The ascent, and then descent, of intellectual conservatism
We’ve talked a lot about the recent intellectual and spiritual failings of conservatism in America. The spiritual failing, in part, is that Republicans have squandered their ethos since 2000 (and maybe since 1992) as a party who cares about all Americans, not just the unborn. The intellectual failing is that they’ve gone rogue, appealing to a populist kind of anti-intellectualism that was supposed to appeal to Real America, but in fact appeals to nobody. It’s not a crime to use big words, as long as you do it judiciously.
For the past 40 years American conservatism has been politically ascendant, in no small part because it was also intellectually ascendant [...] Magazines like the Public Interest and Commentary became required reading for anyone seriously concerned about domestic and foreign affairs; conservative research institutes sprang up in Washington and on college campuses, giving a fresh perspective on public policy. Buckley, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Peter Berger, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Norman Podhoretz — agree or disagree with their views, these were people one had to take seriously.
Mark Lilla, a professor of humanities at Columbia, asks, “So what happened”
How, 30 years later, could younger conservative intellectuals promote a candidate like Sarah Palin, whose ignorance, provinciality and populist demagoguery represent everything older conservative thinkers once stood against? It’s a sad tale that began in the ’80s, when leading conservatives frustrated with the left-leaning press and university establishment began to speak of an “adversary culture of intellectuals.”
Read on, and tell us what you think.




WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!


















back to top80 Comments to “The ascent, and then descent, of intellectual conservatism”
It depends on who you are talking to. I know a lot of judicious people who have no idea what judiciously means.
Report comment as offensive
Because Palin is the traditional ideal in my opinion. Shes not stupid despite how much the media would like one to believe otherwise.
The rogue “conservatives” havent been conservative at all. Theyve abandoned the ideals of conservatism. Time for them to go. Its not conservative when your acting like unintellectual liberals.
Report comment as offensive
Country Club Republicans and blue bloods have been trying to protect the party from hayseeds for generations. Nothing new here.
Report comment as offensive
#1 Another paean to the alleged virtues of common sense. Too often this is sung in support of what is really common nonsense.
Could it be there’s a connection between GOP/conservative pandering to the evangelical base and its descent into dumbed-down mob-rule populism? My long-ago and very-involved evangelical experience calls to mind a veritable celebration of “ignorance, provinciality and populist demagoguery” from an intellectually lazy crowd that conveniently justified their foolishness as the superior wisdom of God. Palin would have fit in well!
Report comment as offensive
Wow, this guy really hates Sarah Palin. He hasn’t convinced me, though, that she’s any worse than a lot of politicians the Democrats have put forward. Biden has had his share of gaffes and certainly doesn’t come across as “an intellectual” to anyone I know.
To the point of the article, anti-intellectualism isn’t about a dislike for big words. It’s about the use of sophistry to justify immoral policies. I was just reading a post on the First Things web site called “The Unintelligence of Intellectuals” that, citing Thomas Sowell, dealt with this exact topic. Here’s an excerpt:
During the 1930s, some of the leading intellectuals in America condemned our economic system and pointed to the centrally planned Soviet economy as a model–all this at a time when literally millions of people were starving to death in the Soviet Union, from a famine in a country with some of the richest farmland in Europe and historically a large exporter of food.
New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for telling the intelligentsia what they wanted to hear–that claims of starvation in the Ukraine were false.
After British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge reported from the Ukraine on the massive deaths from starvation there, he was ostracized after returning to England and unable to find a job.
More than half a century later, when the archives of the Soviet Union were finally opened up under Mikhail Gorbachev, it turned out that about six million people had died in that famine–about the same number as the people killed in Hitler’s Holocaust.
In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament.
It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century–far more so than ordinary people.
I agree, however, that we need a return to the type of conservative thinking exemplified by Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk. Bush claimed to be a conservative, but it was never clear to me that he knew the first thing about conservatism.
Report comment as offensive
On the other hand, party politics is about getting votes by whatever means necessary. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is not something the Republicans do exclusively. To imply that the Democrats are the party of highly-educated intellectuals with superior cognitive abilities is nearly hilarious.
Report comment as offensive
#5 Sowell is one of the best examples of fatuous intellectualism at its worst! Like the sub-par Clarence Thomas - an anti-affirmative action black who is only on SCOTUS because he’s black - Sowell speaks and writes as an anti-intellectual intellectual. I guess he should know about stupidity masquerading as intellectualism - that rather sums up his regular column!
Report comment as offensive
Oh jeez, Spinoza. Sorry I mentioned his name. Could you bother to reply to the content of the post, if you’re going to reply, and not to some assertion nobody made?
Oh, never mind. I forgot: you’re trying to distract attention from that content. It would hardly serve your purpose to acknowledge the reality of what he said.
Report comment as offensive
It’s also rather amusingly ironic that the liberals here resort to an anti-intellectualism of their own in order to prove their intellectual superiority.
Could you be imposed upon to argue without fallacies in every comment, please?
Report comment as offensive
“the sub-par Clarence Thomas - an anti-affirmative action black who is only on SCOTUS because he’s black”
Where’s Nick Peters when you need him.
I’m almost willing to bet you didnt even read the post either.
Report comment as offensive
Could you bother to reply to the content of the post,
Most of your posts don’t have content worth replying to …
Report comment as offensive
#10 I read post #5 (is that what you mean?) I also read the Sowell article before David L. excerpted it. I also listened to all five Sowell “chapter” videos from HSK’s post of WSJ’s Sowell interview. I’ve also read quite a number of Sowell column’s in the past. Sowell is a joke - and not worth the time it would take to point out why in detail!
Report comment as offensive
You apparently thought differently 12 minutes ago.
The truth is, you’re just not able to reply to my posts without resorting to insults and fallacies.
Grow up.
Report comment as offensive
“Sowell is a joke - and not worth the time it would take to point out why in detail!”
Well, I and many others here disagree.
You assert your opinion without giving any arguments to support it, and we’re just supposed to say, “Oh, OK.” You don’t care if anyone is persuaded, so why are you even here? Evidently just to purge some of the bile you carry around with you and to do in the faces of the people you disagree with. This is the very definition of emotional immaturity.
Report comment as offensive
In the age of alternative media, what we got is what we got. Ben Stein has a superb intellect: law degree, well versed in the Big Picture and deep issues of our political economy. Yet he also feels obligated to play up his image as the boring school teacher from “Ferris Bueller”. I believe he even hosts a game show like another closeted Hollywood conservative, Pat Sajak.
Buckley was revered and celebrated by lotsa folks on either or any side of public controversies. But he delighted in eschewing celebrityhood.
In the age of Infotainmt Tonight, we aint gonna have any class acts like Bill Buckley.
Report comment as offensive
#13 If you can’t see the paradox inherent in quoting an alleged conservative intellectual ranting against intellectualism, that’s your problem.
Report comment as offensive
#15 True that Stein is no Buckley, but Buckley’s no Einstein, either.
Report comment as offensive
You assert your opinion without giving any arguments to support it,
It’s a blog, hun - that’s what people do.
Report comment as offensive
That’s what intellectually lazy people do.
Report comment as offensive
#20 - true - it’s also what too-busy people do, which is me this morning.
My post #11 was snide - I apologize! I didn’t really mean that.
What I really meant was -
You and I are very far apart in our perceptions of many things, and there are many times when I think it important to register my disagreement with you even though there isn’t time to pursue all the details.
I think Sowell is a total dork - I’m not trying to establish that here (not enough time) - just registering my opinion.
Report comment as offensive
#5 Sowell’s starting point here is that historical “intelligentsia” have been wrong at some times in the past. Who would disagree with that?
Does it then follow that academic or institutional expertise is net bad, or that Palin-esque soccer-mom populism provides a superior perspective from which to solve complex problems in, say, foreign policy or economics?
NO - it doesn’t follow!
Report comment as offensive
Spinoza,
Thanks for your non-snide elaboration. (Seriously.)
Report comment as offensive
As a moderate Republican, I must say that Sarah Palin is the most repulsive, grotesque reactionary to try to enter the national political scene that I have ever seen. Why members of my party are trying to prop this Eliza Knowlittle buffoon up is beyond the comprehension of scores of my dearest Republican friends. As long as we give in to the small lunatic extreme fringe, we will never be competitive in national politics. In the past, we were a party of intellect and issues; now the crazies on the right reject intelligence and try to exclude those who want to address the key issues of our nation in a thoughful manner. McCain picking this clueless woman who’s a national embarrassment revealed a level of desperation I thought I’d never see as a Republican. Tom Ridge would have lea us to victory as a running mate. Why, of all people, Palin? If we don’t start ignoring her and start working more seriously with Newt, Ron Paul and other respected leaders of our party, not only will we lose 2012 in a landslide, but 2016 will go to Hillary. Please, please…no more praise on Palin. It will set us farther and farther back.
Report comment as offensive
“I think Sowell is a total dork - I’m not trying to establish that here (not enough time) - just registering my opinion.”
Regardless of if he is a dork or not, doesnt change whether or not the facts he presents in #5 are true or not. Which was the point he was making, intellectuals of the age got it wrong and the facts say so.
Now if you wish to dispute the listed facts it would be the proper course, instead of simply insulting who presented them.
Report comment as offensive
re: David L’s definition of anti-intellectualism:
It’s about the use of sophistry to justify immoral policies.
No it isn’t - you’re in your own private Idaho here. Anti-intellectualism is about rejecting the complexity inherent in most issues of substance in favor of cartoonish false representations. Palin is utterly unschooled in key topics about which she pretended to speak as a future leader. To do this, she appealed to popular ignorant opinion. The GOP has increased its promotion of this behavior in order to wield power. That is truly cynical anti-intellectualism plain and simple, what Noonan calls a new “vulgarity” in politics.
Report comment as offensive
#24 Read my #21 - I don’t dispute the historical accounts - I just consider them irrelevant.
Report comment as offensive
“13 If you can’t see the paradox inherent in quoting an alleged conservative intellectual ranting against intellectualism, that’s your problem.”
And if you can’t see a difference between using one’s intellect and being an “intellectual”, that’s your problem. Category confusion is the preferred sophist sanctuary.
Report comment as offensive
Thorn,
Spinoza agrees that they got it wrong. The next question to answer is why they got it wrong. The intelligentsia always gets it wrong in one direction, i.e., the liberal direction–specifically, the repressive-big-government-ruled-by-a-small-cadre-of-intellectuals direction. Why is that?
What is it about the intelligentsia that, when they get it wrong, they always get it wrong in the same way? Is it because they desire to repress those who don’t think as well as them, or to wield power for the betterment of their inferiors, or what?
Report comment as offensive
25 Spinoza,
“you’re in your own private Idaho here”
Possibly, but that’s the extent to which my personal anti-intellectualism goes. I actually do like intellect, as long as it’s not being manipulated to justify murder or make lies acceptable.
“Palin is utterly unschooled in key topics about which she pretended to speak as a future leader. To do this, she appealed to popular ignorant opinion.”
A lot of people are saying this, but as I wrote above, I’m not convinced. There are some awfully dumb Democrats in Congress, and even Biden never came across as intellectually able to me. Which undermines this whole GOP-is-anti-intellectual thesis. However, I do think most people are dumb and that politics is the art of pandering. The question is whether the GOP is solely guilty of it. To the contrary, I think the victory of Obama represents the victory of a different kind of anti-intellectualism. Despite how “learned” Obama is, the people who voted for him did so for reasons having nothing to do with intelligence. Their minds were fogged, in fact, by the spectacle that Obama presented.
Report comment as offensive
RE Daivies Post #23
Yeah, Gov. Palin was just such a ‘repulsive grotesque reactionary’ and ‘buffon’ for standing her ground on the ‘intellectually complex’ issue of killing children, i.e. actually believing that delivering a full term healthy child and killing her was actually wrong (can you BELIEVE that????).
Now, the Democrat “intellectual’ candidate properly said that this intellectually complex issue was ‘above his paygrade’ and then goes and enables it to the hilt.
Oh why oh why can’t we have a Republican candidate (like Ridge), who would exhibit similar stunning intellectualism?
Instead of that horrible ol’ Sarah Palin?
Oh the terrible travails and tribulations of the ‘moderate Republican’, putting up with the ‘crazies on the Right’ who actually believe in right and wrong and that killing children is always wrong.
Tut-tut. It makes one shake ones head, it does. Or throw up. One of the two. Or both.
Report comment as offensive
In 23:
Palin ran on MCCAIN’s TICKET. His campaign, his policies. If she looked like an idiot to you, I challenge its because she merely reflected McCain’s ideals.
McCain is not a maverick. He is a compromiser. This is why he picked Palin and then didnt know how to use her. This is why he voted for the bailout. This is why his campaign utterly failed.
He did not differiniate himself from Obama or Bush.
But you are right, we do need to channel support to the leaders of the Republican party who are true conservatives and real leaders. However, I dont think Palin is unintelligent enough to be excluded. I dont think shed be ready for presidency in 2012, but its possible. Shed certainly make a good VP by that point.
Report comment as offensive
“As long as we give in to the small lunatic extreme fringe, we will never be competitive in national politics.”
Snort. As long as you’re talking about the lunatic media who did a hatchet job on Palin, then I’d agree with you. As it is, there’s no proof that Palin is an idiot.
Show me how Biden is so MUCH better than Palin, and then I’ll start to listen.
Report comment as offensive
Drill. I hear you…I’m with you. But for Pete’s sake, let’s win first. You, apparently are not hearing me. She’s useless in our party. We can’t win with her. It’s estimated 6 million Republicans voted against her. They’ll vote against her again in 2012. Do you want to lose again in 2012 ? I’m totally pro life, but I’ll never vote for an idiot just because she’s pro life. Again, do you want to win ? If we win, then we can elect the judges who will overturn Roe V Wade. In the meantime, that embarrassment who’s travelling the country is making our party leaders cringe.
Report comment as offensive
David L.
I’d also make a point in regards to Palin that it seems we want to confuse being a good politician with being intelligent.
Palin is a rookie politician. However, that doesnt mean she lacks intelligence. There are alot of “good politicians” who I would say lack intelligence.
So we continue to vote for politicians rather than say ordinary people with intelligence.
Report comment as offensive
“In the meantime, that embarrassment who’s travelling the country is making our party leaders cringe.”
Except most of the current party leaders arent the conservatives you claim to want. They are the over spending, socialism leaning left bunch and thats is why they cringe at Palin, because shes not.
Let them cringe, and lets vote each and every one of those morons out of office so the Republican party can get back to true conservative values
Report comment as offensive
Thorn, Newt will eventually lead us out of the cellar. And you can rest assured…he won’t touch Palin with a ten foot pole. I love listening to Newt. He has vision and he articulates the points for all the people. He’s not a moron Thorn. This is a nation in deep trouble. I wish we’d pay more attention to the idea’s of Ron Paul, and of course Gingrich…but not Hannity and Rush. They sound like maniacs lately. Don’t you know why the mainstream media is following Caribou Barbie around the country? They want to embarrass her more and more. She can’t even answer the soft ball questions of Lauer and King. They want to destroy her and her giant ego doesn’t even allow her to catch on.
Report comment as offensive
Sarah Palin has all the right people (on the left and the right) shivering in their “intellectual” rubber boots.
Report comment as offensive
Great post at #30.
Folks, don’t let the intellectuals define intelligence!
Report comment as offensive
The media want us to think that Sarah Palin is less intelligent than other public figures. They even make up stories from anonymous sources to blow that smoke. Intelligent people will not fall for this arrogant media pretense, nor for the arrogant elitism from self-described intellectuals.
Neither am I claiming that Palin is a genius. But she is smart enough to make a lot of fancy-minded elitists and desperate with fear.
Report comment as offensive
Do you guys really think that Mitt or Rudy would have Palin in their administrations in any capacity? We have a country to lead, not a PTA. Hey guys, 66 million Americans slammed the door on Palin on Nov. 4th. I voted for McCain because of McCain and in spite of the nitwit running mate. Do you think Palin is going to change their minds over the next four years ? Others in our party have a chance…she does not. Get over it. Let’s try to figure out how to gain support for a true Republican…a Reagan type…a winner. If you guys keep listening to Hannity and Rush and hope for a miracle, then we won’t stand a chance until 2024, after Hillary’s second term. McCain had it wrapped up because he had the Hillary women. After they heard Sarah they left him.
Report comment as offensive
#27 And if you can’t see a difference between using one’s intellect and being an “intellectual”, that’s your problem.”
Maybe we’re not all using the same definition of “intellectual.”
Merriam-Webster defines an intellectual as “an intellectual person” (don’t they know you’re not supposed to use the word in its own definition?). And they define “intellectual” (the adjective) as:
1 a: of or relating to the intellect or its use b: developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c: requiring use of the intellect
2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect
None of those definitions even hint at sophistry, or an elite that looks down on their “inferiors.”
I know people who consider me an intellectual, which surprises me sometimes as I’m not aware of coming across that way. (When I was younger I enjoyed showing off my intellectual abilities, but as an adult I learned that character and common sense counted for more in everyday life, and now I tend to avoid bringing up what I know unless it is clearly relevant to the discussion at hand.) I’m pretty sure that the people who say that consider it a compliment.
Report comment as offensive
Daivie,
You shouldn’t have drunk that kool-aid that the media has been pouring. The media does, indeed, want you to think that Palin is an idiot. Why are you falling for it?
They used to say that about Quayle too. The media are the idiots pal.
Report comment as offensive
MIM - 42
LOL, how right you are -
Report comment as offensive
I don’t need media people to tell me Palin’s an idiot. All I have to do is replay her speeches. Who in their right mind would try to sell Joe the Plumber to the American people in the last two weeks of a desperate campaign? Look where it got her.
Report comment as offensive
Daivie,
66 million slammed the door on McCain and his campaign. That McCain who beat out Romney and Rudy in the primaries. Why do you think they would have done so much better? They wouldnt nor will they in 4 years. They couldnt even beat McLame.
What Palin will do over the next 4? Who knows? She has the opportunity though to build her own platform, one that is not hampered by McCain’s compromising moderation. She has the opportunity to finish strong as a governor in the least and gain more and more experience.
Palin was made to look like an idiot by the media and by her own campaign, both in response to her immediate energizing of the base. It scared the Mccain camp to hear Obama vs Palin, and now they wanna blame her for losing the presidency?? Bunch of pansies. I’m glad many in that campaign have stood up for her by name. You know, the ones that actually worked with her.
The only way you beat Obama in 2012, is if you pick a strong conservative canadite that contrasts starkly to Obama. PERIOD. Palin fits that mold. (Rudy certainly doesnt) I’m not saying shell be the best pick in 2012 just saying she will remain a possibility. That and she isnt dumb. She now has major campaigning experience as well and would be an asset to almost anyone running.
The way the Republicans return stronger than ever is not by giving in to moderation. Its not by becoming Democrats. Thats why they have lost the last 4 to 8 years. They didnt act like Republicans. They acted like Democrats.
As you saw someone like Obama rise up, youll see new leaders in the Republican camp rise up that call Republicans back to the basics of fiscal conservatism, family values, etc.
Plus youll see Dems making the same foolish mistakes the Reps have done, and the cycle will flip back again. Hopefully by that 4 years time we will have elected a vast majority of Republican leaders who will actually hold to Republican conservatism.
Report comment as offensive
“Who in their right mind would try to sell Joe the Plumber to the American people in the last two weeks of a desperate campaign? Look where it got her.”
McCain’s decision. They write her speeches. Once again. McCain was and is the idiot here.
Report comment as offensive
Hey folks, a lot can happen in four years. Remember, Hilary was considered unbeatable, (maybe not four years ago . . .more like two) but she was the heir apparent. We know the rest of the story.
Report comment as offensive
Thorn…I must say…you sound wise and on target to me. You have me thinking now. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I suppose she can delve into things she should know more about and make us have more confidence in her as time goes by. You make all the right arguments. Thanks again. I just think we can win in 2012 and want us all to be very careful about who we send out there and what must be said and done to win. I know Ridge is pro choice, but it would have gotten us PA and maybe a victory and we would have been 4 years ahead of the game in securing the Supreme Court.
Report comment as offensive
I personally believe that Gov. Palin’s image would significantly improve across the board if she endeavored to begin more sentences with the perpendicular personal pronoun and not speak in run on sentences. Just my own observation, . . . a little constructive criticism there. My wife and I support her completely . . . voted for McCain enthusiastically once she was on the ticket.
Report comment as offensive
Dont give me too much credit Daivie my head will swell
Thanks for your compliments.
Republicans can definately win in 2012. It wont take compromising to do it either.
Four years will yield plenty of Democratic incompetent policies I’m sure.
Report comment as offensive
Daivie - Do you have more evidence that Ridge would have pulled in Pennsylvania for McCain? John Edwards didn’t bring in his home state of North Carolina in 2004 for the Democrats, and four years before that, Presidential candidate Al Gore couldn’t win his home state of Tennessee. So, winning the home state is far from certain these days.
I agree that Pa