The Extinction of "Intellectual" Conservatives

Once upon a time the political and social right had serious intellectuals.  Those day are gone as what now passes as intellectualism on the right is embodied by hacks and mental midgets on Fox News and even more insane types at Breitbart and more scurrilous "news" outlets (what intellectual conservatives that existed have more or less exited the right wing media as if they were fleeing the sinking Titanic or Lusitania).   This reality was recently underscored by the hiring of a "conservative" columnist by The Atlantic who was then fired once some of his heinous views came to light.  Obviously, more serious vetting should have been undertaken, but the saga shows the danger of giving a platform to demagogues and misogynist in the quest for "balance."  A column in the New York Times looks at both the debacle at The Atlantic and the extinction of intellectual conservatism.  Here are excerpts:

The hiring-then-firing of Kevin Williamson followed a familiar script. A mainstream media organization hires a conservative in the name of intellectual diversity, then is shocked, shocked to discover that he’s dishonest and/or holds truly reprehensible views – something that the organization could have discovered with a few minutes on Google. But when the bad hire is let go, the right treats him as a martyr, proof of liberal refusal to let alternative viewpoints be heard. Why does this keep happening?

As others have pointed out, the real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don’t.

To understand why, let me talk about what I know: the field of economics. This happens to be a field with a relatively strong conservative presence compared to other social sciences, and as far as I can tell even contains considerably more self-identified conservatives/Republicans than hard science. Even so, trying to find influential conservative economic intellectuals is basically a hopeless task, for two reasons.

First,. . . What the right wants are charlatans and cranks, in (conservative) Greg Mankiw’s famous phrase. If they use actual economists, they use them the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.

The appointment of Larry Kudlow to head the National Economic Council epitomizes the phenomenon. . . . under Obama the director was always someone who was interested in real policy research, listened to what experts had to say, and was willing to change views in the face of evidence.  Obviously none of this is true in Kudlow’s case. He’s basically a TV personality, whose shtick is preaching the magic of tax cuts, and nothing – not the Kansas debacle, not the Clinton boom, not the strong job creation that followed Obama’s 2013 tax hike – will change his mind.

All this means that if you get a conservative economist who isn’t a charlatan and crank, you are more or less by definition getting someone with no influence on policymakers. But that’s not the only problem.

The second problem with conservative economic thought is that even aside from its complete lack of policy influence, it’s in an advanced state of both intellectual and moral decadence – something that has been obvious for a while, but became utterly clear after the 2008 crisis. . . . By the time the Great Recession struck, the right-leaning side of the profession had entered a Dark Age, having retrogressed to the point where famous economists trotted out 30s-era fallacies as deep insights.

But even among conservative economists who didn’t go down that rabbit hole, there has been a moral collapse – a willingness to put political loyalty over professional standards. We saw that most recently in the way leading conservative economists raced to endorse ludicrous claims for the efficacy of the Trump tax cuts, then tried to climb down without admitting what they had done.

What accounts for this moral decline? I suspect that it’s about a desperate attempt to retain some influence on a party that prefers the likes of Kudlow or Stephen Moore. People like John Taylor just keep hoping that if they toe the party line enough, they can still get on the inside. But so far this keeps not happening – and for sure it won’t get better under Trump.

Am I saying that there are no conservative economists who have maintained their principles? Not at all. But they have no influence, zero, on GOP thinking. So in economics, a news organization trying to represent conservative thought either has to publish people with no constituency or go with the charlatans who actually matter.

And I think that’s true across the board. The left has genuine public intellectuals with actual ideas and at least some real influence; the right does not. News organizations don’t seem to have figured out how to deal with this reality, except by pretending that it doesn’t exist. And that’s why we keep having these Williamson-like debacles.

