In a recent interview, NPR analyst Mara Liasson used the term “conservative intelligentsia” when discussing the schism in the Republican Party over the candidacies of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. She was referring to the much ballyhooed edition of the National Review that contained 22 essays arguing against Trump as President.
When Glenn Beck (first author in the National Review issue and self-described rodeo clown) is considered a leading intellect by other conservatives and the political media, there is a fundamental weakness in modern conservatism.
Founded by William Buckley in 1955 The National Review has a reputation of being one of America’s leading voices for conservative principles and agendas. I read every essay in this issue. There is no reason in the reasoning of these essays. To apiece they are riddled with falsehoods and fantasy thinking: “The auto bailout was a failure.” (Beck), Trump “demonstrates his allegiance to the Democratic party” (Bozell), “Conservativism implies a certain modesty about government.” (Charen), “They have seen the Left’s agenda up close and do not believe it is good enough to make a nation great.”(Domenech). Is Mr. Domenech referring to establishing Medicare, Social Security, and ending 2 wars? “Like Obama, he is astoundingly ignorant of everything that to govern a powerful, complex, influential, and exceptional nation such as ours he would have to know.” (Helprin). “Isn’t Trumpism a two-bit Caesarism of a kind that American conservatives have always disdained?” (Kristol). Well, Mr. Kristol, no. In the era of Cheney/Bush and when Newt Gingrich is considered a respected gray-beard of the GOP, American conservatives ardently desire two-bit Caeserism. Of course, one contributor could not resist this delusion: “The threat against us has metastasized in our eighth year under a president who quite consciously appeases the enemy.”(McCarthy). Mr. McCarthy forgets about Osama Bin Laden and the numerous other terrorists that have been killed at President Obama’s order.
These are just a few examples of the fundamental weakness I refer to above. The excerpts are all either patently false statements, or worse, statements that are crafted to advance an unreal narrative with the sole purpose to entertain, not inform, the conservative reader. They feed the reader’s fantasy of how they want the world to be not how it is. This now-ingrained habit is bad for conservatism and bad for citizens like me who dearly want to hear a cogent, rational argument against Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Not because I oppose them but because I am curious if there a realistic, better alternative.
But what about the higher-minded conservatives like David Brooks and David Frum? In notable recent essays they have had the temerity to, albeit gingerly, criticize GOP politicians and the Republican Party. Sometimes they use facts, but they too often fall back to near Onion-level analysis. Brooks thinks Rubio is The Man and, apparently, thinks he is qualified to be the President. Frum suggests that the GOP “cut taxes less” for the rich. We have 30 years of reality showing that tax cuts for the rich do not help the economy. Indeed, the Clinton and Obama tax increases were followed by an improved economy. Frum still wants tax cuts for the rich (just smaller) because he believes they help America. They do in the world Conservatives fantasize about, but they do not in the real world.
Every reader of Daily Kos and the National Review wants a stronger, healthier America. If there is a better approach to this goal than what the Democratic candidates are proposing then let’s hear it but it must be fact-based not fantasy-based.
Americans should confine their fantasies to the realms of poetry, art, music, and cinema. Our discussion of politics and governance must be grounded in reality. Advancing a political argument based on fiction degrades the political discourse, impairs progress, and harms the body politic. It is anti-intellectual. The methods today’s conservative commentators use to support their position make “conservative intelligentsia” an oxymoron.