In another post, I had a few semi-complimentary words to say about Ann Coulter and the response was the usual vitriol. I suggested in so many words that people were afraid to admit they enjoyed her columms and I heard nothing in the replies that disabused me of that notion, but I did hear that fear formulated in a different way, in a way that struck me. It was suggested that Ann was doing nothing to advance the conservative cause. I have no reply to that, and the more I thought about it, the more I wonder; who is advancing the conservative cause?
Of course, on balance, no one is advancing conservatism because conservatism is in general retreat. That doesn’t mean some conservatives are not making a positive difference (by slowing the rate of decline, presumably).
As much as I admire our president’s remarkable tenacity on Iraq, I would not describe him as advancing the conservative cause. McCain won’t, and makes no such promise.
What national figures, politicians, pundits, intellectuals or celebrities do you perceive as advancing the cause? And don't forget to say why. If there are others that are hurting the cause, by inexcusable rudeness or otherwise, let's hear about that also.
John
"Of course, on balance, no one is advancing conservatism because conservatism is in general retreat." I'm not sure I'd put it that way. Most people advance themselves, not their ideas. Politics is more transactional than ideological and conservatism is an ideology. It's also an ideology at a strategic disadvantage because you have far less favors, money and power to hand out in a conservative regime than say a liberal one. Since the press, and most people, are more concerned about the division of power than say an ideological reason for X or Y position, you don't see people advancing an ideological agenda.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
John,
I understand the difference between politics and the rest of experience, though I don't think anyone would argue that Reagan did not advance conservatism, even in the absence of a Republican, much less conservative, Congress. Nonetheless, even if you don't agree that politicians do anything but advance themselves, you may notice that I asked about pundits, celebrities, etc. Why don't you try to answer the question with regard to non-politicians?
John
Looking to celebrities to advance anything but themselves is about as intelligent as removing a brain tumor on yourself with a weed-wacker. I'll look to a celebrity to be entertained, not be informed by people who play "make believe" on how the world really is. You'll also notice I said "most people", not all. And sure, Reagan did, but he's not here. Newt did and probably still does, for instance, regardless of what you think of American Solutions.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Milton Friedman, even posthumously thanks to YouTube, was a great advocate for conservatism, at least from the economic freedom standpoint. Clarence Thomas is another great advocate for conservatism though his current position does limit his ability to pontificate as much as others, his role as the modern great dissenter has provided a great deal of fodder to those of us with a strict constructionist viewpoint on Constitutional Law. Kissinger still plays a fairly significant role in modern conservative interest-based foreign policy. Plenty of yahoos out there still push the social conservatism nanny-statism stuff that tends to annoy me. While I can see why the GOP may appreciate and be unwilling to dismiss the talk radio rabble rousers, they're far more useful in "rallying the troops" than winning over the people they generally tend to insult. Whether it be the most vulgar Coulter types or the more tame ones, their rhetoric never seems to fail to advance little else other than their ratings. They certainly don't appeal to independents like me. Whereas the first three I mentioned were probably far more influential in persuading me to consider the GOP the lesser evil on the federal level more often than not.
The best advocate for limited central government, strictly interpreting the Constitution and Amending it when changing needs demand it, the amazing ability of a free market to outmaneuver any bureaucratic or overbearing command economy structure, and the importance of a noble and ethical upbringing (though I'd argue not through government coercion) in maintaining a robust and thriving society is still the same as it ever was: honest and accurate history books.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock,
About two hours ago I would have agreed with you about Clarence Thomas, but in that time period I saw a video of an interview with Justice Scalia in which he explained the difference between strict construction and originalism. I now believe that Justice Thomas is an originalist, not a strict constructionist. I have attached the link to interviews with eight of the justices. http://lawprose.org/supreme_court.php
John
Dan Fielding,
I moved your post to the Ann coulter post.
John
Given Scalia's opinion in Raich I can hardly blame him for trying desperately to excuse his own judicial activism to defend his viewpoints over what the Constitution actually says. A case Thomas didn't join with the ranks of Stevens and Ginsburg for like Scalia did to support some nanny-statist nonsense. Scalia's still on my crap-list over that one.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Conservatives advancing the cause:
Sen. Coburn
Sen. DeMint
Rep. Pence
Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas
Others: Rush Limbaugh, though he doesn't do much for me either. Jonah Goldberg. The fine folks at NR & NRO. Hugh Hewitt. The Powerline guys. Ted Olson. Alan Greenspan.