Deciding to Let Go of Religious Based Bigotry is a Choice

Growing up Roman Catholic I was brainwashed into viewing almost all sex as something bad and abhorrent - gay sex, of course, was in a category of its own and offered an express ticket to Hell and eternal damnation.  Thankfully, with therapy I got over the damage done to me by the nuns and the male clergy who we all know are most characterized by hypocrisy when not actively aiding and abetting predator priests.  Leaving the Catholic Church was another positive step and now I remain a nominal member of the ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - which is gay friendly and affirming.  My point from all of this is that clinging to homophobic religious beliefs is a choice.  To do so, however, one needs to be willing to think and analyze for them self  and be willing to do some independent study - concepts that terrify religious fundamentalists of all faiths and which are condemned by the parasitic "holy men" who want their flocks ignorant and viewing them as the sole source of divine knowledge.  Without this monopoly, the need for such holy men and by extension ceases.  Something we are seeing as the number of Americans who label themselves as "Nones" skyrocketing.  

When one looks at letting go of religious based homophobia, one unlikely champion given her religious upbringing is Marie Osmond - the mother of a lesbian daughter.  Despite her Mormon background, she firmly supports same sex marriage - something no doubt frowned on by the elderly old men who continue to maintain a stranglehold on the Mormon Church.  A piece in Huffington Post from a few years ago looks at Osmond's position which is diametrically opposed to that of her brother Donnie.  Here are highlights:

Marie Osmond subtly re-affirmed her support of marriage equality in a poignant new interview.

The singer-actress, who is currently promoting her new memoir The Key Is Love: My Mother’s Wisdom, A Daughter’s Gratitude, spoke frankly about her daughter Jessica, who is openly gay.

“The God that I believe in is a god of love, not fear,” Osmond, who is a practicing Mormon, told Diane Sawyer.

As for same-sex marriage, Osmond noted, “I believe in [my daughter’s] civil rights, as a mother. I think that my daughter deserves everything that she desires in life. She’s a good girl. She’s a wonderful child.” She then added, “I don’t think God made one color flower. I think He made many.”

Osmond, 53, has spoken out in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in previous years, usually citing Jessica’s role in that mindset. “I think everybody should have the right to share homes and finances with somebody that they care about,” she told KOST 103.5 Los Angeles in 2009. “You know on those types of things I’m very supportive. When it comes to marriage...I think that civil rights need to be for all.”

Meanwhile, Osmond’s brother Alan reportedly hosted a “pro-family” rally at the Utah State Capitol earlier this week, aimed at “benefitting the protection of marriage” from gay and lesbian Americans, according to Towleroad.

The take away?  The next time you hear of a parent rejecting an LGBT child, know that the evil lies with the parent who is intellectually lazy and more worried about what others may think of them than what is best for their child.  It is the ultimate form of selfishness.  

David Frum to the GOP: Come Out of the Cocoon and Get a Reality Check

David Frum fell out of the good graces of the Tea Party and Christofacists some time ago.  Why?  Because he refused to drink their Kool-Aid and get his world view solely from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others who effectively create a cocoon that insulates far too many Republicans from the real world - including some that I got to know years ago when I was active in the GOP and served on the GOP City Committee for Virginia Beach.  In a column on CNN, Frum basically bitch slaps conservatives who claim that America is on the road to socialism.  His piece dovetails well with a piece on Politico that looks at the world view cocoon inhabited by far too many in the GOP - people like Ms. Cox in Tennessee that this blog looked at earlier today.  First highlights from David Frum's piece:

The mood among American conservatives is now one of apocalyptic despair.  Having convinced themselves that this election arrayed freedom against tyranny, they now must wonder: Did their country just democratically vote in favor of tyranny?

On Fox News election night, BIll O'Reilly explained the meaning of the election: the "white establishment" was now outnumbered by minorities. "The demographic are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore." And these untraditional Americans "want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it."

 O'Reilly's analysis is echoed across the conservative blogosphere. The (non-white) takers now outnumber the (white) makers. They will use their majority to pillage the makers and redistribute to the takers. In the process, they will destroy the sources of the country's wealth and end the American experiment forever.

President Barack Obama was not re-elected by people who want to "take." The president was re-elected by people who want to work -- and who were convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the president's policies were more likely to create work than were the policies advocated by my party.

