Quote of the day
posted at 9:30 pm on January 24, 2009 by Allahpundit
“The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.
Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater’s speeches in the mid-’60s, or to Reagan’s in the ’80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year’s presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism’s worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation’s public affairs.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
That’s the same thing. Where people get screwed up is in confusing “intellectualism” with intelligence; those are two completely unrelated things.
Hundreds of years ago, the world was a very different place. Back when only a tiny fraction of the population could read or write, people had to make the barbaric distinction between a handful of people who were designated as the official thinkers, and the vast majority who could spare no time from brute sustenance.
Conservatives often refer to the liberal view of the world as “Medieval.” But conservatives have a fatal flaw: we are always overly-charitable. The liberal view is set in the hindbrain; the need to look for a tribal “wise man” has always been there, and it will always be there. Some of us fight against the perfectly natural desire to turn the brain off and let someone else do all the thinking for us; but liberals, pretty much by definition, are people who always let their feelings be their guide.
logis on January 25, 2009 at 10:32 AM
What a dumbass article. But since it fits your personal agenda, I’m sure it will be posted in various forms ad nauseum. If Reagan were alive today, he would give you the boot.
Blake on January 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Dr Evil on January 25, 2009 at 9:52 AM
The theme will eventually be, “You can’t say that about me or my decisions.”
We were all racists starting a year ago, just because we dared to question an egotistical tyro from Chicago running for POTUS.
Now? Not just racists but something worse: subversives.
If Ogabe starts talking about the evils of sedition, that will be the signal to head for the mountains.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Does this Rino mean that obamas “spread the wealth” is not populist to the extreme.
The article is a plagiary of Orwell.
the_nile on January 25, 2009 at 11:11 AM
The GOP has abandoned Rush and those like him.
This is why they won’t get a dime from me until they pull their heads from their asses.
Black Adam on January 25, 2009 at 11:16 AM
That’s the way it is now. Liberals are equating criticism of the sovereign with criticism of the state. That’s where all this “Why don’t you want Obama to succeed?” crap is coming from.
logis on January 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Whenever someone starts talking about creativity in the context of political philosophy I know immediately that they are an elitist Liberal “creatively” trying to defy the laws of human nature to engineer a better way for other people (who are less elite) to live their lives. In their arrogance what they never realize is that there is no creativity in right and wrong.
You can be a creative capitalist but capitalism itself is not a creative medium. Creativity has it’s place in things like art, literature, music, architecture, etc.. Leave it out of things like math, balancing check books and budgets, truth, politics, etc..
Micky may not realize it be he has transformed into a Liberal. The only thing worse than something bad is something crusading around as good completely unaware that it is bad.
I don’t know Micky Edwards and, beyond this article, am not familiar with his writings. But, if he thinks/believes that Reagan would approve of Obama’s view of America and how it’s government should serve the people then he has gone insane.
watson007 on January 25, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Just the leadership. The only thing that broke the last cycle of Democrat violence was ideological purity. It’s the only thing that will work this time as well. I don’t want to have to wait for heaven to live under good government.
We must stand against mothers killing their children. We are the new abolitionists. The pro life movement is now the neoabolitionist movement.
Mojave Mark on January 25, 2009 at 11:22 AM
I would also add that I would rather have an anti-intellectual with a good moral center than someone who agonizes over great moral dilemmas and avoids them by saying “It’s above my pay grade.”
terryannonline on January 25, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Since Ronald Reagan actively courted social conservatives I fail to understand this gentlemen point. I don’t think the two factions will ever agree but I don’t understand why there is the need to denigrate each other. Work together on the small government financial responsibility goals and ethical behavior. That will take us a long way out of the mess we are in now.
Cindy Munford on January 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM
That’s the way it is now. Liberals are equating criticism of the sovereign with criticism of the state. That’s where all this “Why don’t you want Obama to succeed?” crap is coming from.
logis on January 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM
So the merger is now complete, we have become the Fatherland with Great Leader personifying the very soil of our nation.
Shall we take bets on which city gets renamed ‘Obamagrad’ in deference to the Boss?
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 11:36 AM
OH SHUT UP. Time for another lengthy screed.
I´m getting sick of the meme that we are against elites, ideas or science. It is Al Gore who put science in the service of ideology. It is liberals with Harvard degrees who impose cap-and-trade, the mortage ponzi scheme or the trillion dollar porkfest on our economy. What has Joe the Plumber done that is so terrible? What? Conservatism did not create the current mess.
As for “doing something”, as the author demands, what more could George W. Bush have done? Whatever you think about the bailout, it is dishonest to lump Bush with those who opposed the bailouts.
Conservatism is not opposed to ideas or elites, it is opposed to certain intellectual fashions and undeserving elitists.
It is first of all a matter of temperament. Those who are arrogant enough to consider themselves an elite are arrogant enough to want to change the foundations of society. Obama calls it “a clean break with our troubled past”. Pol Pot called it Zero Hour.
