Who are the GOP Intellectuals, if any?

[Dr.Traveler]

As for Rush being a giant act... that is a common refrain from those who can't believe anyone could seriously disagree with their view of the world. It holds no validity.

Some of the stuff he says he believes, but a pretty large chunk of it, and how he chooses to say/deliver it is about the spectacle. When people are talking about Rush he makes money, and at the end of the day he's a business man. And being talked about makes him money.

Deciphering how much of his act he believes is where opinion comes into the picture. Rush does very little to tip his hand, but occasionally he gives you some clues when he has to talk back ditto heads from the brink. I also think that's why he's had so many marriages. People think he's one way, but in private he's not quite the same guy.

 

[teapartysamurai]

As for Rush being a giant act... that is a common refrain from those who can't believe anyone could seriously disagree with their view of the world. It holds no validity.

Some of the stuff he says he believes, but a pretty large chunk of it, and how he chooses to say/deliver it is about the spectacle. When people are talking about Rush he makes money, and at the end of the day he's a business man. And being talked about makes him money.

Deciphering how much of his act he believes is where opinion comes into the picture. Rush does very little to tip his hand, but occasionally he gives you some clues when he has to talk back ditto heads from the brink. I also think that's why he's had so many marriages. People think he's one way, but in private he's not quite the same guy.

When you have evidence of Rush not believing what he says, do let us know, oh "expert" opinion."

Will your evidence come from Media Matters?

 

[MaggieMae]

Krauthammer and the Baseball writer, that old guy that hacks on the ABC sunday show most every week.

Can't think of his name.

Both are hacks though.

The left thinks being conservative makes you dumb so it's all a matter of opinion.

Nothing wrong with conservatism in general, but when the newest conservative movement is as clueless as these people, you do have to wonder about their level of intelligence (or even IQ). Apparently they'd rather cut programs like Planned Parenthood that account for .0000000000000000000001% of the budget because... it "sounds better"??

70% of Tea Partiers Don't Want to Cut Medicare Either - Yahoo! News

 

[MaggieMae]

In all seriousness I don't think many that consider being an intellectual is important are all that bright themselves.

They've been suckered so many times by scam-artist politicians and charlatans that they appear half-witted at best.

This fascination with inteligence by the left is getting boring, especially from people that have such a predilection for collective thinking. The very same people that hold Jon Stewart, a comedian, in such high regard when it comes to news.

Agreed.

Interestingly, LBJ is perhaps the most liberal as well as least intellectual modern president the USA has produced.

Could anyone imagine LBJ, Texas Drawl, picking up his dogs by their ears, as a guest on Jon Stewart?

They'd just say that was the old Democrat party. He'd be a Republican today.

Today's Democratic party is a bit more RED then the old Democrats were.

It was LBJ who developed the War on Poverty, got Medicare passed in the first place, and went out with a bang with the Civil Rights Act. The next major entitlement program was, drumroll...Medicare Prescription drug benefit, Part D, which was passed (UNFUNDED) by the Bush Administration.

Are you kidding?

 

[MaggieMae]

You've been told only one side of the story because the corporate elites who own your party want subsidies & bailouts without the reciprocal tax burden of maintaining the institutional advantages of a great civilization (which advantages include world class public education, the very thing lacking in the 3rd world).

During the Cold War, the government invested heavily into the California state schools, as well Stanford & MIT and various institutions across the country. These institutions not only provided ground breaking research (handed to corporations by corrupt politicians), but they educated one of the most powerful and productive groups of people in world history: the postwar middle class. It was our great GOVERNMENT FUNDED educational institutions that Reagan bragged about to the world when he claimed moral superiority over the Soviets, whose poor citizens didn't have access to a great public education.

How dare you scorn things like the GI Bill, which gave our brave soldiers an opportunity to become educated at some of our greatest PUBLIC universities. (public because they were the most affordable, and most GI Bill friendly)

Many of the men who died in WWII fighting for your freedom enjoyed world class high school educations that less advanced countries don't provide. Many our brave fighters were proud of their country for its ability to educate the hard working poor, many of whom could not afford private universities.

You have been so terribly drugged by movement conservatism, which is owned by corporations who don't want the tax burden of creating a thriving public sector that benefits the POOR hard workers who built the Hoover Dam or fought for this country's freedom.