The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism. Both parties champion a free enterprise economy cushioned by a certain amount of social insurance. The Democrats (mostly) want more social insurance, the Republicans want less. 

Even if you look only at the experiences of white heterosexual men, the United States of 2012 is a freer country in almost every way than the United States of 1962.

The Republican challenge next is to reassemble a new coalition for limited government and private enterprise. That coalition must include Americans of all ethnicities. To assume from the start that only certain ethnicities will contribute, and that others aspire only to grab, is not only ugly prejudice; it is also self-destructive delusion.

People of all backgrounds want to create, save and contribute to society. A party of the center-right should make them all feel at home, regardless of how they pronounce their last name, the complexion of their skin or the way in which they express love and build family.

Will the Republicans listen to Frum's sound advice?  Personally, I'm not holding my breath. At least not as long as rank and file members of the GOP get their "news" from Fox News and the far right media noise machine.  Here are highlights from Politico on this problem:

A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.

GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.

Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.

Hence the initial denial and subsequent shock on the right that the country would not only reelect President Barack Obama — but do so with 332 electoral votes.

What worries Republicans, though, is that their Kaelism may be harder to overcome in the short term.

“Unfortunately, for us Republicans who want to rebuild this party, the echo chamber [now] is louder and more difficult to overcome,” said Grayson.

[S]ince President Bush’s second term went south, Republicans have been effectively without a leader. And into that vacuum has stepped a series of conservative figures whose incentives in most cases are not to win votes but to make money and score ratings by being provocative and even outlandish.

“Their bottom line is their main goal, but that doesn’t mean they’re serving the population that buys their books,” said Domenech.  And this, say next-generation Republicans, is where cocoonism has been detrimental to the cause.

And the entertainers’ power isn’t just with gullible grass-roots activists who are likely to believe whatever nefarious rumor about Obama is forwarded to them in an e-mail chain — it’s with donors, too.

There is a good deal more that's worth a read, but the message is clear: stop listening to demagogues and the Rush Limbaughs of the right and find out what the rest of America is actually thinking.  It may make me want to pull my hair out at times, but every day I check out some of the far right "news" sites.  One can only craft their plan when they know what the opponents are actually doing as opposed delusion statements by wind bags and blow hards.

True Conservatives Support Marriage Equality

A little over a year ago in a VEER Magazine column (I write an monthly column on LGBT issues in the print edition) I wrote the following:

On May 20, 2011, the Gallup polling organization announced that for the first time a majority of Americans (53%) believed that same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. Gallup noted that the increase in support since its 2010 poll derived exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change.  Five days later, on May 25, 2011, Gallup indicated that a subsequent poll found that 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest ever.  The poll also found that 56% of respondents also considered gay or lesbian relations morally acceptable.

Despite these indications of surging support for recognition of committed same sex relationships, Republicans, those I describe as professional Christians – e.g., Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage and William Donohue of the Catholic League, each of derive incomes well into the six figures pushing opposition to gay rights – and Southern Poverty Law Center registered hate groups such as Family Research Counsel continue to oppose any legal recognition of same sex relationships.  The irony is true conservatives ought to support civil law gay marriage.

Theodore B. Olson, former President George W. Bush’s Solicitor General, said:  “Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. . . . Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.” 

So why the continued opposition to same sex marriage and the recognition of same sex relationships?  I would suggest that a few words explain the phenomenon: "The South" and "Christianists."  The Republican Party is now a de facto religious party that is dominated by Christianists who have in the final analysis an utter contempt for the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment when applied to anyone but themselves.  These people are not conservative in the traditional sense but instead cling to ignorance, a fear of modernity and religious extremism.  The are the Christian equivalent of the Taliban and other anti-modernity Islamic extremists.  Andrew Sullivan notes that true conservatives in other nations with similarities to America but for the hold the Christianist hold over political discourse increasingly suppot marriage equality:

New Zealand's prime minister John Key joins David Cameron in endorsing the essentially conservative move of extending the responsibilities of civil marriage to gay couples. Britain's Tories, Canada's conservatives and New Zealand's National Party are now reconciled to marriage equality. Those countries are among the closest culturally to the US - but without the South.

