As the Miers debate reveals, many conservative intellectuals have exactly the same problems with Bush as liberals. They disdain his cronyism, doubt his intelligence, question his use of "character" to judge individuals, and can't stand his pandering to evangelicals. "The trouble with Harriet is that she has given us a depressing glimpse into the vast open space that now appears to be the Bush political mind," a piece on The Weekly Standard's website argued last week.
October 17, 2005
"Many conservative intellectuals have exactly the same problems with Bush as liberals."
Here's a free link to Frank Foer's TNR piece that attributes the conservative complaints about the Miers nomination to the fact that conservatives never liked Bush all that much anyway:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I have argued this before, that Harriet Miers is the next best thing to Bush nominating himself.
Nevertheless, I agree partially with the statement about conservative intellectuals having problems with Bush.
But, conservative intellectuals also know and understand that intellectuals make poor leaders. This is why conservative intellectuals are smarter than liberals. I mean lets be serious... what mass of people is going to follow an intellectual into battle? Do you think Braveheart was making an intellectual argument to his fellow Scotsmen when he was encouraging them to stand against the English.
When intellectuals (both liberal and conservative) do find themselves in charge they usually resort to intellectual rationalizations such as using fear to command. (i.e. setting up machine guns to kill any soldier who retreats).
Your talking about the wealthy liberals right?
I think anyone who doubts Bush's intelligence is blinded by prejudice.
One could doubt his intellect, meaning by that the combination of intelligence and knowledge, though I think this, on balance, is also an error.
In tests he ranked somewhere around the top 15% of college applicants on the SAT, and his military test scores would be consistent with that. He attended Andover, Harvard, and Yale and presumably would have found it difficult to miss being educated somewhere along the way.
No, the core problem for many is that (1) he misses many of the social and cultural indicia of the intellectual class and (2) politically is all wrong.
I have zero sympathy for them; I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
In that, you are correct.
Sloan said:
"But, conservative intellectuals also know and understand that intellectuals make poor leaders. This is why conservative intellectuals are smarter than liberals."
I don't know about the "smarter". Perhaps have more common sense would be a better phrase?
I recall a study once that found the question that did best in correlating between self described liberals and conservatives was something along the line of "Things would be better if everyone did what I thought they should"
A good conservative ought want everyone to do what they want and not disturb him. The problem of course is that a good liberal wants the conservative to do what is best and thus invariably disturbs him.
Moral conservatives who want everyone to do what they ought in their bedrooms are, of course, closet liberals in this division of things.That might not be as far fetched as one thinks-- is there really that much difference between "thou shalt not use foul language nor do icky things in the bedroom" and "thou shalt not use politically incorrect language nor smoke in bars"?
Picking up on John's comments about the intersection of moralizing social conservatives and liberal socialist, that is why I believe it is so hard to be a closet libertarian.
When you here such disagreeable anti-liberty excrement spewing from the mouths of people from both sides of the political spectrum it becomes more and more difficult to refrain from flying your own freak flag high.
(that's also why it's so difficult to organize a national, or even local libertarian movement, countering the influence of the social conservatives within the Republican party is our only hope, they recognize that they need us, and we are resigned to needing them, the Democrats have proven incapable of the same kind of coalition building)
"...A good conservative ought want everyone to do what they want and not disturb him...."
I am not so sure about this. Perhaps a better way to put it is that a good conservative wants society to make decisions under the guidance and wisdom of the ages. In contrast, A good liberal wants to disregard the past and make decisions based on what he alone decides is right in the here and now.
sloan,
to say your comment is entirely ridiculous is to not do it justice
do you want the company you invest in to have a CEO that is highly intelligent or is a bumbling half witted clown? which do you trust with the ultimate decisions upon which your investment rests?
now why would your answer be any different when it comes to your country?
The Exalted said...
...do you want the company you invest in to have a CEO that is highly intelligent or is a bumbling half witted clown? which do you trust with the ultimate decisions upon which your investment rests?
Liberals love to give their either/or questions with extreme and obvious choices. "HA HA! You must answer so I can catch you in my logic trap! Do not question my two available answers!"
Would you rather be liberal, or get poked in the eye with a sharp stick? Answer now! Don't think about it!
I used to do that way back when I was a liberal.
Try something else.
At first I thought all of the carping was because they truly were thinking that Meiers wasn't qualified. Now I'm thinking they are just snobs. Sorry...Meiers looks like a breath of fresh air to me.
Care to explain why you changed your mind, or should we just ignore this as random spam?
Post a Comment