Is Conservatism Brain-Dead?

[qrayjack]

The libs are foaming at the mouth in pursuit of the demise of Glenn Beck. This WaPo 'conservative talk radio' hit piece is all inclusive, but you can bet that perceived ACORN/Czar slayer Beck is the catalyst:

Is Conservatism Brain-Dead?

I think they're just glad to have somebody else to scream at besides Rush. (This is actually a sort of reverse psychology, ironic, conservative commentary is OK but it should be more suave and debonair critique.)

[Terri]

Source is important and the clue to the source is in this writers short bio at the end of the article. It tells us much that we need to know about the intent of the writer.

This column wasn't written for the Washington Post. Assuming that it was written by a WaPo employee is misleading. To their credit, they republished it.

It was written for the American Enterprise Institute. Read what they stand for. Here's the article at the original source. They're conservatives, not liberals. The AEI site is also featuring an article by John Bolton and one by Newt Gingrich.

The author was complimentary to Beck, not derisive. He credited him with doing something we aren't seeing on many other talk shows.

Yet Beck's distinctiveness and his potential contribution to conservatism can be summed up with one name: R.J. Pestritto.

Pestritto is a young political scientist at Hillsdale College in Michigan whom Beck has had on his TV show several times, once for the entire hour discussing Woodrow Wilson and progressivism. He is among a handful of young conservative scholars, several of whom Beck has also featured, engaged in serious academic work critiquing the intellectual pedigree of modern liberalism. Their writing is often dense and difficult, but Beck not only reads it, he assigns it to his staff. "Beck asks me questions about Hegel, based on what he's read in my books," Pestritto told me. Pestritto is the kind of guest Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would never think of booking.

Okay, so Beck may lack Buckley's urbanity, and his show will never be confused with "Firing Line." But he's on to something with his interest in serious analysis of liberalism's patrimony.

The article is excellent. It points out that the right is developing passion among the grassroots but we are failing to develop a way to apply conservative principle to current problems and issues. We need passion to elect conservatives but conservatives need policy to actually govern. We also need policy solutions to attract more people to conservatism and people who can explain conservative solutions. One of the biggest complaints we here is about lack of solutions. There are some, but not enough, and the word isn't getting out.

The conservative movement is splintered. It needs fresh ideas for solving problems that we can unify around and present to the voters. We need to apply the original principles and we need leaders who can explain how that can be done. The writer is saying that we are losing conservative elders who supplied ideas at an earlier time and those dying elders are not being replaced by new young conservative policy wonks.

I don’t say this to slight anyone but many grassroots conservatives that have been attracted to politics in recent years don’t fully understand the ideology and principles that are the foundation of the conservative movement.

Many have spent years with no political ideology. They know they didn't like Clinton and they sure don't like what Obama is doing but they are not coming to conservatism because we have attracted them. Instead they are fleeing liberalism.

We need leaders who can package the ideology of conservative principles in a way that the voters can understand and find attractive.

I will move the article to Principles of Conservatism.

[qrayjack]

I guess I'm not deep enough to understand the intricacies of stuff like this. I kept rereading it and saw my initial thoughts were wrong, but still couldn't get a grip on where he was going and still am not sure. Yes I saw the AIE connection and the writers credentials and scanned through it again to see what I was missing, thus adding the parenthesis enclosed edit.

But I'm still uneasy with the title and statements like this one:

The single largest defect of modern conservatism, in my mind, is its insufficient ability to challenge liberalism at the intellectual level, in particular over the meaning and nature of progress.

I can't speak for what he means with that, but it sounds like is what McCain and the GOP moderates have already tried, only to end up emulating their opponants.

But like I say, I'm meat and potatoes, I'll leave the toadstools and snails to those more cultured.

[Terri]

But like I say, I'm meat and potatoes, I'll leave the toadstools and snails to those more cultured.

For those that may not want to get into conservative principle and ideology, it's fine to just take a pass. The author is not slamming anyone.

A political movement cannot be entirely based on populism. It has to have guiding and defining principles which it follows even when it's vehicle (party) strays away from them. They must be defined and applied for each new generation.

As Matt Lewis just pointed out on Twitter, one of the people that we've recently lost who often wrote about the history and principles of conservatism was Paul Weyrich. Weyrich's columns were republished here for several years and can be found at this link.

[schillerbjr]

Conservatism is on the "REBOUND"!

[A Real Patriot]

Conservatism is not brain-dead, it has for the moment been forgotten. Unfortunately, the Republican Party, which had always been its strongest advocate, in its quest to be "all things to all people", abandoned the principles that made it strong. Not since President Ronald Reagan has conservatism seen its heyday. If conservatism is to be strong, once again, then the Republican Party must return to its roots, which is not the populist ideas we have seen as of late.

Conservatism takes a laissez-faire approach to free enterprise, letting the market take care of itself. Conservatives believe in lowering the tax rates, giving small businesses more capital for expansion, including the hiring of new employees. Also included are the elimination of the punitive "marriage Tax" and the "Death Taxes". Conservatives believe that the wage earner should be entitled, as much as possible, to as much of his or her money earned.

In general, Conservatives believe in 'small' government, with little interference.

Conservatism is the only thing that can bring our nation back to sanity!

[Paulmarkar]

Conservatism is the only thing that can bring our nation back to sanity

Patriot you are wrong, the nation is too far gone for conservatism alone to bring it back. It is being destroyed by gimme, gimme, gimme a free ride mentality. Only God's intervention could bring back this nation now.

[greg]

Patriot you are wrong, the nation is too far gone for conservatism alone to bring it back.

No, I don't think Patriot is wrong. There's such a thing Biblically as "man's responsibility" along with "God's sovereignty." Another way of putting this is that God can direct a rolling stone (someone doing something in accordance with that person's beliefs) not one standing still (in quite a few cases). Either way, we conservatives should continue to practice our world view in the market place of ideas.

[greg]

Only God's intervention could bring back this nation now.

It would help if His own would follow 2 Chronicles 7:14 and get their own act cleaned up. As a point, it doesn't take much for King David's multi-wife set of kids to notice what dad was doing that whole year long with one of his best friends and his best friend's wife. So it will be noticeable when His own get their act aggregately cleaned up as well. And perhaps in His Sovereignty, God might give that blessing of healing onto this land of the United States of America.

And, yes, Terri has given us a succinct path forward for how we conservatives might understand our own world view(s) and bring these across to our neighbors, friends, family, acquaintances, associates, etc, such that they make sense to each of them. As Apostle Paul put it neatly, 1 Corinthians 9:20. (Funny how this Book can be so relevant in this day and age.)

And this means that those of us who can, need to explain this world view, its philosophy and underpinnings, to fellow Conservatives as qrayjack, so that all Conservatives can spread the common sense.

Anyone with the historical appreciation and knowledge step up to the plate?

It wasn't too long ago when this Forum tried to arrive at a set of Conservative principles.

Terri has a pair of threads concerning the Principles of Conservatism and a Reading List. Good brush up, and/or a starting point for building a foundation of our aggregate conservative world view.

[henrythomas]

Conservatism takes a laissez-faire approach to free enterprise, letting the market take care of itself. Conservatives believe in lowering the tax rates, giving small businesses more capital for expansion, including the hiring of new employees.Conservati sm is not brain-dead, it has for the moment been forgotten. Unfortunately, the Republican Party, which had always been its strongest advocate, in its quest to be "all things to all people", abandoned the principles that made it strong.