Posted on 11/17/2008 12:45:44 PM PST by pissant
Harrison spoke about the descent of intellectual conservatism. Here’s another example of it in David Frum’s resignation from National Review. Like some other conservative intellectuals, Frum criticized the Palin pick this election. After seeing fellow National Reviewers Kathleen Parker eviscerated for the same offense, Frum followed Chris Buckley’s lead and resigned from National Review writing.
In a New York Times interview, he said a little distance will help people keep their heads:
I am really and truly frightened by the collapse of support for the Republican Party by the young and the educated … The answers to the Republican dilemma are not obvious and we need a vibrant discussion. I think a little more distance can help everybody do a better job of keeping their temper.
I think intolerance for dissent—exactly the kind that Parker, Frum and Buckley experienced—may be perpetuating the dilemma. It’s impossible to have a “vibrant discussion” when someone who offers a dissenting view is told they should have been aborted, like Parker was. This intolerance especially repulses the young (not known for cherishing orthodoxy) and the educated (who presumably like “vibrant discussion”).
(Excerpt) Read more at online.worldmag.com ...
How many elected officials doe your FALCON party have?
Remember the heated debates about Rudy?
Remember the people including myself who would flat refuse to except or even consider John McCain for the ticket.
Nobody was pushing McCain here!
But Almost everyone on this web site was really pulling for McCain by 11/4/08.
Then the guy lost and that is why we have THIS debate today.This is in no way intended to be a personal attack it is just what I personally consider important to say for the sake of my country.
Key point is we don't need leaders who keep cutting deals with the left, instead we need fighters that will roll back the power of the centralized government.
When I refered to “the lefties or the Moderates” in post 83 I was talking about the GOP!
add Brooks, too. Someone was actually keeping a list for future use - of course none of them are going to stop writing. In fact, they probably will be in greater demand after the coronation.
That's why I wonder if blogs and FR (when it works :) are really helping, or hurting our cause.
Normally, if you hear a car pull up at a light with Limbaugh on the radio, you immediately figure you've got a like-minded, pro-American next to you there.
A few posts into any article on FR though, and you're likely to be identified immediately as a 92%er and failing one of a half-dozen litmus tests on Fairtax, immigration, any number of things.
I'm not sure FR actually breeds anything but internal dissatisfaction among otherwise reliable allies. fwiw.
Maybe.
But this isn't the case that proves your point.
This is just the people Frum stepped on to get to the top, kicking him on his way down or out.
David Frum wanted to be an enforcer of ideological rectitude and he'd be playing that role today if he could get away with it.
This is just people paying him back in his own coin.
They would rather be liked by their enemies than support their friends. So what good are they?
Conservatives have always been more open to debate that liberals but the actions of these lukewarm conservatives was appalling and their timing despicable.
If swing voters were to lurk on this board, they’d think the likes of Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Aln Keyes were in charge of the GOP. 3rd party malcontents are way over-represented here. The conservative malcontents are just looking to expand their thin donor list.
The problem with conservatives is the perception that we’re a bunch of incompetent white men. The lack of competency, not the lack of conservatism, is what is harming us in the suburbans. Conservatives need to show they can can be trusted handle economic and national security issues.
“It would be wise to be civil about other people on the right, as we need everyone we can to be on the right side in these times.
That’s why I wonder if blogs and FR (when it works :) are really helping, or hurting our cause.”
When I go to a leftie blog, I see a bunch of people who spend their time talking about how awful the Republicans are.
When I go to FR, I see a bunch of people who spend their time talking about how awful the Republicans are (spineless/RINO/JorgeBush/etc.)
Do we care about freedom?
Then ... if we do ... what are we doing to make freedom WIN?
You are right. FR is not helping the cause of freedom so long as it is a fringe bash-the-not-enough-rightwing-GOP circular firing squad gab forum. the Kristinns and Buckheads are great, but the anklebiting hairsplitters are useless to the cause.
Consider this. 70% of blacks in California voted FOR Prop 8 against gay marriage. Lots of hispanics too.
Most of those people voted for Obama at the same time!
Well? Would the "purists" prefer these people not vote with us on this common ground rather than "dilute" the majority of people who oppose gay marriage?
Yes, I think the point needs to be to reach out to ALL Americans who share the traditional freedom/family/patriotism/rule-of-law/limited-govt/individual-rights values of Republican party. MILLIONS of such people voted non-Republican - some 3rd party, some for Obama, either out of ignorance or just got bedazzled by the phony campaign, or furstration with status quo.
Reach out and let them know that “YOUR VALUES ARE REPUBLICAN VALUES” and then have a dialogue about how to get those values in law.
Now, how can we reach out unless we have a ‘Dale Carnegie’ attitude that tries to win friends and influence people rather than get enraged over slights and lambastes our own leaders for understandable imperfections?
I of course am as guilty as anyone of getting into petty forum tiffs and bemoaning failures on our side, so I am not trying to sound superior, just recognizing that such venting doesnt help the cause.
