"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart MillThat statement made in the 19th century rings (alas) somewhat true in our ears today. My thoughts today are inspired by a variety of recent events: Sarah Palin's performance at the Tea Party Convention, , a Deseret News article dated 12/4/09 about Glenn Beck (link here), and Jon Stewart's interview of Newt Gingrich (link here).
Let's start with Sarah Palin. I do not know a lot about her. I have listened to a speech or two, heard some soundbites, and watched a couple of interviews. The truth is she has not caught my interest. Can someone please help me understand the fascination?? She has that kind of down-home, hot mom next door (sort of) thing going, but I really do not get it. She strikes me as, well, not that smart. Or better said, she strikes me as someone with a native intelligence, but who has never taken the time to read books. Maybe ill-informed is a better descriptor. And even when she does speak on an issue it all seems a bit rehearsed, like someone told her what to say. Or to put it another way, I sense that I have a better grasp on history and the current issues than Sarah Palin does. That may or may not be true, but nevertheless I feel that way when I listen to her. And to me, that is a problem. If Sarah Palin is the next great hope of the Republican party, conservatives are in trouble. To me she is the embodiment of the anti-intellectual thread that runs through the conservative movement. In the previously referenced Deseret News article, several BYU professors address this issue as it relates to the wild popularity of Glenn Beck (not coincidentally, Beck is a HUGE fan of Sarah Palin). Here is the most relevant piece of the article:
The discussion organized by BYU's Tocqueville Project included three BYU professors and Paul Skousen, the son of the late, prolific political writer who was formerly best known for his best-selling book "The Naked Communist."
However, Skousen has gained renewed interest since Fox News pundit Beck began touting Skousen's book "The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, Principles of Freedom 101."
"It's easy for me to see why (Beck) would have picked up on Cleon Skousen's book and found it inspiring," Davis said. "It fit in with his own performance."
And that's a lot of what Beck does — perform, the professors said.
"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."
Hancock said he agrees with some points made by Beck and Skousen but overall finds their arguments lacking in substance and scholarly research.
"I find in both a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."
Hancock told students that if they are serious about conservatism, they, and he, need to "study diligently to increase our confidence that our intense feelings are common sense … and can be rationally articulated."
"(There are many) superior alternatives to the kind of proof-texting, quote-listing approach that too many LDS stop with," Hancock said. "I wish (Skousen's books) would point a little more beyond themselves to this literature that is more substantial and sound and teaches us how to do battle with a certain intellectual mainstream in a more substantial and coherent way." (a list of recommended reading is provided in the article)I think this is what Elder Dallin H. Oaks had in mind when he spoke at BYU Idaho last fall on the topic of religious freedom. He said:
"The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."
Posts
12 comments:
While I can see your point, I don't think it is very accurate. All of the conservative ideals that I know of are founded upon common sense along with a little logic and reason. However, to win elections you need to excite the common people, and that is not done in an intellectual forum.
The anti-intellectual movement running rampant through mainstream conservatism may be misplaced, but it is founded in something real. The intellectual elites are the most outspoken deniers of God. There is an undeniable feeling of superiority amongst these "intellectuals" Against anyone who could possibly believe in such ridiculous nonsense as religion.
While you and I may connect more to someone that seems well educated and knowledgeable, the current situation is proof enough that those intellectuals are not necessarily what we need. President Obama is both articulate and well educated, yet seems to keep trying to shove ridiculous policies down our throats and force unpopular legislation through as someone who knows better about us than we do. I have heard many quotes along the lines of We will just get this passed, and then Americans will see how much they like it.
You may not like Sarah Palin, but her entire political career is littered with examples of her fighting against the mainstream forces of politics, and that is something a lot of people can relate to.
You may not like Glenn Beck, but his career is built upon saying what he believes, he is emotional, sure, but he seems real, not the same facade that we seemingly get everywhere else in the media.
I agree, it would be nice to see real debate in politics, see real ideology, but the current political landscape is such that entire campaigns are run on 30 second time periods, nobody seems to have any more attention to give than that, and if they do, they are already in to politics, and won't be persuaded as easily.
Sorry about the rant, I just think that all sides of the political spectrum have their fair share of idiots, and at least the conservative side is based on something worth fighting for.
Nate, that's a fair criticism. In fact, I just got done listening to one of my favorite podcasts (Common Sense with Dan Carlin) in which he says that those who are writing off Sarah Palin better watch out. History teaches us to not underestimate the power of an attractive, polarizing figure like Sarah Palin even if she is not the most qualified for the job. Dan mentions in the podcast that Ronald Reagan was roundly rejected by his own party in the lead up to his election for very similar reasons that Sarah Palin is being rejected.
