Much like ultra-liberal logic. LOL

Not really, it can be very logical theoretically, it just falls to pieces when applied. Look at Marx for example, what he writes is very logical, yet when we see his theories put in practice its a disaster. Why? because Marx had a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Utopian ideas hit that snag every time. Where conservatism is superior to liberalism is its understanding of human nature and its faults. Conservatives know better than to expect perfection among people and plan to deal with imperfection much better.

Bring The Buckley himself back and put him on prime time tv. One month against Dancing with the Stars and Two and a half Men and he would be toast.

I doubt that Firing Line had a fraction of the ratings of The A Team or BJ and the Bear…

Much like ultra-liberal logic. LOL

If intellectual conservatism is a myth, then so is intellectual liberalism nd any other ism that partakes in politics. Buckley certainly would argue your assertion, and any of your favorite progressives would also disagree.

The primary political philosophy is pragmatism. Anything that keeps my party in power is what I believe runs our current system.

It is likely that, at some point, one of the four sub-groups, or perhaps a coalition of two, will successfully capture tha label “conservative.” At that point two things are likely to happen. First there will be an opportunity for establishing an intellectual basis for “conservatism”, though depending on which group subsumes the label it may be quite different from what some envision. Second, the two or three sub-groups left out will establish separate identities, though the four may still come together for electoral purposes and some selective policy purposes.

I would suggest that the left has many of the same deficiencies when it comes to a clear message. The problem you see is merely a reflection of the commercialization of political parties at the expense of common philosophy.

I'm in complete agreement with you on that one. It wrote about this in one of my previous comments. The lack of a coherent political ideology is a problem with both modern day conservatives and modern day liberals.

“{The fact that all four of these personalities consider themselves part of the conservative right but can't seem to agree on political philosophy (or in Beck's case, what he even believes in) is a testiment to my argument that modern day conservatism is an incoherent ideology.”

I would suggest that the left has many of the same deficiencies when it comes to a clear message. The problem you see is merely a reflection of the commercialization of political parties at the expense of common philosophy. George Bush junior did more to unify the Left than any grass roots efforts in the prior decade.

Parties sole purpose is to gain and keep power, and examples where both sides ignored their own ideological beliefs for a winning coalition abound. Moreover, the issues that bind these parties never seem to be resolved when that party gains power. The Right's super majority never translated into a ban on abortions in the same way the Democrats are failing to resolve true health care reform under their majority. Don't think for a moment that politicians will ever solve the problem that brought them to power.

The debate over ideology is different however; many intellectual progressives and conservatives see their beliefs as a mental discipline rather than a means to an end.

The problem for high brow bloggers is they operate under some wild notion of an egalitarian society.

Perhaps virtuous, but hardly realistic.

Bring The Buckley himself back and put him on prime time tv. One month against Dancing with the Stars and Two and a half Men and he would be toast.

Look how miserably Nader fares and he is the quintessential liberal…….far moreso than the Barackstar.

All the infighting among conservatives has been characterized as heated dispute over tactics. However, it's also a debate over what the conservative movement should stand for . . . it anything.

Curiously, Horowitz and Frum are both neoconservatives. In Horowitz's case, the neoconservative label is to be taken literally, as he is a former Marxist who drifted rightward on both foreign and domestic policy following the Vietnam War. In Frum's case, he is more of a moderate on domestic and a staunch hawk on foreign policy, with ties to both Richard Perle and the American Enterprise Institutes.

Levin, on the other hand, is more-or-less a Republican hack who only shouts people down with ad hominem attacks–and not just leftists. Liberals, moderates, libertarians–pretty much anyone who criticizes the Republican Party has been savaged by him. The fact that Levin has recently criticized Glenn Beck arises, I think, not because Glenn Beck is too extreme, but because Levin doubts that Glenn Beck is a true conservative.

Glenn Beck, as I've mentioned before, has a political philosophy that is difficult to classify, as it seems to change according to the prevailing winds. His understanding of political ideologies (or lack thereof) was best demonstrated in his interview with Katie Couric, in which he claimed “I was liberal when I was an alcoholic (as if there is some association between alcoholism and liberalism???).

The fact that all four of these personalities consider themselves part of the conservative right but can't seem to agree on political philosophy (or in Beck's case, what he even believes in) is a testiment to my argument that modern day conservatism is an incoherent ideology. Anyone who claimed to be anti-liberal can join the conservative movement nowaways, even if they don't have a clue about free market capitalism or the constitution (or in Levin's case, seems to have an understanding of these but chooses to look the other way whenever it serves his political ends).

Even I get the idea that the conservative product is more valuable to intellectuals than the branding based upon sixth grade lies and scare tactics. Buckley would turn over in his grave if he heard Beck's tripe was considered legitimate conservative advertising.