He was able to forge a unified conservative vision in the 70’s, get rid of (most) of the extremist fringe, and make an intelligent case for conservatism & efficiency and effectiveness of government.
Once he passed the intelectual portion of the conservative movement was swept away and replaced with a bizzarro-Reagan fundamentalism of minimal taxes, minimal government, and minimal oversight of financial institutions as the driving force conservatism. Along with this a resurgence of xenophobia, racism and over focus on social issues (i.e. abortion).
On what do you base your assertion that the intellectual part of the conservative movement has been swept away?
If this is nothing but this week’s “conservatives are all stupid poopy heads” then never mind, but if you have any real evidence it might be useful to show it.
The dominant mouthpiece for modern conservatives is a combination of Fox News, talk radio, and soundbite attention-grabbing commentary from Tea Party groups seeking exposure.
It’s not that there is no intellectual conservative thought, or that much of the conservative policy platform doesn’t have robust analytical underpinnings. It’s that rational conversation and policy debate does not lead the conversation–that voice is all but drowned out by the politics of the absurd.
Do you consider Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Andrew Brietbart to be of the same caliber of Buckley? Though they are making similar opening statements (e.g., small government is better), it is absurd to consider the statements and reasoning that follows to be on the same level.
“Intellectual” is not synonymous with “intelligent”, you know. We can argue (preferably in some other thread) about how smart Republicans are, but they’re certainly not intellectual any more.
Buckley in his day made a contribution to the overall conservative movement - but he wasn’t the only tiller in the field. He always recognized the importance of other members of the movement and did not overemphasize his role.
As such, when Rush Limbaugh appeared on the scene, Buckley instantly realized that Limbaugh was an ally and not a rival. He would have loved the Tea Partiers, from the evidence that I have read.
This brought some criticism of Buckley from his many urbane liberal friends, now conveniently forgotten since Buckley is safely dead. This frequently happens when political figures die - we build little myths of them inside of our heads. Frequently for opposition figures we turn them into “the sensible {whatevers} of the old days.”
When Buckley was alive he was often called a nazi - in fact, I can link a memorable video when this happened and nearly caused a fistfight.
I think this post is a good example of what has happened to good Republican intellectual discourse. Notice how the original question has been very loosely reworded so that it can be dismissed with a hand wave-this is what passes for political discussion far too often these days.
maybe all the self-described intellectuals signed up with the “neocon” bandwagon?
I don’t understand why OP is comparing Buckley the egghead publicist with the modern Tea Party affiliated propagandists and politicos. These are two inherently distinct professions, or market niches, within the Conservative movement. Publicists like Buckley may have been prominent in the past because that mass market politico niche was simply unfilled, or else filled with people who looked a lot more mainstream, given the contemporary mainstream.
As the realization that Buckley-style politics through rhetoric has led nowhere sinks in into the electorate, we are seeing now alternative expressions of Conservative politics. It remains to be seen if they will prove just as fruitless as the previous attempts.
Also, sorry if I am misrepresenting the OP’s stand on who is and is not an intellectual, but what makes you think that “intellectuals” do not make “racist” or “xenophobic” arguments? E.g. Sam Francis (writer) - Wikipedia was an intellectual and indeed IMHO a more coherent thinker than Buckley - so, sure enough, his arguments against multiculturalism and mass immigration are appropriately elaborately argued. In fact, I think the only way to declare people like Francis “non intellectual” would be to employ circular reasoning along the lines of "no true intellectual can ever say anything ‘racist’ ".
Overall, I think that the OP is incorrect in believing that the only intellectually defensible aspect of American Conservatism is limited government. There are more things in heaven and earth to “conserve” for Conservatives than the taxpayer’s money in the second fiscal quarter - indeed, being Conservative is all about taking the longer view. And, sure enough, there were and are intellectuals taking that longer view and propounding appropriate ideas, Sam Francis amongst them.
The intellectual conservative movement still exists. Yes the absurd and fringe points of view get more airtime because the real issues are not as sensational for 30 second soundbites as Palin, Rush, etc. To believe that the conservative agenda is without intellectual thought is, well, not a serious debate.
Whether or not the intellectual wing of the Republican party is effective is certainly worthy of debate, wouldn’t you say? Who are they, and what voice do they have in this sound-bite society?
The Republican party is forever doomed until they lessen the influence/weight of the religious right. Until that happens, there’s really no point in having such a discussion as you propose.
Well, in my mind, they are two different issues. The OP posits that the intellectual conservative movement died with William F. Buckley.
Follow-on posters posit that it was never there and others argue that it still exists. I argue that it’s there, it just isn’t relevant as long as the religious right dominates the discussion and platform.
Debating the existence of conservative intellectualism has no bearing on the dominance of the religious right. IMHO.
The original question has not been 'very loosely reworded"; it’s almost a quote (except he misspelled “intellectual”). It is also a false statement that the question was dismissed - asking for evidence of an assertion is different from waving it away.
Would you care to take a crack at establishing what the OP assumed, or are you going to proceed as if that weren’t necessary?
I think you’ve struck it. Traditional American conservatism - concerned with property rights, limited government, fiscal responsibility has largely been overwhelmed by the social-conservative faction. What we see today ain’t your grandaddy’s conservatism. Conservatism has always been more visceral than rational anyway, but such intellectual underpinning as it has had has always been focused on the economic argument rather than the moral one.
James Michener, writer & commentater participated in and considered both the fascist and communist activist movements in Europe in the 1930’s. He was opposed to both extremes in favor of liberal democracy, but found that communism was more difficult to refute, because it had at least an intellectual foundation whereas fascism (which might be considere extreme conservatism) had no more basis than an appeal to traditional nationalistic emotions.
SS