Particularly since last November's election, there's been a lot of talk about a so-called "intellectual deterioration of the conservative movement." Cato Institutes Brink Lindsey really went off on a rant about it, saying:
Movement conservatism has regressed to something like the days before National Review was founded - back when Lionel Trilling could say that conservatism consisted of nothing but "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas."
Some who sympathize with libertarian and free-market causes are cheered by the anti-government rhetoric and Tea Party theatrics now increasingly in evidence on the right. Perhaps, they think, the old Goldwater-Reagan conservatism is making a comeback. Sorry, but I seriously doubt it. On the contrary, I worry that good free-market ideas are going to get tainted by association with an increasingly brutish identity politics for angry white guys and the women who love them.
In order to make gains for the cause of limited government, we need to convince smart people that we are right. We need to win the battle of ideas in the intellectual realm by making better arguments than our opponents, and we need to educate the public so that it is less susceptible over time to "rational irrationality."
Ouch!
Now, I doubt Brink lacks intellect, but he sure does lack intellectual honesty. The conservative movement was alive and well long before National Review. Here's a short list of important conservative intellectuals from The Time Before National Review:
- Francis Neilson
- Albert Jay Nock
- H.L. Mencken
- Robert A. Taft
- Russell Kirk
- Friedrich Hayek
- Ludwig von Mises
Is Brink Lindsey really saying that the thoughts of the above men, are nothing but "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas?" He can't be ... at least not with honesty. He then furthers his tantrum by lashing out at the Tea Party protests, labeling them "brutish identity politics for angry white guys."
Dude, you need to get out of the office ... take a breather ... get some sleep or something. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
I particularly liked this little tid-bit here:
In order to make gains for the cause of limited government, we need to convince smart people that we are right.
You're a smart guy Brink, maybe you should start by convincing yourself! Because as far as the rest of the "smart people" are concerned, they already do believe we're right!
There's a lot more of this nonsense out there, but really, I simply wanted to get to the fact that we already have legions of "smart people" on our side. The unfortunate thing is, too many of them get ignored.
An intellectual isn't someone who simply writes a good op-ed piece that can sell an idea, an intellectual not only illustrates their ideas, but challenges their audience to think as well.
So on that note, it seems more likely (to me) that if there really is any conservative "intellectual deterioration," it's because all the Cool Kids (like Lindsey) arbitrarily kicked them out.
If anyone out there wants to absorb some genuine intellect, just head over to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and start reading!
Creative Commons attribution 3.0
[adsense]
PS - I've also posted An American Classical Liberalism, and There Will Be (Hyper)Inflation from the Mises Institute already. Hopefully by doing this, I'll help expose more people to their extensive library of books, papers and videos concerning economics, politics and liberty ... but open some minds too.
I agree, Hannity is horrible! He’s an intellectual light-weight with no opinion of his own. I’m convinced he calls someone at the RNC to get approval, before he’ll even open his mouth to give an opinion.
He’s successful for sure, but for anyone who would compare his success to Limbaugh’s (as if that validates anything) … they might as well argue that Britney Spears is as artistically talented as Robert Plant too. Limbaugh’s an original. Hannity is just a product.
Like I said before, I like Limbaugh. Where I disagree with him though, is he can be (but not always) too apologetic for Republican politicos, and too light-weight in his economic analysis. But then again …
First and foremost, he’s a broadcaster, and a very good one at that, with the largest audience in talk radio history. So in other words, with Limbaugh, I don’t think he lacks intellect … he just understands and operates his business better than anyone else.
The whole point of my post was simply this: The conservative movement has a rich intellectual heritage, the majority of which is very different than what is considered “conservative” today. So if anyone genuinely cares about conservatism anymore, I suggest they start learning about all of it, instead of just the general claptrap they listen to and read today.
Buckley was an intellectual. National Review still has an intellectual bent. So does the Wall St. Journal. Fox, Washington Times, O’Reilly, Hannity…pathetic.
I agree that Keynesian economics are incredibly destructive. My blog is 90% about getting this message out. Alas, prior to Obama, W. Bush was our most Keynesian president since WWII.
