Intellectual conservatism, RIP

[ejames01]

Who pays attention to Thomas Sowell or Mark Levin. No one is saying that they don't exist. The problem is that no one cares about them.

The only people that get attention are the entertainers.

Okay, read it. Flatly disagree, and feel the author writes from the viewpoint of an elitist rather than a realist.
Intellectual conservatism dead?
Tell that to Thomas Sowell.
Tell it to the Mark Levin who wrote "Liberty and Tyranny" rather than his alter-ego making the shrill pitch on AM radio.
It ain't dead..it's been overshadowed by "neo-cons" for a few decades, but it's coming back.
Look for a return to constitutional conservatism after the '10 elections..

[ccbatson]

Nobody listens or cares? Levin sold 1 million copies of his book in 3 months, conservative talk radio has an accelerated growth of listeners while everything else is going down the tubes. How do you define "nobody" Ejames?

[Detroitej72]

Many of those so-called book sales were by his talk show to give away to listeners who call in. That does wonders for sales.

[oladub]

It ain't dead..it's been overshadowed by "neo-cons" for a few decades, but it's coming back.
Look for a return to constitutional conservatism after the '10 elections..

You are too optimistic. What I see is a bunch of neo-cons adopting the rhetoric of constituionalism. Veneration, however, falls short of changing one's neo-con spots. When I see former neo-cons voting to end the Fed, pull our troops out of the middle east, Korea, Germany and everywhere, end unconstitutional spending, and make serious efforts to cut federal government spending in half, then I will believe you. One good sign is that every Republican representative, as well as 117 Democrat representatives have co-sponsored HR1207 to audit the Fed. Actually, I am arguing constitutionalism rather than conservatism because I don't know what the latter means anymore. It has become so distorted under neo-con domination.

[Lorax]

Let's really talk about intellectual conservatism- Saracuda Palin's new book, "Going Rogue", or as one talking head stated: "Going Rouge" which really makes more sense what with all the fancy pageant walking and makeup sessions she does know something about.

It was written by a ghost writer, since Saracuda cannot write, as far as we know, and is reported to be a study in town-hall style smear and fascist propaganda.

This is one book I will read, Batts, though I won't buy it.

[ZRX Doug]

Many of those so-called book sales were by his talk show to give away to listeners who call in. That does wonders for sales.

Oh, please..Levin gives away perhaps four books per show..we'll be nice to your argument and round that up [[in a big way) to ten. He does five shows per week, so we'll say fifty books a week.
The book has been out since March of this year..that's 31 weeks..31x50=1,550
How do you account for the other 998,450 books?

[ejames01]

Besides people that are ALREADY drinking his Kool-Aid, no one else is going to care or know about the book. But they will hear a lot about Rush, Hannity, Beck, Malkin, Culture and the rest of the crazies.

Oh, please..Levin gives away perhaps four books per show..we'll be nice to your argument and round that up [[in a big way) to ten. He does five shows per week, so we'll say fifty books a week.
The book has been out since March of this year..that's 31 weeks..31x50=1,550
How do you account for the other 998,450 books?

[ZRX Doug]

Besides people that are ALREADY drinking his Kool-Aid, no one else is going to care or know about the book. But they will hear a lot about Rush, Hannity, Beck, Malkin, Culture and the rest of the crazies.

You're dead wrong..I rarely listen to Levin, NEVER listen to the others you've listed. I own two copies of "Liberty & Tyranny"..the first is sitting on my desk, the second was purchased to share with motorcycle-oriented online friends [[on both sides of the political aisle) at a message board I help moderate.
The book is on it's seventeenth [[or is it eighteenth?) borrower at this point, the list is several hundred wannabe readers long.
I would suggest reading it, even if all you expect to gain is knowlege of your opposition..Levin's writing bears zero resemblance to his on-air persona.

[ccbatson]

Levin is very bright and insightful...He is spot on in almost every issue [[but not all).

[elganned]

We shall see. [[Note to self: Add Levin to the reading list.)
I'm currently wading through Jonah Goldberg, which I have to say I was delightfully surprised isn't a hack job. I'm reserving judgement on his premises and conclusions until the end, but at least the man can write well without invective--unlike Coulter, who is just a bitch with a degree.

[ccbatson]

I am stunned and impressed Elganned [[and I largely agree regarding Ann Coulter).

[elganned]

Thanks. I live for your approval, as you know.