Clearly, until the GOP throws off the strangle hold of the Christianists, support for marriage equality in the GOP will change very slowly.  Hate, ignorance, bigotry and an opposition to modernity are now the main attributes of the Republican Party.  All are view points that I find impossible to support.

Boston Globe Endorses Huntsman in New Hampshire

After the most insane and reality denying elements of the Christianist/Tea Party base of the GOP in Iowa boosted Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum to a razor thin finish behind Mitt Romney, all eyes are on New Hampshire where hopefully a wooden stack will be driven through the heart of the Santorum candidacy. Now, adding a new mix to the equation is the Boston Globe's endorsement of John Huntsman in the New Hampshire contest. I have long believed that Huntsman is the most rational of the GOP candidates and, while I have reservations on how he would handle gay rights issues, might actually govern in the most reasonable manner. Here are highlights from the Boston Globe's endorsement of Huntsman:

DISSATISFACTION WITH the economy, expressed in spasms of anger toward Wall Street and Washington; the dashed hopes of many who believed that Barack Obama’s election would create a new spirit of unity; and genuine uncertainty about Democratic health care reform — all of these have created an historic opportunity for the Republican Party. Just three years removed from a Republican administration that was roundly judged a failure, the party has a chance to renew itself — to blaze a path to bipartisan action on the budget, to introduce market-based solutions to health costs, and to construct a post-Iraq War network of alliances to promote global economic strength, knowing that true security comes from both peace and prosperity.

So far, Republican presidential contenders have shown little awareness of this opportunity. . . . . Rather than compare creative policy solutions, the candidates have vied for meaningless titles like “true conservative.’’ Rather than outline a vision for a safer world, they’ve signaled a return to Bush-era posturing and disdain for allies who don’t blindly serve American interests.

Among the candidates, only two stand out as truly presidential, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Both have track records of success, and both, through their policies and demeanors, have shown the breadth of spirit to lead the nation. But while Romney proceeds cautiously, strategically, trying to appease enough constituencies to get himself the nomination, Huntsman has been bold. Rather than merely sketch out policies, he articulates goals and ideals. The priorities he would set for the country, from leading the world in renewable energy to retooling education and immigration policies to help American high-tech industries, are far-sighted. He has stood up far more forcefully than Romney against those in his party who reject evolution and the science behind global warming.

With a strong record as governor of Utah and US ambassador to China, arguably the most important overseas diplomatic post, Huntsman’s credentials match those of anyone in the field. He would be the best candidate to seize this moment in GOP history, and the best-prepared to be president.

Serving as ambassador to China, the largest economic and military competitor to the United States, is a deeply meaningful credential. Notably, Huntsman’s nuanced foreign-policy vision of economic and strategic alliances stems from his time in Beijing. While other candidates point toward Cold War-style rejection and isolation of China, Huntsman promises deeper engagement. But he had the courage as ambassador to walk among protesters, drawing the ire of repressive Chinese authorities.

His wisdom on immigration also stands out. Though he reluctantly came to support a fence along the Mexican border, he avoids the demonization of illegal immigrants employed by Romney and some other candidates.

Backed by a team including many Bush-era hawks and neoconservatives, Romney offers bellicose language about Iran, forceful denunciations of Chinese currency manipulation, and unyielding - and entirely uncritical - support for Israel.

Already, the religious right, represented by Rick Santorum, and Tea Party activists, represented by Ron Paul, have pushed Romney in unwanted directions. In New Hampshire, Republican and independent voters have a chance, through Huntsman, to show him a sturdier model. Jon Huntsman would be a better president. But if he fails, he could still make Romney a better candidate.