How does this guy have the admin keys?
Dear IP,
Fine choices all, though I think Rush does a lot for us. I only get to hear him about an hour a week, but I frankly don't see why, like a milder version of Ann, conservatives hedge their admiration for him.
If I had to guess, I would say that Rush is more likely to convert someone than NR. My instinct tells me lots of liberals listen to Rush, but few will read NR.
I would love to add Henry Hyde to the list, but like Freidman, he is too not alive anymore to count. At least that is my interpretation of what the meaning of is is.
It sure doesn't take much to get off Glock's good side, does it. As best I can tell it consists of one guy, dead.
John
PS Let me correct that- three guys, one dead. Kissinger?
Tom DeLay. Ralph Reed. Ted Haggard. Larry Craig. Scooter Libby. Mark Foley. Randall Cunningham.
Paragons of conservative virtue, one and all.
There is an easy list of Dems, too, but we all know Dems are expected to be hooker-visiting, child molesting, money thieving gay loving lowlifes.
(The above comment is designed to preclude the common statement here: "Dems do it too", as if that is some sort of justification for Republicans to do bad things.)
I don't know how that addresses the issue--I think we can all admit that there are bad politicians on both side of the fence. I don't think anyone is saying that bad behavior is acceptable on either side of the aisle. I think that Vitter, Demint and the new governor of Louisiana are good examples of people advancing the cause of conservatism.
I’m going to stray from the theme of this thread and actually answer the question. But just a little bit, mind you. I don’t want to irritate the regulars. You can advance the form or you can advance the cause. I’d say the form hasn’t changed at all since neo-conservatives had the floor for a few years with preemptive war. The current form is in need of fixing, but nothing is happening with that right now, at least nothing with any momentum. Those advancing the cause are the politicians drafting conservative legislation and beating down liberal legislation like Coburn, DeMint, and Co. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and Toranto rally the troops for elections and analyze news, though I understand that Rush actually recruits. Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts take up the cause on the bench. But one guy has advanced the cause more than any other in the past decade. My big pick is Rupert Murdoch. He’s created a conservative outlet to compete with CNN and the networks. This to me is the single biggest conservative coup in a long time. Sure, there was the WSJ and NR, but the WSJ has slipped and the NR has a very defined readership that’s not prone to big expansion. But millions a day now tune to Fox because it’s conservative. That was a void several years ago, and a painfully large void no less. And as it pertains to rallying the troops for elections, disseminating the day-to-day news, exposing liberal advances, backing conservative causes, and just plain stealing a third of CNN’s audience the positive effect Fox News has on conservatism is hard to measure.
Jonah Goldberg? Seriously? The man doesn't even understand the meaning of fascism.
You kids can do better than that.
Jonah Goldberg. Wow.
Many of the talking heads expouse conservativism, but do they advance it?
I agree with the posthumous Friedman nomination, as well as some of the Justices, though I find it quite sad that we look towards judges to advance an idealogy. Judge Napolitano is another such judge.
And Ron Paul, like it or not.
Who is advancing Conservatism? That's the wrong question. I understand the shorthand of assigning a label to a set of ideas and all, but in the end it is the ideas themselves, and not the movement comprising them, that is important.
And 'Conservatism' is a misnomer, if so widely accepted a word can be a misnomer. Conservatism is the practice of holding on to the good aspects of a policy or situation, even if it means accepting the bad aspects; it stands in contrast to Liberalism, which is rejecting the bad aspects of a policy or situation even if it means letting go of the good ones.
The set of ideas we currently think of as 'Conservative' (and yes, I do it too) are really Libertarianism with a high value placed on the right to Life and abstention from sex and certain drugs. Conservatives are also more likely than Liberals to internalize the law into morality, which is another aspect of liking stability.
I've been thinking about this topic lately, as it happens, so I'll probably have more on my blog in the next couple of days, I tihink.
The short answer? Ann Coulter. There, I said it.
Actually, 'advancing' is another misnomer in Ann's case.
I think what we have is an intergenerational pause.
What about me?
"Jonah Goldberg? Seriously? The man doesn't even understand the meaning of fascism.
You kids can do better than that.
Jonah Goldberg. Wow."
He seems to be doing OK, despite the criticisms of that fair-minded publication, Harper's.
Loren,
Conservatives are called conservatives and libertarians are call libertarians for a reason. They may share a few points, but they are miles away from each other philosophically. Neither is a "misnomer" for the other. There is a reason NR authors and libertarians are always feuding, and it's not because Andrew Sullivan is fun to irritate.
