Where Is Conservatism Today?

[rayboyusmc]

Of course, I agree with most of this. It's my brainwashed liberal mind.

Over his decades as a columnist, lecturer, TV host and debater, William F. Buckley Jr. lost his cool in public only once -- when he threatened to sock Gore Vidal "in your goddamn face" on the third night of their joint appearances on ABC during the ill-fated 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Three nights on a television set with Vidal might drive anyone mad, yet Buckley also tangled with the roughest players on the left, from Jesse Jackson to William Kunstler, with unfailing composure.

But suppose that instead of his formal addresses and his weekly "Firing Line" show on PBS, Buckley had hosted a talk radio show 15 hours a week for 20 years, or hosted a nightly hour-long cable news show, sliced into six-minute segments. One can imagine him archly sniffing: "You can't possibly immanentize the eschaton in six minutes!" But one can also imagine him overexposed, spread thin chasing the issue of the moment and perhaps losing his temper now and then -- in short, less the man of style and ideas who inspired two generations of conservative thinkers and more just a populist shock jock with a funny prep-school accent.

During the glory days of the conservative movement, from its ascent in the 1960s and '70s to its success in Ronald Reagan's era, there was a balance between the intellectuals, such as Buckley and Milton Friedman, and the activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, the leader of the New Right. The conservative political movement, for all its infighting, has always drawn deeply from the conservative intellectual movement, and this mix of populism and elitism troubled neither side.

Today, however, the conservative movement has been thrown off balance, with the populists dominating and the intellectuals retreating and struggling to come up with new ideas. The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.

washingtonpost.com

 

[garyd]

Unfortunately we live in a sound bite driven age or Obama would never have gotten the Democratic nomination let alone one the elcetion.

 

[Oddball]

And the dems have traded Hubert Humphrey for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi....Daniel Patrick Moynahan for Bawney Fwank and Charlie Rangel.

Anything else new under the sun, Gomer?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

And the dems have traded Hubert Humphrey for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi....Daniel Patrick Moynahan for Bawney Fwank and Charlie Rangel.

Anything else new under the sun, Gomer?

The thread was killed by Dude at 9:35 0n October 4th, 2009

 

[Richard-H]

The Conservatives movement has been one of faux-intellectuals and anti-intellectuals. The liberal movement has had a very few true intellectuals (FDR, Keynes), but is mostly comprised of semi and/or quasi- intellectuals.

Basically, at it's core the conservative movement strives to defend the status quo (that's why they're called 'conservatives'), and to reverse any progressive changes that have been instatianted.

The problem with this is that civilization, as is today, evolved thru incremental progressive changes from primitivism. The absolute domination, thru violence and intimidation, of one group of people over all others. A hierarchial order based on slavery and a totalitarian monarchial system is as natural to mankind as a pack is to a dog.

Conservatives will lead a slow, incremental de-evolution of society back to primitivism if allowed.

On the other hand, while Liberal/progressives are constantly fighting for incremental evolutionary change, each of these changes are a social experiment and the ramifications are never fully known until they are implemented - therefore these changes are easily criticised. Often these turn out to do as much harm as good.

Democracy, inalienable human rights, government for and by the people were among the most significant of the progressive changes ever.

Yet when Democracy was first employed in ancient Athens, it was ultimately a failure as it eventually degenerated into mindless mob rule. (Recently, the support for Sarah Palin as Vice-President shows the same trend in this country).

The choice between Conservatism and Liberalism is a choice between the de-evolution vs. the evolution of society.

 

[Oddball]

Basically, at it's core the conservative movement strives to defend the status quo (that's why they're called 'conservatives'), and to reverse any progressive changes that have been instatianted.

When has that ever happened?....Provide some unarguable examples.

The problem with this is that civilization, as is today, evolved thru incremental progressive changes from primitivism. The absolute domination, thru violence and intimidation, of one group of people over all others. A hierarchial order based on slavery and a totalitarian monarchial system is as natural to mankind as a pack is to a dog.

Conservatives will lead a slow, incremental de-evolution of society back to primitivism if allowed.