Years ago, Limbaugh was a funny buffoon, who did a great job of making fun of liberal buffoonery. His songs and sketches were great. Then, he got pretentious and started doing analysis — which wouldn’t have been so bad save that his tedious arguments as to why it’s OK for Bush to do something when it was wrong for Clinton to do the same thing got really old.
But at least he’s better than Hannity.
Mises and Hayek were both influential prior to National Review. Mises published “The Theory of Money and Credit” way back in 1912. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” significantly influenced Winston Churchill. And as far as any given politicos speech pattern, it has nothing to do with intellectualism. Apples and oranges. I mean, when is the last time a college professor was elected president?
The “primary voice” is Limbaugh? How do you figure? Do you listen to him? It’s rare that I do, but I enjoy him when I get the chance. Rush is a professional broadcaster, and regardless of what anyone may think of his opinions, Limbaugh is the Muhammad Ali of the broadcast industry. He’s that good at it!
But that’s the thing … he’s a broadcaster, not an intellectual. For example, Thomas Sowell is an intellectual. As you can see, Limbaugh and Sowell are in different professional fields.
I may not agree with everything Rush says either (only a zombie can find another person with which they can be in total agreeance), but I’m here to tell you this – contrary to the Cool Kid Theory, Rush Limbaugh is a very valuable asset to the conservative movement.
Global warming is a myth, and no one should stand in favor of stomping on the freedoms of anyone in the name of such nonsense.
The “right” isn’t happy about the past expenditures of Republican politicos anymore than they are about the expenditures of Democrat politicos. Keynesian economics is not simply incorrect, it’s diabolically destructive!
Mighty weak, Carl
The global warming retort isn’t “ignore it and it will go away,” its ignore it, because there is nothing we can do about solar flaring, and the proposed solutions will unilaterally devastate our economy.
Tax cuts had to do with marginal income tax rates, not the SS payroll tax.
The right, left or even the Martians would be justified in criticizing the current budget approach because even with its rosy projections it leaves the annual deficit 50% higher upon return to 5% unemployment, a figure not experienced since WWII.
George Bush didn’t expect anyone to love us, he expected to kill them before they kill us.
And lastly, I’ll take mangled syntax over a masterly delivered “we are the ones we have been waiting for” nonsense anytime.
You do a fine job of setting up inane straw man arguments, but the only thing inane is that you believe the right is actually making the arguments you impute to it.
There have always been conservative intellectuals, but at times conservatism has downweighted its conservatives in favor of identifying liberals as being the “pointy-headed intellectuals.” This is one of those times.
I don’t know too much about the pre-NR days, but my recollection is that Mises and Hayek were fairly marginal players back then. Their fame has grown over time.
I can say that the post-Gingrich Republican party has gone overboard anti-intellectual. Actually, it began even before Gingrich’s fall. Look at the post-Reagan RP candidates. We had THREE who could not speak grammatically correct English (two Bushes and Dole). Reagan oscillated between eloquence and ignorance; Biden has nothing on Reagan for making gaffes.
Today, the primary voice of the Right is buffoon Rush Limbaugh. The Sarah Palin nomination a consciously orchestrated attempt to portray the Republican Party as the bubba party. Fox News and the Washington Times are embarassingly bad news sources. (so, admittedly, is Newsweek, but the Left also has the NY Times, which does contain actual news)
The responses to global warming have been primarily of the “ignore it and it will go away” variety. The calls for tax cuts during the Clinton years displayed laughable ignorance of the upcoming Social Security crash. Budget surpluses during times of prosperity are not “overtaxation.” They are prudence.
—-
Yes, the Left has plenty of idiocy, but you don’t get credibility in the attack when you get behind idiotic talking points and a naive Boy Scout in Chief who expects Arabs to suddenly love America after being shocked and awed.
The current president is applying circular reasoning economics (i.e., Keynesian economics) to get out of our current mess. The Right would have credibility criticizing his bankrupt America policies save that they backed up similar policies during the Bush and Reagan years.