Good young conservative thinkers?
There was a question raised on a recent Bloggingheads about any really insightful conservative voices out there. I'm especially thinking of young, post-Bush/Rovian conservative voices.
There is this article by RadicalMiddle I pointed to earlier on the change to radical middle-hood among conservatives.
Satin (Radical Middle) names the following candidates:
--Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam (their blog here), author's of the Sam's Club Party Republican theory. Yes. Definitely on board with these two. In fact the first two to come to mind when in Bloggingheads, Eric Alterman raised the question.
--Brink Lindsay. The author of the Liberaltarian thesis: the libertarians should line up with Liberals. Lindsay on Bloggingheads here defending his thesis---which I don't particularly buy. So not really on Lindsay. I see the trend line (scarily) among Liberals heading more towards protectionism than libertarianism.
--Charles Murray. Author of the controversial In Our Hands. While I generally like the idea--other than the inevitable **** massive uptick in drug use and criminal gang activity, it has absolutely no shot of happening so far as I see it. Not until some massive collapse of the entire welfare/governmental patronage system, in which case the whole receive checks from the government thing goes out the window because the government will have no such funds and mass chaos will be breaking out in the streets, social dis-location and regression will have ensued.
--Romesh Ponnuru (of NationalReview). Satin points out that Ponnuru does have some good stuff on tax reform. But his book on the Abortion Debate Party of Death really turned me off. I've written extensively on abortion, and readers will know I am not some "pro-death" person, but these kind of titles and partisan stupidity is just more of the Ann Coulter-Al Franken dumbing down of our culture and political discourse. So yes/maybe on taxes, no on all else?
While on NationalReview, two other names: Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry.
Goldberg, like Ponnuru also has a flaccid (are we even trying anymore?) book coming out with the grandiose title: Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian*** From Mussolini to Hillary Clinton. Yes, because as much as I love Hillary Clinton (I don't want her to get the Dem. nomination) when I think of her the obvious next political figure I think of is Mussolini. So she's simultaneously a Fascist and a Socialist commie? I know the guy writes other stuff some of it interesting, but really how can you take someone seriously as a thinker with this garbage? [Liberal or conservative?].
Lowry. I generally like the guy, see him on PBS Newshour. But his stands on the Iraq War have been flip-flopping. He is part of this crowd that I just can't guy. Guys like Lowry are so much smarter than this administration and why they are sacrificing their party's future for these guys is beyond me. I just don't get it.
Another Satin candidate, David Brooks (speaking of the token conservatives on NewsHour). Brooks is an attractive figure in certain ways. But if you look at the 10 point list of Brooks' ideas that Satin outlines, they are basically neo-liberal. There's hardly much difference between a Brooks and a Clinton-ite conservative Democrat. Not surprisingly Brooks wrote an article this year saying Neo-liberalism was dead so that he could fill up the space they formerly inhabited. Kill them, then occupy their territory. Easier to just announce what is the case--he's basically a neo-lib. Fair enough.
The only other candidate I can think of, very bright guy, another Blogginghead is Daniel Drezner. He is a self-described libertarian so he doesn't fit the conservative label perfectly. He did vote for Bush in 2000 (and 2004 if memory serves right) but has since become disillusioned with the administration's incompetencies.
Satin also John McWhorter who is brilliant no doubt. His writings on race appear conservative I guess given the identity politics flirtation on the left. But McWhorter is an avowed Democrat. So I don't think he counts as a conservative.
Foreign policy a Flyntt Leverett is another strong (non-neocon) conservative.
And lastly I guess I should mention Andrew Sullivan. By many other conservatives' standards he is off the reservation. But he still considers himself a con. He's been right (in my mind) on the torture question, the outrageous spending habits and big government ir-responsibility of this administration and the dumbfounded-ness of how small government conservatives keep backing him (at least until 2006). I don't think his Christianist argument makes sense relative to the Bush people. And his book which has some good stuff in it talks about a return to empiricism and a mood of self-criticism/doubt/skepticism. Ok, but not much beyond that in terms of specific policy recommendations.