Psst: Before the GOP lied to a generation of morons, the relationship between Big Government and Education created things of value far in excess of today's private sector heroes, who play hedge fund casino capitalism with the nation's future... (and they convince you it's freedom). Study the Cold War relationship between Government & Stanford or MIT, specially the technological breakthroughs. Research which great PUBLIC high schools educated Brokaw's "Greatest Generations". These great men from PUBLIC high schools built and defended this great nation.

It was the corporate captured GOP, starting in the 70's, who waged ideological warfare against the greatest public education system in the world. They defunded education so there would be more money for subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts. And now American students are falling behind in every category. (This wasn't the case before the GOP started to undermine faith in, and funding for public education)

When was the last time the USA lead the globe in math & science? During the postwar years, when Washington taxed mega-corporations and elite wealthy dynasties in order to create the best education system in the world.

Son, this country was built upon a very basic social contract. "If you corporations want American Soldiers to die securing your oil field; and if you want us to bail you out every time your company makes a mistake; and if you want massive subsidies; and if you want the benefit of technologic advances made because of taxpayer funding, than you are going to provide for a world class public education system. You are going to repay the massive contribution made to your profit-margin by the taxpayer. (what do you think lobbying is for son. It's a system designed to get free tax payer money, and free government services)

Son, the major engines of wealth used to give back to the society which made that wealth possible. But then, those wealth engines invested money into think tanks and popular media for the purpose of molding your opinion. They have used you to gut this nation's great institutions.

Son, you've been lied to. And that lie destroyed this country.

and when you jump in your time machine and join us in the present, let me know.

The country didn't begin with a clean slate in January 2009. Anyone who denies that history has a huge impact on the current landscape as well as the future must still believe the earth is flat.

 

[MaggieMae]

Who was the last ivory tower egghead we had running the nation? Wilson IIRC? President of Princeton? Totaled this nation something fierce, dragged us into WW1, had thousands of political prisoners and citizenship leagues running roughshod over political opposition.

Harding won on the "Return to Normalcy" theme.

Seems we have a theme going here with intellectuals in power. But you libs keep checking P-BO for colon polyps with your tongue.

The smartest, most experienced man or woman in the world would have a hard time trying to please a diverse country of 308 million people, all with special wants and critiques of how government should and should not be run. Trying to sort that all out is why government expanded so much in the last 100 years by every single president up to and including the present one. Republicans think they can do better and convince the public; when they can't, they get voted out. Democrats say AHA, see? We can do it better, but they can't either, so they get voted out. And round and round it goes.

Could we at least try to stop destroying the dollar, our credit rating and the economy all in one fell swoop though? Can we be smart enough to not do that?

The smartest leader is the one who ignores the opinion polls and blazes the trail that people follow, and never worries about re-election. If your goal is to win elections and stay in power, you can never lead. If you sacrifice your principles to win an election, you lost regardless.

Hopefully, that journey is the direction they'll take. But I still maintain that the unprecedented economic downturn that began in 2008 resulted in many factors that were too fragile to risk making things even worse, and it became a delicate balancing act just to keep the foundation all together. For example, if interest rates had been allowed to rise, inflation would have resulted and an already stressed-out consumer would have caused even more stress on government programs.

 

[MaggieMae]

Going back to Ronald Reagan, he was a "B" movie actor.

Then you had A lister, Arnold, probably an even better actor than Ron, but an alien, can't be president.

Then you have bathing suit runway walker Sarah Palin.

Then there is "nude centerfold magazine model", Scott Brown.

Don't forget "talk show host" and "comic" and "strummer", Mike Huckabee.

Now there is reality TV show star Donald Trump.

When I see GOP, I think of these as the "intellectual heavy hitters". If not them, then who?

Reagan created over 20,000,000 jobs while in office, how many has obama created?

Noone claims arnold, he is a democrat in disguise.

Sarah palin ran a state, more then Obama has done.

Obama is jealous of scott brown.

Huckabee is more alligned with mainstream america then the middle east loving obama.

Donald trump has 100 times morre balls then obama to deal with China.

Also, conservatives are judged on morals and values and sticking with the constitution, not the bought and paid for lambskin of marxist college professors. We side with the constitution, not what some dumbass in the college classroom tells us.

Oh goody, another USMB conservative "intellectual."

 

[MaggieMae]

Not that I doubt that there are scads of very intelligent people running the GOP, but ...