To quote Alexander Bickel, a conservative intellectual: “To be a revolutionary in a society like ours, is to be a totalitarian, or not to know what one is doing.” We are smart enough not to fall for the collectivist, utopian nightmare the intellectuals have been pushing for decades. I don´t know about you, but I am proud of that.
We also differ on what makes an elite. We refuse to put our trust in expensive credentials. Libs are obsessed with Ivy League credentials, although in reality they praise anybody who shares their views, which is why their idea of an intellectual heavyweight is Jon Stewart and they are perfectly capable of voting for Al Franken.
I think it was that simpleton David Brooks who complained last October that the GOP had lost the support of the financiers of Wall Street. Well, good riddance. Did he notice that they just ruined the world´s finance system? Democrats can keep the Madoffs and their gullible clients which I think included the Harvard and Yale endowments. If they are so smart, why is the money gone?
No, we prefer actions and values. We admire true elites like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, David Petraeus and yes, Sarah Palin, all of whom have impressive experience, accomplishments and life stories. We do not think less of all the working men and women who simply do their job every day, with or without a degree, be they soldiers, doctors, truckdrivers or engineers. They keep the country running. In this republic, they ARE the country. That is what really rankles liberals. The people with their oh so parochial preferences get in the way of top-down rule by the “we know best” crowd. That is why they really hate Joe the plumber and why the GOP should strive to be the political home for people like Joe the plumber or Tito the builder and be proud of it.
And finally, who are the “we know best” crowd? The elitists aren´t a bunch of intellectual achievers at all. It is a connected and likeminded clique of political hacks. There is nothing intellectual about, for example, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Rod Blagojevich, Kwame Kilpatrick or the rip-off artists who ran Fannie Mae, but that´s what you end up with. They will tell you they´re for the little guy, but what binds them together is their sense of entitlement, their hunger for power and their contempt for the people and the foundations of this country.
And I´supposed to be scared of a little GOP-style populism?
el gordo on January 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/01/sunday-morning-civic-lesson-americanism.html
Dr Evil on January 25, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Oh,please spare me this tripe.
Done That on January 25, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Someone once asked me who my favorite American philosophers were. Without a second’s hesitation I started listing the greatest contributors to American thought: “Henry Ford, Sam Walton, Ray Kroc…”
Don’t get me wrong: people like George Washington and Ronald Reagan were great Americans in their own right. But the only reason they’re great is because they helped let loose the REAL geniuses who make this country work.
logis on January 25, 2009 at 1:02 PM
The Republican’s over the last few years haven’t listened to Rush at all.
roux on January 25, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I remember that line from the movie.
The little boy was crying “Come back, Shane!” as the cowboy rode into the sunset.
All this time, I thought Shane had stole his wallet.
The article reads like a liberals view of conservativism.
I read it again… and it’s still CRAP.
Marvin Henry “Mickey” Edwards, sounds like a crackpot.
These two paragraphs, with emphasis on these statements lead me to believe this guy is a steaming liberals in the 4th degree. The problem with the conservative party is that there are too many Republicans In Name Only. WIMPS.
Limited Government, Low Taxes, Less Regulation….
Awww, Jeeze…. this is academic pointless.
Apathy.
Kini on January 25, 2009 at 1:30 PM
My kind of town, Obamagrad is
My kind of town, Obamagrad is
My kind of razzmatazz
And it has, all that jazz………..
Red State State of Mind on January 25, 2009 at 1:42 PM
And Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were known for “their philosophical tone”? What is the point of this revisionist history?
kcewa on January 25, 2009 at 1:44 PM
+1
Red State State of Mind on January 25, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Excellent response to Mr. Edwards. Propagate to all who care. I bet the LAT won’t.
Schadenfreude on January 25, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Goldwater and Reagan were both populist conservatives who would have welcomed “Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation’s public affairs.”
kcewa on January 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Hello? Hot Air staff…can we get a new thread, there is plenty of fodder on which to base one?
Hellooooooooooooo?
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM
+1
Disturb the Universe on January 25, 2009 at 1:56 PM
It’s Sunday, there’s no football, it’s -400 in Minnesota, can’t SOMEONE at HA get a new topic going? The headlines are being updated.
Geez, maybe I’ll go hang out at TalkLeft or KOS, at least they keep the material fresh.
This is what kills good sites, lack of current material.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Reagan was for small government, low taxes, strong defense, gun ownership and all things America. Tell me where Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and Levin differ from this?
long_cat on January 25, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Thank you.
Cindy Munford on January 25, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Apparently some Republicans haven’t taken the time to listen to what Reagan stood for before he lost his mind. Either that or some are not Republicans and are trying to keep the GOP headed in the wrong direction.
popularpeoplesfront on January 25, 2009 at 2:10 PM
We should start up one ourselvers.
