So why Palin?

Great Debates
161

Yep, that’s about the current state of it. Rush Limbaugh is actually very similar to Sarah Palin in that they are both polarizing figures in the Republican Party. There are those (again, like David Frum and David Brooks) who think that Rush is needlessly partisan, throws out too much red meat, and in general appeals to the worst side of Republicanism. Then there are those who say that he really activates the base, and without an active base you can’t win Jack Squat. So he plays the same role that Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, and Jon Stewart play on the left - he riles up the base and gets them active. Get them mad, and they’ll fight harder to win. They’ll work harder, donate more, rally together, etc. He’s a lightning rod, and the Republican Party needs that because its natural state is less activist than are the Democrats.

But anyway, that’s right now. There’s currently a fight about Rush going on in the Republican Party - whether or not he does more harm than good. If the economy gets a lot worse, you’re going to see the rise of the conservatives with ideas - guys like Eric Cantor and Mark Sanford. And even Newt Gingrich. Because those are the only kinds of people who could win. If the economy is in the tank, no one will have patience for the yowlings of the religious right.

162

Jon Stewart does not deserve to be grouped with Moore and Olbermann. He is not a demogogue or a party cheerleader. While he’s clearly on the left, he satirizes both sides. He’s not a hack, he’s not pompous or sensationalistic and he’s not dishonest.

163

Yeah, I’ll give you that.

164

Care to explain this one? I’m pretty sure I understand what the other categories are, but I’m not sure what a Burkean intellectual conservative is.

165

Okay, this is my own reading of the state of conservatism:

There are generally two large factions in conservative circles - those who are motivated by free market principles and economic reasoning which leads them to prefer a smaller state, and those who are more aligned with social principles, tradition, and the value of traditional institutions like marriage and the church.

Burkean conservatives are generally in the latter group - their focus is on maintaining the institutions that they believe arose organically over the centuries when people were free to choose their own ways of organizing, and which they see under attack today. Historically, they seem to be generally catholic, eastern, ivy league types.

Economic conservatives are more likely to read Locke and Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, where Burkeans are more likely to read Edmund Burke and Russel Kirk. Economic conservatives are more likely to subscribe to Reason or The Economist, and Bukean conservatives are more likely to subscribe to the National Review or the American Spectator.

This doesn’t mean they disagree on core fundamentals with free market conservatives - their focus is just different. For example, both groups think that the well being of society starts with strong property rights - economic conservatives because property rights are essential for the maintenance of a free market, and burkean conservatives because the right to property is the cornerstone of family and local social structures.

Likewise, economic conservatives and libertarians would argue that economic efficiency and general well-being are maximized when people are maximally free to live their own lives. Prices are efficient, the allocation of goods is efficient, etc. Burkean conservatives would agree that freedom is necessary, but their focused opposition against the intrusion of government is that it breaks down the social order they are trying to protect.

For example, social security and unemployment reduces the need for extended families to remain close, because those programs replace much of the value that people gained from staying in large extended families. They would argue that replacing a social system that stems from the people closest to you with one that comes from faceless bureaucrats is not a good thing for the culture or the health of the society as a whole.

There’s nothing stopping from them from also being libertarian, although some are quite statist. Pat Buchanan, for example. William F. Buckley, on the other hand, was a Burkean conservative, but he was quite libertarian.

166

By the way, both of these groups are different from neocons or the religious right.

The religious right is mainly focused on matters of faith and Christian values. They’re mostly conservative, but they don’t have to be. ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats could be described as being part of this group from time to time, and the religious right isn’t above using the power of the state to push their values on others.

Neocons are actually very different from Burkean conservatives, and in fact the two camps can be quite hostile with each other. Neo-cons often are former liberals, sometimes former Marxists, and they don’t mind upsetting the current social order. Burkeans and paleo conservatives can trend towards being almost isolationist, while Neo-Cons tend to want to change the world.

And of course, all these groups can have significant overlap, just like any other political philosophy. Almost no one fits entirely into one category. Rather, to map conservatism you’d want to build a multi-dimensional graph and plot people on it.