Also, what was the right question?
Well, I was almost thinking abour adding IlliniPundit to my blog list.
What a mistake.
Politics is more transactional than ideological and conservatism is an ideology. It's also an ideology at a strategic disadvantage because you have far less favors, money and power to hand out in a conservative regime than say a liberal one. Since the press, and most people, are more concerned about the division of power than say an ideological reason for X or Y position, you don't see people advancing an ideological agenda.
What you say is true enough, but also you are pointing out a problem with the system and it is the departure from ideology that destroy Republicans. We certainly do expect Democrats to be stupid and generally immoral but we want Principled Leadership from Republicans. I dare to say that it is the ideologue who has demonstrable credibility to his message and is able to articulate his message to the hoi polloi that will make a difference and give the people something to be excited about.
The question is: who is putting forth the best ideas?
Yes, Maroon, I know the difference between Conservatism and Libertarianism. The point is that Libertarianism is static, always insisting on maximizing liberty, while Conservatism is, ironically, always changing with the times. I don't say that to endorse one or the other, for both are necessary to combat the dominant liberalist attitude in the government and major media.
Because liberalism teaches that Western Civilization is evil and needs to be more like China, instead of the othe way around.
He seems to be doing OK, despite the criticisms of that fair-minded publication, Harper's.
Sorry, but as a guy who studied quite a bit of American intellectual history at the undergraduate and graduate level, it is unacceptable for someone like Goldberg to label FDR a fascist. It is another step toward the dumbification of Americans in regard to important terms that need to be understood so we can have intelligent conversations about ideas. Implying that liberalism is on the same level as fascism or nazism is just over-the-top and, frankly, stupid. It is something to expect from Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. Though, in my opinion, Goldberg can now add his name to that list of antagonistic conservative voices.
That he made your list is really surprising. I assume you mean he is doing "ok" because he is writing for the LA Times (MSM) and NRO (fair-minded?). Maybe because his crappy, childish book made it to the NYTImes bestseller list? I am not sure why any of that would matter when assessing his strength as a conservative voice.
"I assume you mean he is doing "ok" because he is writing for the LA Times (MSM) and NRO (fair-minded?). Maybe because his crappy, childish book made it to the NYTImes bestseller list?"
No - he must be doing OK because he's selling thousands of books, and those who want to rebut him (like Harper's) are reduced to calling him names.
I'm not sure if you mean "doing OK" as in "making a decent living" or "doing OK" as in "has a legitimate viewpoint." If it's the latter, I'd remind you that Ann Coulter's books are all pretty much New York Demon-Worshipping Times bestsellers.
Your lists of those advancing Conservatism gets very short if you change 'advancing' to 'practicing'. I find Conservatisim in this county with its own conflicts. For example most conservatives favor both fiscal responsibility and deficit spending. History has proven these to be oxymoronic policies. Conservatism has been redefined, developed and toted by the GOP in the last two Presidental elections, with hugh support from the 'conservative left' yet one is hard pressed to find anyone today who defines the Executive branch as practicing conservatism currently or when they enjoyed a 'conservative' GOP controlled Congress.
At best conservatism is one of the lowest criterion one could use to judge those who chose to represent us as a component of the government.
"I'm not sure if you mean "doing OK" as in "making a decent living" or "doing OK" as in "has a legitimate viewpoint.""
I mean doing OK in the sense of advancing conservatism (or at least writing about it to a large audience.) I also mean it in the sense that, for some reason, those who don't like Goldberg are reduced to name-calling rather than rebutting arguments, like the Harper's "review" linked by D.Boon.
Jonah has a nice piece today, about Obama's calls for national unity while reluctant to invoke the word "patriotism":
... those who don't like Goldberg are reduced to name-calling rather than rebutting arguments, like the Harper's "review" linked by D.Boon.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but did you really read the review of his book? While Horton is pretty harsh on Goldberg, he is also quite detailed in his criticism, and doesn't reserve his criticism for conservatives:
These are good questions. Questions that I have often heard you ask, Gordy. So I am not sure how you can say that Horton is "reduced to name-calling". He has carefully, meticulously explained why Goldberg actually isn't much of an intellectual because, to start with, he doesn't seem to have a rudimentary grasp of the meaning of the terms used in intellectual history. Equating FDR with Mussolini, for example, is historically ridiculous, unless your point is not to discuss ideas critically but to simply write trashy books in the vein of O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity.