How about…., how long till Hussein breaks his campaign promises or now that we cannot interrogate terrorist, when will be be attacked again.
Has anyone read the Army Field Manual?
Kini on January 25, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Err… which campaign promises? Hope or change? I don’t remember any others that had not already expired by election day…..
Troll Feeder on January 25, 2009 at 2:47 PM
This, from his Wikipedia page, says it all:
Apologies if this has already been noted.
rivlax on January 25, 2009 at 2:48 PM
The REAL Mr. Buckley put it best: “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
But I’m sure this LA Times hack would be more than happy to tell me that William F. Buckley would have voted for Barack Obama too.
logis on January 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I can refute the premise of this article with one word:
McCain.
___________
RJGatorEsq. on January 25, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Doing something is better than doing nothing? This man can’t be serious when he intimates that Reagan would be OK with this trillion dollar boondoggle that is about to be heaped upon us. This is a man who brought a 14-pound visual aid to his 1988 State of the Union address to illustrate the evils of rampant pork-barrel spending. If Reagan is weeping for anything it’s that his party has abandoned its spine and all of its principles to drink the Lightmaker’s Kool-Aid.
And of the conservatives he named whom he accuses of being on a blind pursuit for power, how many have actually held office? Two? And didn’t one of those resign his post voluntarily? I fail to see how Rush or Ann or Karl Rove (himself a borderline RINO) have the power to do anything, aside from promoting the free exchange of ideas which, I thought, was one of the pillars upon which this country was built.
Mickey Edwards: RINO. Reagan would be very disappointed.
NoLeftTurn on January 25, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I’m a conservative and I have no party.
jukin on January 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM
I just saw your old comment from p 2 a minute ago.
I voted for Mitt in the primary. I didn’t mean to give the impression otherwise. I was speaking in terms of voters in general, not me specifically.
And yes, I would feel a WHOLE lot more secure if he were in the WH.
INC on January 25, 2009 at 7:22 PM
I hate to say it, but perhaps you are.
Read some Reagan speeches and some things he wrote.
Great answer.
INC on January 25, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Those of you who didn’t live through double digit inflation, gas lines, the Iran hostage crisis, etc., of the Carter malaise, this article can give you some of the background feel for it.
This speech became known as the malaise speech.
People & Events: Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” Speech
INC on January 25, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Well…. I can see how the party became ant-intellectual. But I for one had no interest in sending Joe the plumber to washington. So there’s some truth here that’s heavily laden with real cynicism towards the party that weakens the credibility of the article overall. It’s a shame. The author could have made a meaningful point, and chose instead to resort to the same sort of snarky bitterness that is the undoing of any political view.
tartan on January 25, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Did he? Then that further weakens any credibility.
tartan on January 25, 2009 at 8:18 PM
INC…
Seams I remember those days all too well…
Thanks for the trip down memory lane~ as a niece of mine says…NOT! ;)
jerrytbg on January 25, 2009 at 8:21 PM
good point
tartan on January 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM
I agree–Carter was a disaster.
That link had some of the feel of Carter’s presidency. I thought it might help those who didn’t live through it realize what a little of what it was like.
INC on January 25, 2009 at 8:36 PM
The thing is that this guy is trading on his credentials of having been part of The Heritage Foundation. That full disclosure is only dropped to establish him as having the right to critique.
(BTW, I saw no mention of a really full disclosure that he voted for Obama.)
Think of it in reverse. What if there was a founding blogger at HuffPo became a conservative? Then a year or two down the road, this person wrote some article criticizing Democrats under the guise of being a founding blogger at HuffPo. Would people screech? Yes.
INC on January 25, 2009 at 8:40 PM
inc…true
jerrytbg on January 25, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Thanks for that link.
tartan on January 25, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Mickey Edwards may have been a Conservative at one time. But he has strayed even further than David Brooks from what Conseratives truly are.
And anyone who said he thought Hillary was the strongest candidate and then actually voted for Obama is no Conservative, so I could care less what he thinks or says. End of story.
Deanna on January 25, 2009 at 9:48 PM
We would have had 1000 + hits on just one “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot” thread. Is Al Franken guest-blogging today?
chunderroad on January 25, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Well, I agreed with the first sentence quoted. But that’s where I diverge from the author. The Republican Party in disrepute is the party of big-government socialism (complicit – in fact, responsible for setting in motion – in Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus) and spinelessness (complicit in just about everything else the Dhimmicrats shove down America’s throat).
OneGyT on January 25, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Just seeing the picture of The Great One brings a longing in my heart for his leadership, humor and the sense of well being he brought to our country! We somehow knew that everything would be ok because he would lead us forward. We don’t have that anymore. We are led by fools and corrupt pols. who are only in this for the money.
sabbott on January 26, 2009 at 8:01 AM
Why do liberals label anyone that spews warmed over Marxism an intellectual?
Bevan on January 26, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4