the populism and power grab by the likes of W and the Republican Congress went on deaf ears. Reading the nuaced thoughts of Larison is more challenging than the rants of a Hannity or Beck...
  • DLS
    "Is intellectually serious liberalism dead?"

    In fact, "intellectually serious liberalism" has been an oxymoronic phrase for decades, unlike the case with conservatism and "conservatism"-related ideological and political realms. Limbaugh and Beck are often geniuses and paragons of virtue compared to the other side. That's something that liberalism has failed to regain, along with its reputation (which is why the use of "liberal" is routinely avoided, including on this liberal Web site).

    Brookings at least is a carried-forward-1930s-to-1960s attempt at trying to maintain respectability in the intellectual as well as other senses.

    (Heritage, even for those of us who don't adhere to its flavor of politics, at least is coherent and fully functional, unlike the GOP, which is why I have cynically advocated that the GOP simply outsource its own functions and even its identity to Heritage.)
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC