Powered by TypePad

« "Yeah, I Don't Do Cowering" | Main | Catch That Tiger! »

June 27, 2008

Comments

clarice

Heh, be well, TM and have a great time.

BobS

For some reason, Sean Hannity had an absolute hissy fit about the Brooks piece.

Patrick R. Sullivan

The audience she's now reaching--judging by the just-about-unreadable comments--would be enough to do it. Oh, for the good ol' days.

Sara

If her group includes the Malkin wing of the party, keep 'em. They only help the democrats.

dick

I do hope they include that young man who blogs from Dartmouth. He is really good. And the guy who is going Indoctrinate U as well.

Rich Berger

Some nice people, interesting to read, but no good for pointing the way for the Republican party. David Brooks is not a good source of advice, unless you want to know the way to Palookaville.

Morgan

The book sounds like anything but 'New'. It's warmed over FDR social programs sold as 'conservative'. Gag.

JB

Megan McArdle is a conservative?

OK, who spiked the punch?

davod

"The book sounds like anything but 'New'. It's warmed over FDR social programs sold as 'conservative'. Gag."

Agreed. More we need to be more left of center than the Dems. The McCain strategy.

syn

Now I'm an after 9/11/2001 newbie to Conservatism even though I am far from youthful and I don't understand why Conservatism need's 're-imaging' to fit the youthgroup's idea of cool since Conservatism is already cool.

Perhaps I don't understand enough about Conservatism however I've read McArdle and Conservative is not how I would describe her philosophy.

Furhter, if Brooks is going after a re-vamping of Conservatism via McCain how then can he explain the position of perserving marriage between a man and a woman or pro-life while trying to attract the new-agey let it all hang out 1970's retread?

To me, I've already been there done that and it's one of the main reasons why I am now a Conservative; I'm not a church goer however I get what the social cons are saying so I have no problem defending those values. I have to wonder if Brook's new generation of writers can define fetus or provide some meaning to an irrational premises such as 'same-sex union between a man and a woman'?

Further as a woman, much of my distaste for modern liberalism comes about through living within decades of the women's movement and what I now have come to understand as irrational and manipulative behavior.

Sure, ladies we're all liberated, glass ceilings were broken, I am woman hear me roar blah, blah, blah yet after all the bs, after all the laws designed to 'equalize', all the castration which occurred for the cause of sisterhood women still continue to whine about victimhood. What have all these many decades of satisifying women's issues created? One generation after the other of adult females behaving like little girls while still blaming men for all the world's problems.

Consider me a Masculinist because my gender has lost control of her senses and she is even getting on this woman's nerves.

Lastly, I am so done with the word 'issues' and the psychobabble madness which goes with it.

lonetown

I think Brooks is projecting.

Conservatism has not slipped into decreptitude, it was simply ignored by a bunch of hack, selfish politicians and yes Tom Delay is one of them.

I think Ponurru has been around for more than 5 years and in fact embarrassed himself with his last book.

The real conservatives are not the intellectuals (nothing against good writing) but the battle scarred veterans who have been consistent for the last 40+ years.

Oops, now I'm projecting.

Pofarmer

If you look at an election map, you'll see that conservatives have already got most of the working class. What the repub's don't have is the inner cities and unions. Some of the unions might be coming around, and the inner cities? Well, throw a bug bomb in their and start over.

BumperStickerist

Tom is young-at-heart. And that's what matters.

After all, it's not the years, it's the mileage.

Rick Ballard

"Lastly, I am so done with the word 'issues' and the psychobabble madness which goes with it."

Hear, hear, Syn. The ability to write at length without clarity is indicative only of the ability to write at length without clarity and nothing else. Just as tossing in enough references to Hayek or Burke is an indication that one may have read them but not an indication that one necessarily understands what the cited authors wrote (or that one can apply whatever understanding one has to one of those ephemeral issues in a manner consonant with the cited authors intent).

"Furrowed brow" writing doesn't necessarily indicate that much in the way of deep thought is occurring - ladies and gentlemen, I give you David Brooks.

Country club Republicanism gave us forty years of Democrat majorities and a deterioration of the Republic from which we have yet to recover. I have no wish to return to those halcyon days of yore when our elected dimwits proved beyond doubt that government is the problem and never a solution to any but the most mundane of tasks. Sometimes it can build roads but mostly it is not even capable of maintaining them.

A pol promises to do nothing is a treasure and worthy of a vote.

Elliott

I think we need a Tom DeLay-Barack Obama "Tale of the Tape." And I will be very disappointed if "inartful, lexically spurned though it be, does not feature.

BobS

This discussion is , if you will, constructive. I linked the Brooks piece in my own blog and one of Brooks' points I emphasized was that each of the writers he mentioned their careers through blogging.

Sanchez makes an interesting point that he considers himself and two others on the list to be libertarians.

ajacksonian

And here I am reading Grotius, de Vattel and trying to get my hands on a decently priced copy of the Black Book of the Admiralty... when you end up criticizing Adam Smith because of his views of not including agriculture as amenable to mechanization which changes the basis of national wealth, then I have no idea where that puts someone. And I really do like the Peace of Westphalia, what it gave us and how it worked and was accounted for until, say, 1918. Then I get indigestion.

How to deal with the SCOTUS in Roe decision? How about apply their exact, same standards to when a fetus becomes a citizen? Works for me! And would cause a profound change in our view of what citizenship is and when it starts, but would equilize protection under the constitution for same developmental stage fetuses. No matter how much the SCOTUS wants to restrict their view just to abortion, the States can, indeed, utilize such standards elsewhere. Bring that up and see where it places *you* on the pro/anti thing going around and it means *neither*... and I don't like either 'side' of that 'debate', so the feeling is mutual.

Can't say that puts me anywhere on the 'political spectrum' that has all of two distinct shades to it. Some 'spectrum' this two-color affair. So much for having the liberty of all available solutions and working down to something that works, albeit imperfectly, because good ideas can come outside of a two-color, either/or, yes/no conception of politics. How about some more democracy? Say the maximal amount in the constitution for the House? Strange to limit democracy so much in the land of the free... but then I do like the arguments of both the federalists and anti-federalists for expansive representation via more representatives. It is that 'more eyes on the source code' idea a couple of centuries before computers were around to complain about.

Say, just why are those who argued that federalism wasn't properly put in place in the constitution lumped in with the 'anti-federalists' any how? They didn't get good answers, either.

More democracy, adhering to the Law of Nations, respecting Westphalia as we are its children through the Winter Queen, and equal protection under the law.

Probably revolutionary, that stuff.

Bob from Ohio

McCardle and Sanchez are libertarians. Conservative on some economic and security issues only. On social issues, very liberal.

Not familiar with most of the rest except Douthat who is extremely un-impressive. Bad writer and fuzzy thinker.

Brooks himself is a libertarian except for some security issues. Not even very conseravtive on economic issues, for instance does not like tax cuts. About what you would expect from the pet NYT "conservative".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame