Commentary: Longtime former Republican on Patrick Deneen and the demise of the conservative intellectual
“No true Scotsman” fallacy in action. It’s rare to see it in such a pristine condition.
(For the record, I’m an unabashed, unapologetic leftist. But this article is bullshit from graf 1 to the end.)
This is incorrect.
There is a such thing as a “conservative intellectual”. It’s just that they’ve been long since drowned out by the rest of the party, and the right-wing voting base has no appetite for actual, sensible conservative policies right now.
Go ahead and list an example of one of those past conservative intellectuals and we’ll see how long it takes to dig up an example of them saying something like Civil Rights protesters are all secret communist agents or that child labor and vagrancy laws and debtors prisons are good things.
Like, I get the appeal in wanting to believe the other side is just as smart and well meaning as our side is, but there’s just no basis for that in the historical record. They’ve always been like this and we just keep forgetting.
One can be an intellectual and still a huge piece of shit. Theyre not mutually exclusive. People like Milton Friedman or Henry Kissinger a undebatably intellectuals… but that doesn’t mean they’re angels. It just means they wield their intellect as a whip to beat their opponents with, rather than raising society as a whole.
Honestly this whole “conservatives are just a bunch of dumb rabid animals” is they exact sentiment they want us to feel. Because then we never look at the deeper issues that are actually affecting our world.
Honestly this whole “conservatives are just a bunch of dumb rabid animals” is they exact sentiment they want us to feel. Because then we never look at the deeper issues that are actually affecting our world.
I for one would love to look at the deeper issues that are actually affecting our world, but I end up wasting a ton of my time replying to dumb rabid animal shit David Brooks gets to smear all over the New York Times op-ed page when my older relatives who vote in every single election send me his columns because they think that he makes some good points about “Cultural Marxism”
For example, Karl Marx. Clearly an intellectual as evidenced by his writings. But his colorblind/radical centrist take on minority rights fits right in with modern conservative extremists. And then the way he framed his opinions led to far right authoritarian regimes co-opting the label of communism.
Name one conservative policy that has furthered mankind. Prohibition, voting rights, sexuality, drug war, terrorism; time after time they’ve been wrong. Even fiscally they run up the deficit. Their only role is to preserve hierarchy and maintain power
Intellectualism is not an inherently moral thing. One can be an amoral, selfish, narcissistic, intellectual.
Those sound like the exact kinds of people who shouldn’t have any influence over our politics
I didn’t mean to give the impression that it is a moral issue. I consider it from a populist societal perspective. The majority (liberalism)wanting to do one thing, and the minority (conservatives) preventing progress. If conservatives had it their way, we’d still have feudalism… oh wait.
Name one conservative policy that has furthered mankind.
Richard Nixon was at the helm when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was founded. I believe he also was responsible for protecting national parks, but I didn’t bother fact-checking that one.
https://www.epa.gov/history#:~:text=EPA was created on December,human health and the environment.
Now, granted, modern conservative politics are garbage-culture war bullshit, but we need to be cautious of forgetting history. Rewriting history is their game.
Progressive policies implemented during a conservative presidency don’t seem like conservative policies.
Progressivism is moving towards collective goals. Conservatism is protecting individual freedoms.
You many see individual freedoms differently than they do but that is the core fundamental policy they protect.
But they don’t protect individual freedoms.
They have taken a hard stance against body autonomy, free speech, individual identity - all in support of corporate and state control over the individual.
This is the same argument as saying conservatives are fiscally responsible. It’s just something people say with nothing historically supporting it.
What you’re saying is true in theory, but the American Republican party has absolutely nothing in common with it.
Just look at the patriot act, torture, detention, TSA, and all the other shit pushed through by the GOP that has decimated freedoms and privacy.
The ONLY individual freedom the GOP protects unconditionally is for everyone and their uncle to own guns. Nevermind if your uncle is a lunatic, they’ll protect his freedom to be armed to the teeth.
Everyone living depends on huge networks of interdependent actors for basic survival. Never mind quality of life. The political reality of the individual is that they are the smallest and weakest political unit; least equipped to petition for change.
Conservatism may have individualism all over the label, but conformity is what’s inside the box.
George W Bush massively expanded US Free Trade agreements. We went from 3 to 16 under his admin. That’s good for the entire world.
Pretty much the only thing I don’t like about Biden is his protectionist stance.
I’m gonna assume you think Capitalist expansion and colonialism is a good thing.
This article - and its headline - aren’t perfect. But the anti-intellectualism that’s deeply rooted into American leadership of what’s now seen mostly in the conservative platform is well documented and known. Check out Anti-intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter for a lot of support for what this short article tries to convey. And since that book’s 1964 writings, it’s only become stronger.
The conclusion paragraph is what I think most people are best taking away from this piece (not the overly-broad headline, which honestly is just clickbait compared to the substance of the article): “Ideas those may be, but the product of genuine intellectuals — those who employ critical reasoning and approach facts honestly — they are not. Ever since the Enlightenment, there has been a perpetual battle, a war of words, between those who would make the world a little freer, a little healthier, a little fairer and a little saner, and those who are viscerally repelled by such markers of secular progress. We see the practical consequences of this conflict everywhere, from the ruined cities of Ukraine to our own barbarously retrograde state legislatures. It is necessary for each of us to know which side we are on in the intellectual struggle of this chaotic century.”
There is a battle for truth, facts, and logic happening right now. And while there may be some conservatives who abide by those values, the party and its leadership have verifiably demonstrated otherwise. From trickle down economics to opposing universal healthcare (and nearly every major issue between), the facts simply do not support the party stance. Anti-intellectualism in real life, played out with real consequences, supported by masses willing to vote against their own interests.
Just because media and conservative leaders think Kissinger and Friedman are intellectual’s doesn’t mean history will. Define intellectual. IMHO it’s someone that the majority of people think of as thought leader, who has good ideas for society. Cambodia and Neoliberalism will not age well. Just because someone does a big thing doesn’t make them an intellectual. By that metric, Trump is an intellectual.
