Is there a site on succinct, intelligent conservative opinions

The Liberalism FAQ has intelligent, rational arguments for liberalism and against conservatism.

Is there an equivalent of a conservative FAQ anywhere on the internet, a list of conservative arguments that are based on evidence and logic? I’m having trouble finding a conservative site that isn’t designed to preach to the choir. The Liberalism FAQ was hard enough to find.

I’m of the opinion that no such animal exists, conservative or liberal, especially on the Internet. Spoonfeeding is spoonfeeding.

Here’s a libertarian faq:

Here’s another:

Here’s an anti-libertarian faq:

There’s also a website entitled “Intellectual Conservative”, which contains the following dispassionate reviews and articles:

The Dunces of Doomsday
Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?
Mediocrity Reigns Supreme: Congressional hot air substitutes for energy policy
Oh Well, Boys Will Be Girls: Essential Problems of Boys and Girls

To protect girls from the imagined horrors of masculinity, paranoid gender feminists are intentionally miseducating boys to become girls in all ways possible. A review of The War Against Boys.
Border Patrol Agents: Senator McCain Sells Us Out (Again)
Groveling Worship of Ignorance
Liberal Aggression and the Da Vinci Code

They claim they are, “the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism.” I believe them, but that’s just MHO.

Here is their list of “Conservative Intellectual Icons”:

George Will and Patrick Buchanan both made the cut.

They are currently reviewing the top 25 conservative books. Numbers 9-25 have been reviewed; we will have to guess what the remaining 8 will be.

This is probably too succinct. has an entry entitled Conservatism 101.

Links include:

What Conservatives are Not:
A little look at some misrepresentations of conservatives and conservative views - to dispel the myths and smear efforts and to set things straight.
Conservative Values - Social
Conservative Values - Fiscal

One also has to be aware of what one brings to the table. One man’s ‘argument based on evidence and logic’ is another man’s biassed argument ‘preaching to the choir’.

In other words it’s difficult to be dispassionate about these things when judging the worth of a site. For instance, as a conservative I might take issue with your description of the Liberalism FAQ site (and, in fact, a quick perusal does give me pause for doubt).

It isn’t easy to put by our own, sometimes unconscious, prejudices.

Good luck in your quest though.

The conservative website Human Events catalogued the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. They included The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Kinsey Report on Human Sexuality, The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, The Course of Positive Philosophy by August Compte and The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by Lord Keynes.

Runners up included On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Unsafe at Any Speed by Ralph Nader, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud and Descent of Man by Charles Darwin.

After poking around for a while on the net, I’m beginning to feel a little sympathetic.

Note though, that not all analysis falls neatly into these sorts of categories. For example, Steven Levitt usually posits definite (and controversial) conclusions, but they typically don’t fall into a neat narrative. In another thread I noted that his 5 explanations for declining US crime included the notorious link to Roe v. Wade, but also prison expansion. Furthermore, he doesn’t even take a pseudo-moderate-both-sides-have-a-point stance. He just analyses the data.

Admittedly, in my experience modern conservatives are skeptical about the possibilities for straightforward expert analysis. Many will blanche at the next paragraph.

If you poke around the , you will find solid empirically-driven analysis. Another interesting site is National Academy of Sciences.

Now admittedly, article in those sites lack the sorts of rhetorical hooks that good journalists embed in their articles. They often require a little patience and a lot of skimming. Still, these are the sorts of reports that should be read by those interested in public policy.