Steven Hayward Laments 'Brain-Dead Conservatism'

Washington Post:

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.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[GreatTruthsSeeker]

Oh, recognition of the winger zombies.

Fight them with the truth.

They wither when they feel it.

[HeimeBach]

You dems have everything you ever dreamed of and all you can do with it is embarrass yourselves...By the time we get to 2012 it will be "anyone but Obama:

[GreatTruthsSeeker]

Try Logic and the truth:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

You embarrass yourself.

[coyote4]

care to put a case of single malt scotch on that?

[Kamenskiy]

What exactly is non-brain-dead conservatism?

Really, if there are any conservative intellectuals out there, could you let me know what the main goals of the conservative movement are, aside from blind ideological beliefs and tactics for obtaining the votes of the ignorant masses?

[Ascoli]

He's right.
Conservatism IS brain dead and ....it's leaving a stench.

[Economike]

Wait the title of the article is Brain Dead Conservatism and then there's a picture of Ann Coultre? It can't be...

[SharpDressedMan]

Hayward's comment on conservative intellectuals not publishing books is debatable. Books are published but in today's evolving book market, publishers prefer bestsellers.

Books, radio and TV aren't the only media. Hayward didn't look hard enough. He should look at work by other conservatives who aren't so kind to the devolved GOP. They include David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks and others.

Maybe Hayward was looking for prominent intellectuals who will sympathize or empathize while he grieves the burial of Reagan's conservatism. Good luck with that.

[coyote4]

Maybe Hayward was just looking for an opportunity to drop a lot of names to prove that, among conservatives, there is one who still reads.

[SharpDressedMan]

Possible but I doubt it. He seems more broken up over the GOP's break up than his ego.

[Tsckey]

I wish, someday, one of the intellectual conservatives would provide a simple, understandable explanation of the goals of conservatism. As a Progressive, I know what my goal is: the widest possible spectrum of opportunities, economic, social, political, for people to pursue in fulfillment of their individual dreams and aspirations. The greatest good for the greatest number. Success or failure of policies instituted in pursuit of that goal would be fairly easy to plot. If the results didn't look like a bell curve, then we'd know something was amiss. If conservatives share that goal, then it would appear that conservatism, which has dominated political and economic decision making since Reagan, isn't working. If they have another goal, I'd like to know what it is. In fact it does not appear that conservatives have any goal in mind at all. What they have is a methodology; a set of structural imperatives that must be employed regardless of their success or effectiveness. Conservatives often like to extol the virtues of common sense (as if they had a corner on that institution), well fine. What's common sensical about blindly adhering to a methodology that doesn't work? Every golfer knows that you use the correct club for the circumstances, not the same one for everything.

[HeimeBach]

America is the last place on earth where individual liberty and prosperity is still possible on the grandest of scales and democrats are doing all they can to kill it.
COnservatives celebrate the individual and want government out of his way.
Liberals celebrate the group. Their system is arranged so anyone who does achive above the mean level has their success siphoned off and "redistributed".
Where is the incentive in that?
Why do democrats hate individual liberty so much?

[Tsckey]

This is laughable. Conservatives TALK about individual liberty, but squeal like stuck pigs when it is pointed out that the only individuals prospering under their methodology are the 5% who own 90% of the wealth of the nation. Unless you are suggesting that the 5 percenters are giving the rest of us lazy, indolent, shirkers something to shoot for. In truth, the system is certainly not arranged so that anyone who achieves above the mean level has their success siphoned off by the government; that ugly process is a function of capitalism as it's malpracticed here, where most individuals get lip service from conservatives and the shaft from corporate thought meisters.

[kcmookie]

Deluded and convenient in your assessment. Conservative want to be a group of individuals living together, yet separate. They fail to recognize the need for ANY activity as a collective effort. Streets, Police, Fire, Schools or any kind of public works, they don't need them! Well until it causes a problem for them, then they demand to know why they have no street and they don't care who is going to fix it or pay for it, as long as it isn't them. There in lies the hypocrisy of their failed belief. Liberals celebrate individualism while recognizing the need to funtion as a group, and achieving beyond the mean level is simple if you simply work hard. If everything was being redistributed then I guess you need to explain how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and why you think that is ok.