But...
I still don't think Sarah Palin would be a good choice for president. For one thing, our country is much more polarized than it was in the Reagan days. I think someone like Palin could literally rip the country apart. A Gingrich type figure who could more articulately engage the anti-conservative message with rational argument would be a safer choice (even if it is highly unlikely).
As for your comment that conservatism is 'at least based in something real', that may be true, but I think our inability (and at times it seems outright refusal)to engage the other side in rational argument does the movement a disservice. I think this is precisely what Elder Oaks was saying in the quote I referenced in the post. This is also the point the BYU professors were making.
As for your point about Glenn Beck saying what he believes, you may be right. I'm not sure. The guy makes a frickin' TON of money demonizing the left and dividing the country. I agree with a lot of what he says, but his message is delivered in a way that feeds the division in our society. Also, I think he fails to point beyond his own works to more substantial arguments. I got his book Common Sense last year. He claimed that it was THE case against an out of control government. I couldn't even make it through the book. That is not to say that he doesn't say some things that I agree with. But the book is like his radio show in print. It is just ranting without any real depth. It does not engage the other side in a respectful, deliberate manner.
Our country is divided and persons who threaten to only widen that division (like Palin) without seriously engaging the other side with rational argument do the country, and the conservative movement a disservice. They may be right in their convictions, and they may be more likely to be elected. But if our country is ripped apart as a result is that really something we should be rooting for?
Ultimately, I think much of the division in our country is rooted in more fundamental philosophical disagreements. Without addressing these basic notions (much of them having to do with the meaning and value of human sexuality and the family) any talk of reducing government is mere whistling in the wind...but I'll save more of that for a separate post.
I am not saying Palin is the best for the country, don’t get me wrong. But I think she is a better figure head and less polarizing than our current president. I also don’t buy the argument that our country is more polarized than during the Reagan year. I think there are less people now than any other time historically that care about politics. I also think that politics are played on the edges, and moderates are a scourge to both parties. But that is another discussion entirely.
Gingrich could be safer in some ways, but he is more of the same, that is what Palin has, she is different, and that is what people think they want.
I agree with you that we should engage the other side more. It seems that most places I go, the conservative voice is almost non-existent, while conservatives make up the majority ideology of the people. We have firm ground to stand on, and can argue effectively, but it seems that we are less controversial and don’t enjoy the debate as much as liberals. This is sad, but gives me more and better opportunities, because I love the debate, and I am not usually the person who is the center of attention.
Sure Glenn Beck is demonizing the left, but he is filling a void that many Americans need filled. Until Rush Limbaugh began his radio broadcast, which incidentally spawned multiple conservative talk shows, there was no conservative voice in the media at all. Mainstream media has been controlled by the left side of the spectrum for so long, and they have always pretended to be objective, that many even most Americans don’t realize how biased it really is. I don’t listen to him, because I don’t really like his style, but it is a lot better than Jerry Springer kinds of shows.
Our country has always been divided; the lines just continue to evolve. There is a lot of engagement going on; it just doesn’t happen in the limelight. I don’t believe the country will be ripped apart by someone like Palin. Obama is the most polarizing president in modern history: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic
I agree that the division is rooted in philosophical disagreements, I think the key dividing issues are God/Religion and Freedom/Safety and I think that reducing government is a large priority for many Americans, and while it has been expanding slowly there hasn’t been any uniting policy, but many people’s breaking point has been reached and I think that is the key factor in the tea party movement which is probably the biggest political movement in modern American history.
Nate,
I think Sarah Palin is every bit as polarizing as Obama. She just comes from a different pole. That is not to say that we should avoid polarization at the expense of principle. Jesus Christ, after all, said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." I would just like to see someone who could better represent a coherent and rational argument for conservatism.
Also, I completely disagree that people are less engaged politically now than any time in history. In fact I would argue the exact opposite. I think the internet, and the current economic situation have brought many into the political discussion who never would have entered otherwise.
Moderates are a scourge to the parties? I don't know quite what you mean there. I would argue that the parties are a scourge to the American system. They are designed to perpetuate their own power and existence while engaging in a WWF style of debate that never addresses the real issues our country faces. If by moderates you mean those who are willing to listen to both sides and form independent opinions rather than blindly following the propaganda that is broadcast from the 2 parties, then I stand convicted. And I think our country needs more moderates.