I ask and anyone feel free to suggest some names, not because I'm anti-conservative but because I actually do want to be reading some good conservative stuff. But the NationalReview Townhall, and the WeeklyStandard are just not getting it done for me. Of course the classic texts (Hayek for example) are still deeply worth the read. (The Standard's reporting on the surge is from Kimberly Kagan the wife of Freg Kagan architect of the surge tactic. His brother, Robert writes pro-surge in the WashingtonPost. This is not good.)
But this current crop of Republicans for president is looking not like the Who's Who but the Who's Left? Although as I've said before if its Rudy versus Hillary I have no idea which way to go. I have deep reservations about both. I say this because my worry in a Long War is that neither party go too far into exile. Such a party tends to become weird and support weird, even paranoid/conspiratorial type thinking.
***Editor's Note: Correction thanks to MD. I had the title wrong. I originally did not have the Totalitarian Temptation piece of the subtitle. Also I had originally written that Charles Murray conceding rise in drug use. That is from a memory--which may be faulty--from a speech I saw him give not from his book. I have deleted in case I was. I.e. I still the think the charge of drug rise is correct whether Murray admits it or not.
posted by CJ Smith @ 10:44 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Chris,
Have you read Ponnuru's book? I thumbed through it and found it very good. Nothing of what people have caricatured it as. You seem to have adopted the criticism of it held by people who have read only as far as its title. Disappointing.
And, while on that tip, you got Goldberg's title wrong. It's "Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton". Which you may not like any more than the other, but which you are compelled to admit means something quite different and more nuanced. And are you honestly criticizing it without it even being published? Yikes.
And on Charles Murray, I think you are pretty off. You write:
--Charles Murray. Author of the controversial In Our Hands. While I generally like the idea--other than the inevitable (as Murray concedes) massive uptick in drug use and criminal gang activity, it has absolutely no shot of happening so far as I see it. Not until some massive collapse of the entire welfare/governmental patronage system, in which case the whole receive checks from the government thing goes out the window because the government will have no such funds and mass chaos will be breaking out in the streets, social dis-location and regression will have ensued.
Uh, that's a bit too bizarre a reading of it. While I agree we are a long way from adopting anything of Murray's plan, we aren't a long way from a frank discussion of the costs of the entitlement programs in this country, weighed against their actual, demonstrable benefits. And where in In Our Hands does he acknowledge "massive uptick in drug use and criminal gang activity"?
With respect, Chris, I think you are about two years of daily reading of NRO away from being able to really assess it. You might be offended by that; but don't be. It took me four.
md
MD,
I did read Ponnuru's book. I didn't say they weren't good arguments in it. I actually agree with many things he says. I'm just tired of this shock-title cottage industry. The Party of Death? Come on. It makes me not want to listen to the things he has to say--that was my point.
Thanks for the correction on Goldberg's title. It's been corrected with a note. You're right though the title suggests to me some lazy thinking. If Hillary Clinton has a totalitarian impulse then the word--as you might say--has been bent in so many ways it has lost its meaning.
Of course everybody has some maybe 1% totalitarian impulse. But some have it way more than others where it would be correct to refer to those individuals as actually totalitarian. Mussolini would certainly fit in that category. Although Mussolini was far-right wing not left-wing so I don't know about the liberal side. That is if he is using liberal in the way you do for modern liberalism which as you say is closer to communism. The only way around that pickle I guess is to say that the extreme wings are closer to each other than they are to the middle--which I think would be right. In which case you would have to argue that Hillary Clinton is an extremist which is laughable. I may not like her much, but far right or left she is certainly not.
Calling people Communists is out of favor these days. They aren't too powerful, so left and right want to label anyone they disagree with a "Fascist." Unless someone is donning a swastika, goose-stepping around, calling for National Socialism/Hero Cult mythology, let's not call them Fascists.
The Murray comment is as I recall a question posed to him on this topic during his CSpan interview. As I remember he said something to the effect of, "yeah people will buy drugs" with this and there will be downsides.
If people are going to get the money from the government, people are going to use it on drugs. Some people. Addicts come to mind. Theoretically from a market standpoint the price of drugs would drop which could I guess lead to a decrease in drug related violence. Don't know. On the other hand, there would likely be an innovative gang who could profit immensely through the theft of such governmental checks/identities.
I don't take offense to your 2 years reference. I just think it's not correct.
Post a Comment
<< Home