Richard Cizik: A Thinking Evangelical

Yes, I realize that fundamentalist evangelical Christians and serious thought are usually an oxymoron. To be a far right fundamentalist, the first requirement typically is to surrender independent thought and embrace the mental equivalent of a lobotomy. Only the allegedly "inerrant" Bible needs be to consulted and then among this crowd one can shut down their brain and drift into a mental suspended animation. Or at least that is the message from most of the Christianist "mega Church" pastors - that and put plenty of money in the collection plate. For a while, Richard Cizik (at right) seemed to fit that model and as a Washington lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals for nearly 30 years, he should have known that intelligent thought was something utterly forbidden by his evangelical brethren. But, he made the mistake of stating his true thoughts in an interview with NPR that led to his expulsion. His heresy? He said that he voted for Barack Obama in the Virginia primary and that he now supported civil unions for same sex couples. As Newsweek Magazine reports, after his exile, Cizik is making a comeback and challenging evangelicals who worship ignorance and fear having to make an independent decision for themselves. Here are some story highlights:
*
After a year of keeping a low profile, Cizik is "making a comeback," as he puts it. This week he announces the formation of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, a group devoted to developing Christian responses to global and political issues such as environmentalism, nuclear disarmament, human rights, and dialogue with the Muslim world. Cizik's partners in this effort are David Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University who has written extensively on torture, and Steven D. Martin, a pastor and filmmaker. For years, Cizik has been saying that the evangelical right needs to reframe its politics, to walk away from divisive name calling and find common ground with opponents, even on hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage.
*
The partnership gives Cizik a platform from which to speak openly. In his old job, "I wasn't allowed to say what I was thinking if it didn't support every jot and tittle of NAE policy," he says. Now, "I don't have to worry about the kinds of accountability that I had before."
*
Cizik says he represents a tradition of evangelicalism going back to the beginning of the 20th century—to Francis Schaeffer and Carl Henry, evangelicals who were strictly orthodox, but advocated a broad engagement with the world. "I'm not some upstart who's trying to conjure up a new vision," he says. "This goes back a long way."
*
He reiterates his support for civil unions this way: "Is it possible to deny due process and equal protection to those people whose personal lifestyle I disagree with?" And then, our meeting over, he goes off to see his new friends at the Open Society Institute, the group funded by George Soros—who is, as everybody knows, a billionaire and a liberal.

Requiem for the Right?

While Obama and the Congressional Democrats have shown an incredible ineptitude over the last eight months and may well have botched meaningful healthcare reform, the Republicans have an even larger problem on their hands, namely the take over of the GOP base by elements that can only be described as the lunatic fringe. A new story in Newsweek looks at the problem within the GOP which has been overlooked lately due to the Obama administration's delusion quest for bipartisanship. As a former Republican myself, the GOP's ongoing intellectual suicide is unnerving. Increasingly it seems that all rational elements of the Party have defected thereby leaving only the nutcases in the party - together with corrupt GOP elected officials who are willing to prostitute themselves shamelessly in their quest to remain in office. It is indeed a sickening spectacle. Here are some article highlights:

*

So how bad is it, really? . . . Quite bad if you prize a mature, responsible conservatism that honors America's institutions, both governmental and societal. . . . The consensus forged by Buckley in the 1960s gained strength through two decisive acts: first, Buckley denounced right-wing extremists, such as the members of the John Birch Society, and made sure when he did it to secure the support of conservative Republicans like Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sen. John Tower. This pulled the movement toward the center.

*

Republicans will be tagged as the party that declined even to help repair a broken system and extend fundamental protections—logical extensions of Social Security and Medicare—to some 46 million people who now don't have them. This could marginalize the right for a generation, if not longer. Rush Limbaugh's stated hope that Obama will fail seems to have become GOP doctrine. This is the attitude not of conservatives, but of radicals, who deplore the very possibility of a virtuous government.

*

The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

*

This is the crisis now facing the right and principal reason I wrote this book. The movement has exhausted itself and depleted its resources. Before the GOP finds a new leader, it will need a new vocabulary.

*

The anti-knowledge and anti-intellectual nature of today's GOP is shocking. Combined with the dominionist and far right religious extremism of the party base it is a recipe for insanity. Yes, it may play well with a delusional, paranoid minority within the nation's population, but to thinking conservatives and moderates it is down right scary.