While I agree that conservatives have firm ground to stand on, I disagree that most of us (myself included, but I'm trying to improve)can argue effectively. If all we rely on is Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News crowd (O'Reilly being the best of the bunch)we are going to get killed if we enter into a debate with an informed leftist. That is the whole point of my post. There ARE good cases to be made for the conservative position. But you can't rely on the radio to build that argument.
Our country has always been divided, it is true, but the divisions are getting closer to the roots. At most times in our history (the Civil War being a notable exception) the divisions have been at the perimeter I think. Political debates were whacking at branches, but everyone was rooted in certain key moral principles I think. It is those key principles that are eroding now. We are truly facing a 'Clash of Orthodoxies' to quote Robert P. George.
As for the philosophical differences themselves, I'm gonna save that for another post.
One more note...while it is hard to argue with the fact that the Tea Parties have been a HUGE movement, it is interesting (as Dan Carlin points out in his podcast today) that the Tea Party people are putting up people to oppose Ron Paul in his congressional district. Ron Paul arguably represents Tea Party ideals better than anyone out there. But now that the Repubs are getting more involved with the movement, and Ron Paul is not an honorable member, they want to cast him out. I just think this is a good example of the scourge that the republican party is to the principles they supposedly stand for.
Sarah Palin may be as polarizing, but why do you think she is popular? My guess is that she is the anti-feminist, the woman that has real life values and many Americans can identify with. I think there has been a void of political figures with whom the majority of Americans can identify, and I think she fits that bill.
Voter turnout may not be the best indicator, but it is the best objective measurement I know of.
It seems that the more polarizing the political landscape becomes, the more people get involved, and in my opinion that is a good thing. But until these last 2 elections, voter turnout has been hovering around the worst percentages since we have had a 2 party system.
While I agree people are starting to wake up and become politically active again, I still think that moderates are a scourge to the parties. Let me clarify here. Moderates are those people that want a middle of the road approach to life, not strong stances on anything. The majority of republicans and democrats, have historically moderate, which is precisely the reason many people fail to see a big difference between the parties. Ever hear someone say that they are both taking us to the same place, just at different rates? That is because of moderates. If someone were to truly believe their ideology upon which their party is built there would not be as much compromise, and it would be a lot easier to hold politicians accountable for rotten legislation. But because of the moderates in both parties, a lot of laws get enacted that nobody is happy with and of which nobody is responsible.
I don’t know how you could interpret moderate as, “those who are willing to listen to both sides and form independent opinions rather than blindly following the propaganda that is broadcast from the 2 parties,” that is just prudence. Everyone should listen to both sides, how else could you form an informed decision? Recently John McCain’s daughter stated that she is a “Progressive Republican.” That is an oxymoron or exactly what I mean by “moderate”.
I don’t think that most of anyone can argue effectively, conservative or liberal; especially not if they are getting their arguing points from any pop culture media source. I think that most opinions are formed by a feeling. The Spirit testifies of truth. Many people don’t know why they feel/think the way they do, but arguing is not the way to convince them. Very few people truly are open to new ideas and perspectives, but I don’t for an instance think that conservatives are any more abundantly stupid than liberals, but I do think that most media outlets poke fun of conservatives where they can.
You may be right about the key principles being eroded now, which only makes it more important to choose a side, and not be a fence sitting moderate.
16 So then because thou art alukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will bspue thee out of my mouth.
That is interesting that they are trying to take control of the TEA Party movement and oust Ron Paul. I hadn’t heard about that yet, and I wonder what it means. Because Ron Paul is one of the few politicians that does what he says and sticks to his ideology; and that is something that should be supported not rejected.
I had a chart that showed voter turnout, but it disappeared when I posted, sorry I don't know how to post an image, so you will just have to imagine.
Nate,
On Sarah Palin, maybe what you say is the source of the appeal. Like I said, I have not been drawn to her from what I have seen. But I have not seen a lot, and there is a good chance that my views are tainted by the media outlet bias where I get my information.
As far as your analysis of moderates goes, I still think I disagree with you. You speak about the moderates being 'a scourge to the parties.' And you talk about our 'two-party system.' We don't have a two party system. That is my whole point. That is a myth perpetuated by the two parties. Republicans and Democrats are private organizations. They are not part of our constitutional structure. The winner-take-all format of the electoral college is biased toward two parties becoming the most powerful, but not in the way they currently hold power.
Democrats and Republicans have managed to institute all sorts of little rules for debates and ballots that basically make it impossible for a legitimate independent to compete. Why? Because they don't want competition. They are both invested in the way things are, and they don't want to see things change. Many of these little rules were implemented after Ross Perot made a strong independent run for the White House in 1992 and made the two parties feel uncomfortable in the debates. He would bring things up that neither party wanted to discuss because they BOTH wanted to leave things the way they were (like I said earlier, the two parties prefer a WWF style debate, rather than a debate of real substance).
