Comments on: The Future of Conservatism http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/13/the-future-of-conservatism/ A Blog by Timothy B. Lee Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:37:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Thomas O. Meehan http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/13/the-future-of-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-6327 Thomas O. Meehan Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:32:28 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1281#comment-6327 Tim, on reflection, I want to add that I agree with your approach in one important respect. The right must avoid the anti-tech, anti-science temptation. Too many of the alternative right pundits are rejecting our scientific heritage. The drive to investigate explore and innovate is a central element of the West. Many of these neo-Luddites have a particular animus towards the space program. For taking the part of science, I applaud you Libertarians. Tim, on reflection, I want to add that I agree with your approach in one important respect. The right must avoid the anti-tech, anti-science temptation. Too many of the alternative right pundits are rejecting our scientific heritage. The drive to investigate explore and innovate is a central element of the West. Many of these neo-Luddites have a particular animus towards the space program. For taking the part of science, I applaud you Libertarians.

]]> By: Kevin B. O'Reilly http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/13/the-future-of-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-6205 Kevin B. O'Reilly Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:11:05 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1281#comment-6205 Pundit's fallacy, indeed. Whether we call them bottom-up, dynamist, free-market or libertarian -- this set of ideas is deeply, deeply unpopular in America. *At best* it is poorly understood. To say that Republicans lost because they failed to push these complicated, counterintuitive and unpopular ideas is just nonsense. To say that Obama's win is somehow attributable to his friendliness to bottom-upness is nonsense on stilts. Even his vaunted crowdsourced campaign was pretty centralized. His message was (nearly) all about greater centralization of huge swaths of economic activity, agitating that it be directed, managed and teased this way and that from Washington, D.C. Not very bottom-up. Unless you consider the bottom to be one end of Pennsylvania Avenue and top to be the other end. Pundit’s fallacy, indeed. Whether we call them bottom-up, dynamist, free-market or libertarian — this set of ideas is deeply, deeply unpopular in America. *At best* it is poorly understood. To say that Republicans lost because they failed to push these complicated, counterintuitive and unpopular ideas is just nonsense. To say that Obama’s win is somehow attributable to his friendliness to bottom-upness is nonsense on stilts. Even his vaunted crowdsourced campaign was pretty centralized. His message was (nearly) all about greater centralization of huge swaths of economic activity, agitating that it be directed, managed and teased this way and that from Washington, D.C. Not very bottom-up. Unless you consider the bottom to be one end of Pennsylvania Avenue and top to be the other end.

]]> By: Thomas O. Meehan http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/13/the-future-of-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-6175 Thomas O. Meehan Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:53:03 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1281#comment-6175 I was there as well, mostly to meet Larison with whom I joust over at the American Conservative blog. He was the only one to articulate some conservative first principles. Postrel was entertaining and she made a good point, but as a liberal she was out of place. BTW, the GOP used to take anti-dumb regulation positions regularly. There would be nothing revolutionary about the GOP defending our right to keep our light bulbs. Douthat and Frum represented the opportunist wing of the right very well I thought. Frum was at his oily best when he recommended booting conservative Christians and their irrational concern about "Social Issues," out of the movement. Who needs them when we can marshal the hordes of superficially educated BA grads around a vision of endless war, free range chicken and a rootless global economics? I mean, what could be more conservative than that? Douthat's complaint that Republican political leaders don't pay sufficient attention to public intellectuals like himself was an amusing idea. Just how happy is the GOP with the advice they got, and took, from Frum and company last time at bat? David Larison was interesting. He is a poor speaker and has an air of someone who is still defending his thesis in his head. His tortured, almost forensic dissections of others arguments are a bit tedious as he seems to believe that statements that are not provable via Venn diagram cannot be true politically. But he has a penetrating mind and a coherent picture of what the conservative project should be. I wish he could drop the theological and localist dimensions to his thought as these render his advice less than useful on planet Earth. I was there as well, mostly to meet Larison with whom I joust over at the American Conservative blog. He was the only one to articulate some conservative first principles. Postrel was entertaining and she made a good point, but as a liberal she was out of place. BTW, the GOP used to take anti-dumb regulation positions regularly. There would be nothing revolutionary about the GOP defending our right to keep our light bulbs.

Douthat and Frum represented the opportunist wing of the right very well I thought. Frum was at his oily best when he recommended booting conservative Christians and their irrational concern about “Social Issues,” out of the movement. Who needs them when we can marshal the hordes of superficially educated BA grads around a vision of endless war, free range chicken and a rootless global economics? I mean, what could be more conservative than that? Douthat’s complaint that Republican political leaders don’t pay sufficient attention to public intellectuals like himself was an amusing idea. Just how happy is the GOP with the advice they got, and took, from Frum and company last time at bat?

David Larison was interesting. He is a poor speaker and has an air of someone who is still defending his thesis in his head. His tortured, almost forensic dissections of others arguments are a bit tedious as he seems to believe that statements that are not provable via Venn diagram cannot be true politically. But he has a penetrating mind and a coherent picture of what the conservative project should be. I wish he could drop the theological and localist dimensions to his thought as these render his advice less than useful on planet Earth.

]]> By: Rich http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/13/the-future-of-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-6170 Rich Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:45:23 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1281#comment-6170 "...[M]ore educated and affluent voters are a growing share of the electorate." Is this really true? I just read Derbyshire's _We Are Doomed_ chapter on demographic collapse, so I'm feeling awfully pessimistic about this sort of thing. I'd expect the category of "educated and affluent" to be shrinking... Somehow VP's blog shook out of my RSS reader; thanks for the reminder to put it back. Best, Rich “…[M]ore educated and affluent voters are a growing share of the electorate.”

Is this really true? I just read Derbyshire’s _We Are Doomed_ chapter on demographic collapse, so I’m feeling awfully pessimistic about this sort of thing. I’d expect the category of “educated and affluent” to be shrinking…

Somehow VP’s blog shook out of my RSS reader; thanks for the reminder to put it back.

Best,
Rich

]]> By: Rhayader http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/13/the-future-of-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-6169 Rhayader Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:43:13 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1281#comment-6169 The funny thing is that conservatives have a wealth of historical bottom-up wisdom upon which to draw, but seem much more concerned with that "Sam's Club" populist crap. Instead of embracing their roots -- Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, etc -- they go for Sarah Palin? Yuck. I tell Republicans that there is a whole lot of libertarian sentiment growing in this country. I'm 26, and people around my age and younger were raised on individualism and bottom-up processes thanks to the internet. Instead of fighting that with the socially conservative religious stuff, they could embrace it and bring a large number of independents into their camp. But hey, what do I know about manipulating the masses? The funny thing is that conservatives have a wealth of historical bottom-up wisdom upon which to draw, but seem much more concerned with that “Sam’s Club” populist crap. Instead of embracing their roots — Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, etc — they go for Sarah Palin? Yuck.

I tell Republicans that there is a whole lot of libertarian sentiment growing in this country. I’m 26, and people around my age and younger were raised on individualism and bottom-up processes thanks to the internet. Instead of fighting that with the socially conservative religious stuff, they could embrace it and bring a large number of independents into their camp.

But hey, what do I know about manipulating the masses?

]]>