[SharpDressedMan]

Hogwash

[exhale09]

I want a HEALTH CARE PUBLIC OPTION so ALL who have serious medical needs, have their medical needs met, so they can be healthy, so they can BE FREE to pursue happiness and opportunity, equally in the United States of America.

In order for everyone to partake in INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, they need affordable HEALTH CARE.

It's kind of difficult to do that LIBERTY thing when Private Insurance Corporations are the masters, and Private Insurance Premiums are enslaving you.

[huffponewbie]

The only reason that conservatives want the government out of people's way is so that those be can more easily trample others. The trouble with conservatives is that they equate loss of profit with loss of liberty. That is not true. Name one person who has achieved above the mean level that has not done it on someone's back. There are those that pay well the people whose back's they ride on and liberals just want to make sure that everyone is treated humanely. What individual liberty has the government taken, or plans to take, from you in the name of liberalism?

[MarieNat]

I think the simple explanation - which they would be hard-pressed to make sound noble - would be everything that's the pretty darn close to opposite of what you outlined, including the preservation of a narrow spectrum of opportunities for a select group of people.

I agree that they blindly adhere to a methodology that doesn't work - even for them. Case in point social conservatives' insistence in demonizing gay people, making it pretty impossible for men like Larry Craig to own and acknowledge and express his sexuality in a healthy way.

[kcmookie]

Somewhere lost in your assessment I think you have a good point, I am just having trouble finding it.

[SharpDressedMan]

"I wish, someday, one of the intellectual conservatives would provide a simple, understandable explanation of the goals of conservatism."

That was done by numerous intellectuals in past years. Conservatism isn't a new ideology.

The dilemma is not defining conservatism, it's the irresponsible redefinition and convolution of conservatism to win elections.

By Reagan's time conservatism meant more something like this. Win votes by promising lower taxes and hailing the benefits of smaller government while wrapped by an American flag. When in office, keep the flag on, grant a token tax reduction then turn around, hire more government workers and spend money, lots of it. As long as the economy grows and people are employed, that strategy is safe. Reagan and Bush 41 did it. But by 1992 many people became noticed Reagan's conservatism wasn't adding up.

Bush 43 used Reagan's strategy and failed big time. Two costly wars, one market crash after another proved the small tax reduction did nothing but his monumental spending and government bulging policies brought our economy to its knees. Being the dominant global economy, a ripple effect affected most if not all economies.

Adding insult to injury, a series of sex scandals virtually wiped away the Republican claims to family values. Religious zealots tainted the party with insanity.

Stripping the pretense, Reagan's conservatism became lower taxes and massive spending. The proof is in the pudding. Conservatives lost credibility. No matter how they mold and massage conservatism,.they aren't trusted to lead the country.

[Avery Davis]

I start to reply,Then i through what the used.

[eweqo]

If this post is your idea of intellectualism, it goes a long way in explaining the problem of progressivism, nee liberalism. Your goals obviously exceed your reach and ability to achieve. You must think you're the epitome of evolution. Just answer this question, if you please. Taking the last 15,000 years of history, why haven't the progressives been able to achieve this greater good? Conservatives believe individuals are responsible for their own selves, progressives believe that their superior and required to provide for everyone else. The fallacy of theis idea lies in the fact that humans are fallible and are capable of making objective choices. obama and his minions take care of his supporters and aren't interested in anyone else.

[Centaur]

Tsckey, I think I can tell you what seems to be the goals of conservatism and in using your own description, if I may, as a progressive(with a couple of word changes) : " the "narrowest" possible spectrum of opportunities, economic, social and political for people to pursue in fulfillment of their individual dreams and aspirations. The greatest good for the "least" number".

[SharpDressedMan]

Steven Hayward states "The best-selling conservative books these days tend to be red-meat titles such as Michelle Malkin's "Culture of Corruption," Glenn Beck's new "Arguing with Idiots" and all of AnnCoulter's well-calculated provocations that the left falls for like Pavlov's dogs. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these books."

Really? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with those books?

[Economike]

The problem is the reader.

[Rondo]

The term "conservative brain" is an oxymoron.