No partisan can be a true intellectual.​

Oh they can and often are VERY SMART but as to being a real intellectual?

No, they cannot be both partisan and truly an intellectual.

Being a real intellectual demands that one must be open to the facts and logic even when they lead one to conclusions that do not jibe with your favorite ideological theories.

One can conclude therefore that neither the GOP nor DNC are lead by real intellectuals.

In fact, if one is planning on taking a vow of intellectualism, one must eschew swearing alligiance to ANY organization that demands a loyality to a cause that will IGNORE the facts when they are inconvenient.

Intellectuals are generally disliked in political organizations precisely because one cannot count on them to go along with the general consensus of the group.

Being an intellectual demands of one an intellectual code of honesty that few people are willing to accept.

My first interest in politics came about when William F. Buckley, Jr., and Gore Vidal debated each other on "Firing Line." My leanings then were more toward Buckley, surprise surprise. In fact, I admire him more than any other journalist because of his common sense approach to idealogues often mired in stoical brainwashed beliefs and unable to ever say "I might be wrong..." A close second was William Safire.

 

[MaggieMae]

Seriously, it's a good question. I guess David Brooks, George Will, Thomas Sowell, for starters might qualify as 'intellectual' conservatives, in some sense.

David Frum, Peggy Noonan, and Robert Samuelson added to journalists; Senators Tom Coburn, Dick Lugar, Rob Portman, Lindsey Graham. In the House, the only intellectual I can think of is Ron Paul.

Everyone on Maggie's list is a RINO, save for Ron Paul. Neocon (big government wilsonian expansionist) at worst. I disagree with 60%+ of what they say and write.

The question of the thread is who are intellectuals, not party faves. I also think those I listed would be highly insulted that you call them rinos. They are members of the dwindling cast of common sense intellectuals who realize that the far right isn't always right. And it isn't. Are you all demi-gods or something? News flash: You're not that superior, either.

 

[MaggieMae]

Considering the intellectuals pushed communism, darwinism, social darwinism, the "ubermench" that becamse Naziism and eugenics, pushed France into a bloody Revoltuion, pushed the Bolsheviks into a bloody Revolution, and on and on and on, I hope the GOP NEVER has any "intellectuals.

Considering what "intellectuals" on the left has given us, thanks, but no thanks. We don't need any more freaking idiots who think they are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo schmart!

I know, all we really need are a bunch of smiley faces as the message and these guys to lead us out of the darkness.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

When you have evidence of Rush not believing what he says, do let us know, oh "expert" opinion."

Will your evidence come from Media Matters?

When you have evidence he actually does believe what he's saying, let me know. Rush is notorious for not being willing to publically endorse much of anything until it's clearly here to stay. He doesn't endorse in primaries, he didn't endorse the Tea Party when it was starting up (and to my knowledge, he's still not publically attended a Tea Party rally or really endorsed any upcoming ones).

He does some good stuff. He holds a lot of public events for Charity. He dedicates a few shows a year to raising money for charity. But for a guy that's supposed to be one of the big power players in the GOP, he's does less to support the actual cause than Hannity or Beck.

I actually enjoy the guy. I wouldn't listen if I didn't. Sometimes, I even agree with him *Gasp!*. It's years of listening to him have to walk his ditto heads back from some wild statement when the crazy ones get past Sneardly that makes me suspect he's not nearly as out there as he'd like you to believe. People that think Rush is speaking from the heart help support his show by buying into the products he endorses or the paid services he offers. They're his bread and butter, why wouldn't he want to convince them?

But you're welcome to post some facts. How about providing some records where Rush has monetarily supported Conservative candidates. How about giving dates that's he's gone out and stumped for a Conservative candidate. How about public political rallies he's organized, or even spoken at for free because he believed in the cause?

I freely admit that my opinion on Rush is just that, my opinion. Now, is your opinion anything more than that?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Well, I must say you're applying much more depth and cynicism to the actual cases. But that's your prerogative. This level of "intellectualization" reminds me of the King of the Hill episode where Bobby tries to 'refine' his craft as a comedian by getting coached by a french pantomime/clown coach which leaves him being a humorless dolt that is more self-amused than amusing.

BTW, I'd add that really good comedy, I mean the really good stuff, works on a lot of levels. It isn't all just penis and boob jokes, but some of the true comedy classics often have that too. People work on different levels, and if you want to make people laugh, you have to be funny on a lot of different levels.

The really outstanding episodes of King of the Hill, Simpson's, Family Guy, South Park, etc are the ones that find that right balance between a high level joke and low brow humor.

That's why I typically think that comedy writers and stand up comedians that are really good at their jobs are probably the most intellectutal guys you'll ever meet. You have to be really smart to successfully play the game at so many different levels at once.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When you have evidence of Rush not believing what he says, do let us know, oh "expert" opinion."

Will your evidence come from Media Matters?

When you have evidence he actually does believe what he's saying, let me know. Rush is notorious for not being willing to publically endorse much of anything until it's clearly here to stay. He doesn't endorse in primaries, he didn't endorse the Tea Party when it was starting up (and to my knowledge, he's still not publically attended a Tea Party rally or really endorsed any upcoming ones).

He does some good stuff. He holds a lot of public events for Charity. He dedicates a few shows a year to raising money for charity. But for a guy that's supposed to be one of the big power players in the GOP, he's does less to support the actual cause than Hannity or Beck.

I actually enjoy the guy. I wouldn't listen if I didn't. Sometimes, I even agree with him *Gasp!*. It's years of listening to him have to walk his ditto heads back from some wild statement when the crazy ones get past Sneardly that makes me suspect he's not nearly as out there as he'd like you to believe. People that think Rush is speaking from the heart help support his show by buying into the products he endorses or the paid services he offers. They're his bread and butter, why wouldn't he want to convince them?

But you're welcome to post some facts. How about providing some records where Rush has monetarily supported Conservative candidates. How about giving dates that's he's gone out and stumped for a Conservative candidate. How about public political rallies he's organized, or even spoken at for free because he believed in the cause?

I freely admit that my opinion on Rush is just that, my opinion. Now, is your opinion anything more than that?

For most people, the fact that they say something would constitute evidence that they believe it. But for some reason, people persist in claiming that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, alone of all pundits, commentators, and others on the political scene, are utterly faking everything they espouse for the sole purpose of getting rich. I have yet to hear any commentator on the left accused of "just saying that to make money".

I personally think it's naive to think that someone could consistently espouse a set of beliefs publicly every day for decades without believing a word of it. I also have to wonder why it is that espousing CONSERVATIVE views is seen as the big moneymaker that people must pretend to, and not liberal ones.

For the record, I have never in my life donated money to any political candidate, or stumped for anyone's election. Does that mean that I don't really believe the things that I say?

 

[Liberty]

I can think of a few real intellectuals, not pseudo-intellectuals like the left swamp the media with. (I am not claiming these are "GOP" intellectuals, just showing what real intellectuals are.)

And here is the modern left's view of an intellectual:

Gee...touch choice there.

 

[Big Fitz]

Some great ones in there Liberty. I'd debate on Andrew Jackson because he was the creator of the Democrat party as based on populism and primitive identity politics. Wellllll.... maybe... but I'm torn.

 

[Liberty]

Some great ones in there Liberty. I'd debate on Andrew Jackson because he was the creator of the Democrat party as based on populism and primitive identity politics. Wellllll.... maybe... but I'm torn.

I include Jackson for the simple reason of his incredible insight on the nature of banks.

The man had his flaws, trail of tears, etc. but man...he hated the idea of a national bank and that's why I love the guy.

 

[editec]

Going back to Ronald Reagan, he was a "B" movie actor.

Then you had A lister, Arnold, probably an even better actor than Ron, but an alien, can't be president.

Then you have bathing suit runway walker Sarah Palin.

Then there is "nude centerfold magazine model", Scott Brown.

Don't forget "talk show host" and "comic" and "strummer", Mike Huckabee.

Now there is reality TV show star Donald Trump.

When I see GOP, I think of these as the "intellectual heavy hitters". If not them, then who?

Newt Gingrich: I can't stand him and he is extremely unlikable. I do not agree with much of what he says, but at least he can make a legitimate case for his views, and he is extremely knowledgeable on anything political.

Bill Bennet: This guy is no nonsense, but he has a sense of humor. He knows what he is talking about even when he is wrong. When I say "when he is wrong", I mean when I believe he is wrong. But like Newt, he can back up what he says and can make a cogent argument on most all issues.

Those would be the two off the top of my head without having to think very much.