On the other hand, while Liberal/progressives are constantly fighting for incremental evolutionary change, each of these changes are a social experiment and the ramifications are never fully known until they are implemented - therefore these changes are easily criticised. Often these turn out to do as much harm as good.

Democracy, inalienable human rights, government for and by the people were among the most significant of the progressive changes ever.

Yet when Democracy was first employed in ancient Athens, it was ultimately a failure as it eventually degenerated into mindless mob rule. (Recently, the support for Sarah Palin as Vice-President shows the same trend in this country).

The choice between Conservatism and Liberalism is a choice between the de-evolution vs. the evolution of society.

There just has to be a pony in there somewhere!

 

[Contumacious]

Where Is Conservatism Today?

The conservative movement was destroyed in 1935. Now they are part and parcel of the welfare/warfare with a theocratic twist.


.

 

[editec]

Of course, I agree with most of this. It's my brainwashed liberal mind.

Over his decades as a columnist, lecturer, TV host and debater, William F. Buckley Jr. lost his cool in public only once -- when he threatened to sock Gore Vidal "in your goddamn face" on the third night of their joint appearances on ABC during the ill-fated 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Three nights on a television set with Vidal might drive anyone mad, yet Buckley also tangled with the roughest players on the left, from Jesse Jackson to William Kunstler, with unfailing composure.

But suppose that instead of his formal addresses and his weekly "Firing Line" show on PBS, Buckley had hosted a talk radio show 15 hours a week for 20 years, or hosted a nightly hour-long cable news show, sliced into six-minute segments. One can imagine him archly sniffing: "You can't possibly immanentize the eschaton in six minutes!" But one can also imagine him overexposed, spread thin chasing the issue of the moment and perhaps losing his temper now and then -- in short, less the man of style and ideas who inspired two generations of conservative thinkers and more just a populist shock jock with a funny prep-school accent.

During the glory days of the conservative movement, from its ascent in the 1960s and '70s to its success in Ronald Reagan's era, there was a balance between the intellectuals, such as Buckley and Milton Friedman, and the activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, the leader of the New Right. The conservative political movement, for all its infighting, has always drawn deeply from the conservative intellectual movement, and this mix of populism and elitism troubled neither side.

Today, however, the conservative movement has been thrown off balance, with the populists dominating and the intellectuals retreating and struggling to come up with new ideas. The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.

washingtonpost.com

The reason buckley lost it is because Vidal and he are social and itellectual equals and Bill (who I actually liked a lot) isn't used to being shown up intellectually, and not being able to play the "I'm of a higher class than you" card he so often played.

this was a far better world when people like buckley represeted the right and Vidal the left, folks.

I miss them both.

 

[Sunni Man]

Yet when Democracy was first employed in ancient Athens, it was ultimately a failure as it eventually degenerated into mindless mob rule. (Recently, the support for Sarah Palin as Vice-President shows the same trend in this country).

Although, I didn't vote for Sarah Palin.

Your assertion that support for Palin was tantamount to mob rule is pure nonsense, bordering on idiotcy

 

[NYcarbineer]

The conservatism of this generation, and the recent past, is dead. At least the social conservatism.

 

[PeterS]

Of course, I agree with most of this. It's my brainwashed liberal mind.

Over his decades as a columnist, lecturer, TV host and debater, William F. Buckley Jr. lost his cool in public only once -- when he threatened to sock Gore Vidal "in your goddamn face" on the third night of their joint appearances on ABC during the ill-fated 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Three nights on a television set with Vidal might drive anyone mad, yet Buckley also tangled with the roughest players on the left, from Jesse Jackson to William Kunstler, with unfailing composure.

But suppose that instead of his formal addresses and his weekly "Firing Line" show on PBS, Buckley had hosted a talk radio show 15 hours a week for 20 years, or hosted a nightly hour-long cable news show, sliced into six-minute segments. One can imagine him archly sniffing: "You can't possibly immanentize the eschaton in six minutes!" But one can also imagine him overexposed, spread thin chasing the issue of the moment and perhaps losing his temper now and then -- in short, less the man of style and ideas who inspired two generations of conservative thinkers and more just a populist shock jock with a funny prep-school accent.