[ZRX Doug]

Coulter suffer's from "Limbaugh syndrome."
The primary symptom is being so damned annoying in their delivery that even when they're right, they might as well be wrong.
Seems to be a problem among most politically oriented talkers, on both sides of the fence.
Levin is no exception..he speaks a lot of truth on the radio, but he may as well be screaming lies due to his shrill delivery and crude & dismissive attitude towards opposing viewpoints.
His book is the total opposite..clear, concise, none of the hysterics which the radio show exhibits.
If you like dogs in the slightest, I also highly recommend his "Rescuing Sprite." It's got nada to do with politics, is simply the true story of a guy and his dog.
This book goes a long way towards showing that conservative folks are real live human beings rather than the evil creatures that they're portrayed as.

[Lorax]

Yeah, and Dr. Jekyll was a respected physician.

[elganned]

This book goes a long way towards showing that conservative folks are real live human beings rather than the evil creatures that they're portrayed as.

My father was a staunch Goldwater conservative all his life. But I loved and respected him anyway. He had many, many sterling qualities that I someday hope to live up to, even though I disagreed thouroughly with his politics.

Not all of us on the "left" think conservatives are evil. Some of us think simply that they're wrong.

[ccbatson]

A chink in the liberal armor..there may be hope for you yet Elganned. Time, experience and wisdom push people to the rational ideology..conservatism. This is why older folks are more likely to be conservative.

[elganned]

Older folks are more likely to be conservative because they're more likely to feel powerless and afraid. End of list.

And my liberal "armor" is quite intact. Maybe I just wasn't as "liberal" on all topics to begin with as you assumed--which you might have learned earlier had you bothered to explore what I believe instead of leaping to your usual conclusions.

[Lorax]

Batts deals in absolutes- black/white either/or.

Jumping to conclusions is hereditary with him.

Presumptive behavior puts them at such a disadvantage, but blind allegiance to the dogma keeps them there.

It does make things interesting, though, to keep them guessing.

It took Batts five months now, but he finally just complimented me on being a self-described socialist, when he thought I was a KoolAid drinking Obama supporter. Proves he either failed to read my posts, or jumped to conclusions- probably a little of both.

Go figure.

[ccbatson]

Compliment for having the courage to admit that you are a socialist...it should be painfully clear that being a socialist warrants no complements whatsoever.

Like admitting that you are a racist...it may be honest to admit it, but reprehensible to be it.

[Lorax]

Compliment for having the courage to admit that you are a socialist...it should be painfully clear that being a socialist warrants no complements whatsoever.

Like admitting that you are a racist...it may be honest to admit it, but reprehensible to be it.

Or like admitting you're a "doctor" when in fact you've exhibited a gross lack of knowledge that even a non-professional such as myself can identify as suspicious.

Or like admitting you favor the dictates of long dead, discredited political ideology which makes you appear no more credible than someone who believes in Hobbits.

[rb336]

Coulter suffer's from "Limbaugh syndrome."
The primary symptom is being so damned annoying in their delivery that even when they're right, they might as well be wrong.

funny. Coulter has never been right on anything in her history. Neither has Rush

[Lorax]

From today's New York Times/Paul Krugman

Here's a few ideas on the bankrupt nature of GOP politics, there was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.


Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401[[k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.


But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. [[Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.


Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.

[ghettopalmetto]

Lorax, you might want to give proper credit to Paul Krugman for using his op-ed.

[ZRX Doug]

funny. Coulter has never been right on anything in her history. Neither has Rush

Which proves only that you don't listen to either, and are thus not qualified to make such a judgement. I'm not a fan of either, but I'm not enough of a partisan hack to paint with such a broad brush, either..

Where did you glean this amazing piece of dis-information? From Rush or Coulter's opposite number[[s), would be my guess.
Spreading bullshit liberally [[Ha! I made a funny!) doesn't do your cause or your credibility any good..

[ZRX Doug]

"If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America."

You're gonna have to do a LOT of explaining if you wish to convince me [[or a large number of Chicago residents) that bringing the Olympics to Chicago would have been "good for America."
I see it as another huge expenditure at a time when we flatly do not have the money to waste..akin to the head of a starving family bringing home a new big screen TV that will likely never be paid off.
I also see the whole Olympic trip as a damned waste of time for a man with as much on his plate as Obama has already got..troops in Afghanistan would really appreciate it if he'd either shit or get off the pot..make a friggin' decision re: massive reinforcements being called for.

Does it make me happy to see Obama fail when it seems that 90% of his proposed "successes" will damage my country in one way or another?
What do you think?