[MarieNat]

This article is fraught with contradictions. Example. About the tea party movement: "Though authentic and laudatory, it is unfocused, lacking the connection to a concrete ideology". What makes it laudatory if it lacks connection to a concrete ideology? It's "authenticity"? All that means is that they're authentically misguided as far as I'm concerned.

The author clearly cannot bring himself to issue a strong indictment of the nincompoops leading the right even though the title of his article suggests he will.

Even Beck he claims: "took up the theme of challenging liberalism's bedrock assumptions." Oh is that what he's up to? He actually sounds like a directionless showman devoid of a single idea to me. I sympathize with the writer though - he's doing what conservatives have been relegated to these days. And that's trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[Eykis]

I see you feel the same way I do:

Beck sponsors:

wyndhamworldwide.commworldwide.com,
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
hq.usps.orgps.org,
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
metastock.cack.ca,
60plus.orgs.org,
apple.comle.com,
apple.compple.com,
rapidwash.netrapidwash.net,



Fox sponsors


bestbuy.combestbuy.com,
adrenalfatigueinstitute.come.com,
BlaineLabs.combs.com ,
earthlink.netthlink.net ,
[e-mail],
goldline.come.com ,
[e-mail],
expedia.comedia.com ,
ncmintonline.comcom,
sepracor.comr.com ,
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
ProtectMyID.comMyID.com ,
rosettastone.comstone.com ,
rosettastone.comstone.com,
[e-mail],
archermalmo.commalmo.com,
travelocity.comvelocity.com,
[e-mail] ,
vehix.comvehix.com ,
[e-mail]
[e-mail] ,
1800petmeds.cometmeds.com,
[e-mail] ,
aexp.com™[e-mail] ,
attnews.usews.us,
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
bristolmeyers.coms.com,
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
carsdirect.comrect.com ,
attwsbw.entp.attws.comattws.com,
cable.comcast.commcast.com,
multistate.come.com,

[SharpDressedMan]

Steven Hayward states "The best-selling conservative books these days tend to be red-meat titles such as Michelle Malkin's "Culture of Corruption," Glenn Beck's new "Arguing with Idiots" and all of Ann Coulter's well-calculated provocations that the left falls for like Pavlov's dogs. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these books."

Really? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with those books?

Which burning substance is Hayward inhaling?

[Eykis]

He is just allowing that their 1st Amendment rights give them the "right" to publish this garbage.

[SharpDressedMan]

Having read the article twice, I respectfully disagree. Hayward is in denial to some extent. He hasn't come to full grips with the failure of Reagan's conservatism.

[StillweRise]

Even when they evaluate themselves, they do not do it in an intellectually honest fashion. With all of the "lamenting" supposedly going by the author, the entire article boils down to what amounts to an actual ENDORSEMENT of Beck. So its the old reagan 11th commandment.. (thou shall not speak ill of another republican in public)... and "even when we're wrong... we're right)...

I'd like to see a so-called intellectual from the right acknowledge that the bedrock principles of conservatism were given a serious chance from 1980 through 2008 and admit that the fruition OF those principles was the near collapse of our nation. Anyone who looks at it with ANY honest objectivity will conclude just that.

[tigerakabj]

If they actually admitted it, they would be siding with Obama. And anyone who does that is a raging "liberal" and needs to be kicked out a.s.a.p.

These people (possibly) understand that their clock has run out. The only thing they have left is anger, hate, and ignorance. The tea party is the best display of the empty cup that of the current movement (if you can call it that).

Lastly, the movement they are talking about actually succeeded. They have been trying to undo Roosevelt's New Deal for 70 years and almost succeeded (i.e. concentrating the majority of the wealth in the hands of a few). Unfortunately, as always, they overreached, the bottom fell out, people woke up, and the dawn of progressive policies is just beginning. Obama being the first black president in our history with a funny name, advocating things like universal health care, education etc, proved that.

[Eykis]

Good post. Fanned.

[MarieNat]

EXACTLY! I seldom scoff, but scoff I did - several times - when I read this ridiculous apologist drivel.