“There will be no third party rising, period. You can either work within the GOP, or march into obscurity with your FALCON. Choose wisely.”
Third parties can have an effect though. Here in our local area, the Libertarian Party has agressively run candidates and managed to get 3-5% in some races. This was enough to toss a few pro-taxpayer Republicans out of office and put in socialist Democrats, one of whom was an unqualified fire police officer with a corrupt pass. Thanks to the LP, he got in.
The LP has managed to divide the small Government vote and thereby enabled the socialist big Govt Democrats to completely triumph here in central Texas.
Third parties on the right are the best political friend the left ever had. It helps them “divide and conquer”.
“The market for ‘intellectual’ content is one based on masochism and ignorance in my view. “
Your view is wrong. The ‘intellectual’ is merely a goods seller in the ‘marketplace of ideas’.
“The writer who truly wishes to communicate to the reader on level ground, regardless of his literary caliber, will shun the associations of intellectualism, at least to the view of the citizen.”
That wasn’t the approach Buckley took, or the best intellectual on the right today - Thomas Sowell - takes.
They dont shun ideas. Sowell is great because he expressed ideas clearly while shunning the trappings of sophistication, which is a path to sophism and pseudo-intellectualism.
But rejecting the world of ideas itself is beyond stupid for conservatives. We live or DIE by our ideas - we dont have fake celebrity media bias on our side - ALL WE HAVE IS THE STRENGTH OF OUR IDEAS.
” They, the intellectuals, are not one of us, for they express through winding prose they are better than us.”
This overbroad generalization is an example of what is WRONG with this whole line of thought ...
One, or some, Intellectuals puts us down
Thus All Intellectuals are Bad,
Thus we must reject Intellectualism... Yikes. It REEKS of bad logic!
And too boot, you put yourself on the opposite sides of purveyors of ideas... The worst thing we could do now is shut ourselves off from new ideas that help us get back in the game politically.
Let’s take it from the top:
SOME intellectuals, and MANY elitists (urban east-coast latte-sippers) reacted poorly to the Palin pick. This was NOT about intellectualism at all, but a CULTURAL division.
Far better you put yourself in the same camp with reasonable open-minded people who recognize that Palin aint that stupid after all and is a gifted, capable and honorable public servant. Make the division NOT between intellectuals and non, but between open-minded folks who are willing to have populist politicians and elites who prefer a closed gate (or glass ceiling) for politicians.
” And this is why they have contempt for Palin ~ Sarah is one of us.”
Even *IF* that is so, that doesnt Make Palin qualified or unqualified. *How* is she “one of us”? I have a PhD and live in an urban area and never hunted moose. If someone critiques Palin based on claimed lack of knowledge of the world, isnt the better retort to shows that she really knows her stuff sufficient to lead?
If the only common ground is some vague contempt for intellectualism that is surely ground I wont share.
And a party that nominates a buffoon like McCain and tries to pass him off as a conservative is what?
>> Your view is wrong. The ‘intellectual’ is merely a goods seller in the ‘marketplace of ideas’.
Here, you’re defending the ‘intellectual’, while I opened with deriding the subscriber of ‘intellectual’ content. My view is not wrong especially since ‘intellectual’ is by my definition. The true definition is not within reach of those claiming the persecution of intolerance.
>> [Sowell and Buckley, the elder] dont shun ideas.
Ideas, did I mention anything about shunning ideas? No!
I stand my assertions about those ‘intellectuals’ who jeer the less skillful politician or person. The article is, after all, about the ‘descent of intellectual conservatism’ despite its effort to coddle the practice of hostility masquerading as dissent.
>> *How* is she “one of us”? I have a PhD and live in an urban area and never hunted moose.
All’s not lost. Stay positive and keep an open mind.
“My view is not wrong especially since ‘intellectual’ is by my definition. “
Hey, only Clinton gets to redefine words. :-)
“I stand my assertions about those ‘intellectuals’ who jeer the less skillful politician or person.”
Then call them sophists or pseudo-intellectuals or elitists.
My point is that the conservative movement needs intellectuals, and bashing ‘intellectuals’ is the wrong way to go and actually plays into the hands of these elitists who are pretending to hold on to the mantle of ‘intellectualism’. It isnt, its merely the prejudice of elites.
We need real intelligent ideas, not prejudice masked as intellectualism.
“its effort to coddle the practice of hostility masquerading as dissent.”
That is a critique that is ON target. I agree. The Parker view is really one of prejudice wrapped in intellectual cover story.
1) Argument by changing subject and finger-pointing is not good logic. The nomination of McCain doesnt make 3rd parties any less of an ineffective and useless strategy.
2) You just made my point in #90. Thanks.
Yes, Frum is a giant douche, but none of this changes the fact that we can’t survive being just a rurul party.
Something in short supply in today's GOP. Why can't we run somebody who has ideas on how to SOLVE things, and can communicate clearly. Somebody who doesn't come across as a fanatic or "regional" politician.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.