Bill Bennet is a real intellectual. It makes me wonder, though, why he turned into a party hack.

For the money, power and fame.

As an academic he was affluent but bascially just another nobody.

But as a tool for the masters?

He became famous and wealthy.

He abandoned the rigorous and largely thankless role of being an intellectual, and chose a partisan's path.

The pay is better, the social prestige is far greater, too. (and that is true in EVERY society I know anything about, too)

I almost don't blame him, really.

But here's why I say that one cannot be both an intellctual and a partisan at the same time.

Intellectual implies that one is a philospher...a lover of TRUTH.

One cannot love truth and also be a good partisan.

Partians love only the truth that jibes with their ideology.

They are OBLIGATED by their fidelity to their cause not ignore, dismiss or refute any truth that is inconvenient to their POV.

Such people who are willing to follow truth whereever it leads them CAN NOT BE TRUSTED by their fellow partisans.

Intellectuals do not get to NOD AND WINK past unpleasant truth.

Partisans have no choice but to pretend that the truth is something other than what it is.

 

[asterism]

Some great ones in there Liberty. I'd debate on Andrew Jackson because he was the creator of the Democrat party as based on populism and primitive identity politics. Wellllll.... maybe... but I'm torn.

The Democratic Party and populism was a brilliant move, it provided balance and a framework for our Republic to evolve. Progressives took it over and have now declared the debate over. THAT is the problem we have today.

 

[asterism]

Newt Gingrich: I can't stand him and he is extremely unlikable. I do not agree with much of what he says, but at least he can make a legitimate case for his views, and he is extremely knowledgeable on anything political.

Bill Bennet: This guy is no nonsense, but he has a sense of humor. He knows what he is talking about even when he is wrong. When I say "when he is wrong", I mean when I believe he is wrong. But like Newt, he can back up what he says and can make a cogent argument on most all issues.

Those would be the two off the top of my head without having to think very much.

Bill Bennet is a real intellectual. It makes me wonder, though, why he turned into a party hack.

For the money, power and fame.

As an academic he was affluent but bascially just another nobody.

But as a tool for the masters?

He became famous and wealthy.

He abandoned the rigorous and largely thankless role of being an intellectual, and chose a partisan's path.

The pay is better, the social prestige is far greater, too. (and that is true in EVERY society I know anything about, too)

I almost don't blame him, really.

But here's why I say that one cannot be both an intellctual and a partisan at the same time.

Intellectual implies that one is a philospher...a lover of TRUTH.

One cannot love truth and also be a good partisan.

Partians love only the truth that jibes with their ideology.

They are OBLIGATED by their fidelity to their cause not ignore, dismiss or refute any truth that is inconvenient to their POV.

Such people who are willing to follow truth whereever it leads them CAN NOT BE TRUSTED by their fellow partisans.

Intellectuals do not get to NOD AND WINK past unpleasant truth.

Partisans have no choice but to pretend that the truth is something other than what it is.

Please educate us on your conservative positions.

Or do you not consider yourself an intellectual?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

For most people, the fact that they say something would constitute evidence that they believe it. But for some reason, people persist in claiming that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, alone of all pundits, commentators, and others on the political scene, are utterly faking everything they espouse for the sole purpose of getting rich. I have yet to hear any commentator on the left accused of "just saying that to make money".

I'm typically skeptical, but that comes from my dealings with people in regards to religion. A whole lot of people claim to be Christian, promote Christian beliefs publically, but privately are anything but. I'm a big believer in that whole "Faith without works...." dogma from the Bible. If you really believe, put some skin in the game.

And this is most certainly not limited to the Right by any stretch of the imagination. I'd put forward that the Right makes it easier to get rich espousing the correct dogma thanks to imprints that specialize in publishing strictly Conservative slanted books, book clubs that buy up said books like hotcakes, and the advent of Right Wing Radio. The fact you can see attack pieces on a leftwing celebrity in Walmart and Target within about 15 minutes of them getting any level of fame seems pretty clear evidence of how well that machine works. But there are most certainly folks on the Left who are completely in it for the money. Think about Global Warming for a few seconds, and I'd bet you'd agree.

So long story short: Lots of people publically espouse beliefs they don't care to shakes about for money. It's just that you'll probably make more money, and get more famous, if you're on the Right. The Left just isn't that organized.