[daultman463]

Though i wouldn`t call myself an intellect i will try. Yes we have had the white house 20 of the 28 years between 1980-2008. But the dems. controlled congress 16 or 18 years of this time. I would say the supreme court about a 50/50 deal during this time. If we controlled all this for 28 years then yea you could say that,but we didn`t.The best 4 years in my opinion wers 94-98 when clinton a moderate and gingrich a conservative worked together. In case you haven`t notice any time any party has had the numbers to controll they have both screwed up.

[jayburd]

Ah...yeah. He had me until he took Jonah Goldberg seriously.

"Liberal Fascism," what a joke!

Fascism is inherently right wing - it always has been and it always will be - radical nationalism married with unchecked corporate controlled economics. In other words, the modern Republican party.

Nice try, Mr. Intellectual Reaganite. Nice try...

[SharpDressedMan]

Here is another statement that discredited Steven Hayward.

"Consider the "tea party" phenomenon. Though authentic and laudatory,"

If teabaggers were authentic they wouldn't have demonstrated their overt racism and would have marched during the Bush years.

[jayburd]

Yeah, right. Authentic as astroturf...

[Beck rocks]

Fascism is a form of big government. When republicans support big government I criticize them. But there can be no doubt that, in the contest of who is the biggest supporter of big government, the democrat party wins hands down.

[monk2000]

actually it's not and you're wrong. You'd rather have a country run by special interests and corporations.

The job of "BIG GOV" still needs to be done and if you don't want the gov to do it then who will you turn to instead??? CORPORATIONS!!!!!

Your rationalizing is pathetic.

[Economike]

My theory is fascism is when the majority of families in a country are disfunctional (in a way where the father of the family is the only one who can be right or illict critisism) and the country elects or allows a leader who is just like them.

[Andman0121]

HAHA you have not the slightest CLUE as to what fascism is!

[CloseToTheEdge]

It is obvious that everything from the military to Social Security would be more efficiently run by private industry. It is equally clear that there is no possible way private industry can compete with the efficiency of the federal government. If you detect some conflict between those two statements it is possibly because you are a communist.

[Bogey907]

I can refute that with one word: Halliburton.

[Avery Davis]

Haliburton is working for Omaba now.

[StillweRise]

The first sentence of your premise, nullifies it entirely, as it is inaccurate.

[monk2000]

Yeah the military run by a privatized corporation. You're idea's are frightening.. good thing you're the minority.

Frea_ky Cre_epy Fai_lure.

[DSciarrino]

Here's something for the conservative intellectual (an oxymoron if ever there was one): Reagan style conservatism does not work. The economics of conservative thought is that the direct cost of regulation on on business is higher than the indirect cost on the society as a whole. When this is the case, deregulation makes sense. But given the corruption on Wall Street, health insurance providers, global warming, etc., the indirect cost on society is much greater than the direct cost of deregulating these industries and allowing the free market to do its work. Bottom line: We need a government large enough to make sure business internalizes costs as much as possible, but only that large. The party that can move to this idea is the party that will be successful far into the future.

[JaneK13]

I'd still trust an American farmer or Joe the Plumber with a seat in the House of Representatives more than I would a Harvard or Yale elite intellectual.

Just because most conservatives are "plain folks," they generally have more common sense than the Ivy league grads who think they're better than all the plebians.

Conservatives are Constitutionalists -- that's how the founders wanted it. We rejected the King (who thought he was better than masses) in 1773.

[ContraEgoiste]

And the right continues to prove the race to the bottom as depicted above.

Where most would prefer the most instructed, educated bright person they can find to lead, they look for the least.

So, how did a president that "you could have a beer with" worked out for you?? It was nearly fatal for the country.

[nexxtep54]

When they descend from their ivory towers, idealists are very apt to walk straight into the gutter.

[Telemachus]

"Conservatives are Constitutionalists".

Good one, made me laugh! If only more of you self-appointed constitutional experts actually bothered to read it. Like Glenn Beck who says the president isn't allowed to suggest legislation, or that health care isn't part of "provid[ing] for ... the general welfare of the United States." Not to mention all the cretins who happily granted George W more dictatorial power than George III ever had.

[doubter421]

Actually, you rejected an elected prime minister in 1776, not the figurehead monarch.

[Jacukel]

Yep, the common sense to vote, pollute and consume themselves to an early grave. Just the way corporate America wants them to. Wake up.