This:
is an excellent example of what I am talking about. Is the hypocrisy here not evident? In one sentence the man says you do not love your country "sufficiently" if you don't "say so out loud". In the next sentence he says that our politics should be above pointing out who does or does not love the country.
I mean, come on! This guy is a hack. There are a lot of good conservatives out there, but anyone who would be so low as to write the above sentences is just not one of of them.
I knew you would like it, D Boon.
I think the point he is trying to make is if Obama would actually use the word, then the argument could advance, and that would be better.
Ex- Maroon,
Excellent pick. In fact, one criterion for picking our candidates ought to be who is most reviled by liberals. That puts Murdoch and Cheney right at the top of the list. It actually moves Reagan down some, so we have to be careful. It can probably be explained by the untimely death of Reagan, leaving him at a small but real disadvantage in making liberals look ridiculous.
Using that same criterion, we have to put Ann and Rush up near the top. Whether or not we think they are actually doing any good, liberals clearly are worried by them. Thus, by definition, they become great conservatives because they are either rendering great service to the conservative cause, or rendering great service to the conservative cause by distracting liberals from conservatives doing great service to the conservative cause.
Its hard to keep up, but who else do liberals hate?
John
Its hard to keep up, but who else do liberals hate? Jesus.
Dave Niewert has had a pretty good series on the subject.
As I pointed out in the first thread, this is just classic tribalism. Apparently the thing that is most important is that the next candidate is one of Us, and not one of Them. Apparently it is not comprehensible to Mr. Bramfield that one of the reasons I revile people like Coulter is that they are hollow political-party-jingoists bereft of any substance, dedicated to the attenion-getting, book-selling soundbite rather than any deeper intellectual analysis.
Apparently it is not comprehensible to Mr. Bramfield that one of the reasons I revile people like Coulter is that they are hollow political-party-jingoists bereft of any substance
How does that statement jive with her latest - endorsing Hillary over Mccain?
One cannot credibly talk of love of country while simultaneously dodging the word and concept of patriotism. And, I would argue, one cannot sufficiently love one’s country if you are afraid to say so out loud. Better that our politics be an argument about why and how we should love our country, not about whether some do and some don’t.
Why? Is there a logical reason for this?
I don't think the man understands the meaning of the "love".
I have logical reasons both for loving my country and for hating the word "patriotism".
I also have yet to see any evidence that Goldberg has any love for the country whatsoever.
Which is more important, love of country or love of the word patriotism?
I got a rise out of both Xian and D. Boon - I have done my job today. :-)
So "patriotism" has become a dirty word to the political left. Too tight a link to the military?
I got a rise out of both Xian and D. Boon - I have done my job today. :-)
So to conclude my point, this sentiment is exactly what Goldberg, Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity are all about. It is not an attempt to discuss important ideas so that the best ideas can rise to the top in our democracy. It is not an attempt to seek consensus on important issues. And it is definitely not about becoming informed about a topic before bothering to write books about that topic.
It is about "doing my job today" - "getting a rise" out of "liberals". If that is the definition of conservativism, then enjoy your cutting-and-pasting of amateur political theorists while you hasten the conservative march to irrelevance.
So "patriotism" has become a dirty word to the political left. Too tight a link to the military?
Yes, because I AM "the political left".
You could be completely right, or it could be the millions of people killed in the name of hollow "patriotism". But hey, what's the difference? I'd echo what D. Boon said, what is all of this pride about boorish polemics with no attempt to respect others' idea or grow together to improve our society?
I want to thank Bramfeld for in one series of posts destroying the respectful bi-partisen atmosphere we had cultivated on the site.
xian,
That sounds like loser talk.
Yup. ;P But I'd rather be a loser than not love my country :)
Penn losing his cool, is an excellent sign for Fox.
Xian, I am with you 100%. Hollow patriotism is the worst, which is why I try to cultivate the non-hollow kind. I find that when I do, the urge to kill millions of people dissipates nicely. Plus, I agree that Bramfeld asking who has been good for the conservative movement is destructive of bi-partisanship (note the spelling). How is it that whenever things get personal here your name features prominently. Solid to the core patriot
Those who get their goat , gets my vote, conservatively speaking I'd vote for Rush.
Plus, I agree that Bramfeld asking who has been good for the conservative movement is destructive of bi-partisanship
That doesn't remotely approach what I said.