During the glory days of the conservative movement, from its ascent in the 1960s and '70s to its success in Ronald Reagan's era, there was a balance between the intellectuals, such as Buckley and Milton Friedman, and the activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, the leader of the New Right. The conservative political movement, for all its infighting, has always drawn deeply from the conservative intellectual movement, and this mix of populism and elitism troubled neither side.

Today, however, the conservative movement has been thrown off balance, with the populists dominating and the intellectuals retreating and struggling to come up with new ideas. The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.

washingtonpost.com

Has conservatism changed or is it simply being more exposed for what it has always been. Conservatism is based on irrationalism and is a regressive ideology. This has always been the case. When has conservatism ever been in favor of any form of progressivism. Was it the conservative Tories saying, 'Yea, lets revolt?' Don't think so. The sound bits only show conservatism for what it is. If you want to go back to the darkages. Embrace it. Otherwise it is a useless ideology....

 

[Lost Soul]

No more like the lack of one.

Of course, I agree with most of this. It's my brainwashed liberal mind.

Over his decades as a columnist, lecturer, TV host and debater, William F. Buckley Jr. lost his cool in public only once -- when he threatened to sock Gore Vidal "in your goddamn face" on the third night of their joint appearances on ABC during the ill-fated 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Three nights on a television set with Vidal might drive anyone mad, yet Buckley also tangled with the roughest players on the left, from Jesse Jackson to William Kunstler, with unfailing composure.

But suppose that instead of his formal addresses and his weekly "Firing Line" show on PBS, Buckley had hosted a talk radio show 15 hours a week for 20 years, or hosted a nightly hour-long cable news show, sliced into six-minute segments. One can imagine him archly sniffing: "You can't possibly immanentize the eschaton in six minutes!" But one can also imagine him overexposed, spread thin chasing the issue of the moment and perhaps losing his temper now and then -- in short, less the man of style and ideas who inspired two generations of conservative thinkers and more just a populist shock jock with a funny prep-school accent.

During the glory days of the conservative movement, from its ascent in the 1960s and '70s to its success in Ronald Reagan's era, there was a balance between the intellectuals, such as Buckley and Milton Friedman, and the activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, the leader of the New Right. The conservative political movement, for all its infighting, has always drawn deeply from the conservative intellectual movement, and this mix of populism and elitism troubled neither side.

Today, however, the conservative movement has been thrown off balance, with the populists dominating and the intellectuals retreating and struggling to come up with new ideas. The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.

washingtonpost.com

 

[PeterS]

Basically, at it's core the conservative movement strives to defend the status quo (that's why they're called 'conservatives'), and to reverse any progressive changes that have been instatianted.

When has that ever happened?....Provide some unarguable examples.

Privatization of SS, deregulation, flat tax and fair tax, cutting CHIPS and attacks on Medicaid/Medicare, Welfare reform (snicker), cutting government R&D, Cuts to Pell grants and tightening student loans, affirmative action, and on and on. The only thing conservative haven't tried to overturn was increased military spending and moral legislation.

Anything else Pony Man?

 

[PeterS]

The conservatism of this generation, and the recent past, is dead. At least the social conservatism.

God, if that were only true...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The conservatism of this generation, and the recent past, is dead. At least the social conservatism.

God, if that were only true...

They've lost, or are in the process of losing every significant social conservative cause they push.

The corporatists are still winning, and to the extent conservatives have an unholy alliance with them, the conservatives can claim some Pyrrhic victories.

 

[Oddball]

Basically, at it's core the conservative movement strives to defend the status quo (that's why they're called 'conservatives'), and to reverse any progressive changes that have been instatianted.

When has that ever happened?....Provide some unarguable examples.

Privatization of SS, deregulation, flat tax and fair tax, cutting CHIPS and attacks on Medicaid/Medicare, Welfare reform (snicker), cutting government R&D, Cuts to Pell grants and tightening student loans, affirmative action, and on and on. The only thing conservative haven't tried to overturn was increased military spending and moral legislation.

Anything else Pony Man?

Read very carefully and for comprehension this time.....

When were any of those programs reversed entirely?....Not slightly fudged or trimmed a little around the edges.

 

[Si modo]

.... When has that ever happened?....Provide some unarguable examples.

Privatization of SS, deregulation, flat tax and fair tax, cutting CHIPS and attacks on Medicaid/Medicare, Welfare reform (snicker), cutting government R&D, Cuts to Pell grants and tightening student loans, affirmative action, and on and on. The only thing conservative haven't tried to overturn was increased military spending and moral legislation.

Anything else Pony Man?

Those who mention a vote on a bill as some sort of evidence that a group is anti-something have no clue (or likely are just dishonest) that most bills' titles only refer to ONE portion of a bill. Those who are aware of pork know this; and I know few who are not aware of pork.

And, I have no idea where you get your information about government spending of R&D, but consider the actual data:

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbri...17/figure3.xls

There's more.

2004 R&D Expenditures (to academia, for example; in millions of dollars)

DHHS --- 14,083.356
NSF --- 3,231.597
DoD --- 2,477.556
NASA --- 1,098.480
DOE --- 940.268
USDA --- 760.970

2005

DHHS --- 15,869.380
NSF --- 3,553.672
DoD --- 2,614.734
NASA --- 1,130.168
DOE --- 1,055.302
USDA --- 814.067

2006

DHHS --- 17,052.404
NSF --- 3,567.011
DoD --- 2,718.166
DOE --- 1,118.454
NASA --- 1,046.891
USDA --- 868.891

nsf.gov - SRS Federal R&D Funding Down in FY 2007 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

This is the post-doubling period, too. There is plenty of data available from the NSF. There is not much partisan about the spending trends in the sciences.




Your examples are not quite as good as they should be.

 

[William Joyce]

Of course, I agree with most of this. It's my brainwashed liberal mind.

Over his decades as a columnist, lecturer, TV host and debater, William F. Buckley Jr. lost his cool in public only once -- when he threatened to sock Gore Vidal "in your goddamn face" on the third night of their joint appearances on ABC during the ill-fated 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Three nights on a television set with Vidal might drive anyone mad, yet Buckley also tangled with the roughest players on the left, from Jesse Jackson to William Kunstler, with unfailing composure.

But suppose that instead of his formal addresses and his weekly "Firing Line" show on PBS, Buckley had hosted a talk radio show 15 hours a week for 20 years, or hosted a nightly hour-long cable news show, sliced into six-minute segments. One can imagine him archly sniffing: "You can't possibly immanentize the eschaton in six minutes!" But one can also imagine him overexposed, spread thin chasing the issue of the moment and perhaps losing his temper now and then -- in short, less the man of style and ideas who inspired two generations of conservative thinkers and more just a populist shock jock with a funny prep-school accent.

During the glory days of the conservative movement, from its ascent in the 1960s and '70s to its success in Ronald Reagan's era, there was a balance between the intellectuals, such as Buckley and Milton Friedman, and the activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, the leader of the New Right. The conservative political movement, for all its infighting, has always drawn deeply from the conservative intellectual movement, and this mix of populism and elitism troubled neither side.

Today, however, the conservative movement has been thrown off balance, with the populists dominating and the intellectuals retreating and struggling to come up with new ideas. The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.

washingtonpost.com

Yet can anyone name a liberal intellectual, especially one who's a noted and talented writer?

What drew me to conservatism early on were the Buckleys, the Wills, even the P.J. O'Rourkes. They were smart and witty critics of the absurdity that is liberalism.

It's true that Rush Limbaugh is no Edmund Burke, but are you suggesting that Keith Olberman is Jeremy Bentham? Please.

The entirety of the liberal v. conservative debate is just a distraction from much bigger issues. Most "conservatives" can't tell you want they wish to conserve, and most "progressives" can't tell you what they're progressing toward. It's only slightly more helpful than deciding public policy by relying on a debate between Michigan and Ohio State fans.

 

[Oddball]

Your examples are not quite as good as they should be.

Primarily because there are no examples at all.

 

[Si modo]

Your examples are not quite as good as they should be.

Primarily because there are no examples at all.

I was trying to be nice as so many seem to get mightily bent out of shape when presented with facts here.