On many issues, Repubs and Dems are equally corrupt and they don't want an outsider coming in and stirring things up. That is NOT the way our elections were originally designed to be run.
So I would say that the reason both parties are taking us to the same place has nothing to do with the 'moderates.' It has to do with the fact that the two parties have put a stranglehold on competition and they really ARE taking us to the same place. Their marketing messages may differ, but their actions and ultimate interests are very similar.
Your statement that the term 'Progressive Republican' is an oxymoron pre-supposes that the Republican party is actually grounded in firm principles. I think this is completely false. The Republican party represents a marketing message to keep a certain group of individuals in power. That marketing message is designed to appeal to persons of a particular ideology, but I don't believe for a second that the marketing message will not change if that is what is needed to keep their people in power.
All of this is not to say that everyone in the parties are corrupt, but I think in general what I have described is true. Else why all the rules to limit outside competition?
On a final note, low voter turnout might actually be an indicator of a better election. If the voter turnout is low, then it is more likely that those who actually do vote really do care about the issues and the candidates.
I agree that the 2-party system is not part of our constitutional structure. However, there are many laws on the books that are not part of the constitutional structure either; in fact I would argue that most national laws are unconstitutional. That doesn’t change the reality in which we live. I understand that the separate parties are private organizations, but it is hard to kick against the pricks. There are a lot of factors at play here, and in order to effectively make any change, it is a lot more beneficial to work within the organized system and influence what you can, than to be an outsider fighting against the controlling powers.
Every time a third party candidate starts getting any kind of momentum, it hurts the party with whom he most closely aligns. Ross Perot, effectively handed the presidency to Bill Clinton with only 43% of the popular vote. In that particular election, the conservative side of the spectrum was split between strong conservatives going with Perot, and moderate conservatives going with Bush, both of whom would have been better than Clinton.
Most people identify as moderates, or at least only moderately conservative/liberal. While I would prefer a more conservative candidate than the Republican Party typically elects, I think the Republican Party is in a better position to influence policy than all third parties combined; especially considering the many different ideologies that exist.
I strongly believe that if everyone who is fed up with the Republican Party, and as such have gone to some third party, would come back to the Republican Party, and work on the inside, than we could turn things around, and have real influence. I think that is what has been happening on the Democratic side for some time. And now the majority of the Party heads are people that are a lot more extreme than most of the party. Whereas, within the Republican Party the leaders are moderate, and the extremists have all left and are trying to fight both parties.
The ideological breakdown of the country puts Conservatives at 40%, and Liberals at only 21%. Like the old saying goes, united we stand, divided we fall. We could accomplish a lot if we would just stop are bickering and join together. The problem comes down to too many people just don’t agree, but I strongly believe internal strife is more easily dealt with from the inside. I’ve never been to a Party convention, but I was looking it up and at the precinct level it seems rare to have more than 5 or 6 people there. That is where the change is made, at the lower end before we even get to the Primary elections level. The place where one person has essentially 20% of the power is the place where we can have influence.
As to your point about lower turnout being a better election, I agree, I have said to many people over the years, that the less people show up, the stronger my vote becomes, so less is more, because I am not going to miss an election. However, the more I think about it, the more I realize I need to get involved at a lot earlier point in the process. And even though you aren’t a Republican, maybe you should come along, than your views will be heard too.
One point I want to make regarding Skousen, is that he wrote the 5000 year leap more to recount history and how things came about. It is about how our country was founded and the philosophers the founding fathers looked to. It's a history book, not a philosophy book. So to ask Skousen to go into more depth or detail negates the purpose of the book. Just curious, have you read it? If not, I would highy recommend it, it is fascinating and very educational. You learn what different symbols mean and how they settled upon them. There is so much to the book. I personally was disappointed on how the BYU professor seemed to "dumb down" the book. He also dumbs down Glenn Beck. Just because someone talks like us, doesn't make them stupid.
Nate,
you make some fair points. On the libertarian side many candidates choose to work within the Republican party to try to change it from within. Unfortunately that is their only option since the two-parties have made it impossible to compete otherwise.
You are also correct in your suggestion that the time for effecting change is in the primaries. It is during the primaries that the more radical candidates have a chance make their views known.
Where I differ from you is in the general election. Take the last election as an example. I was faced with John McCain and Barack Obama. I didn't like either of them. I think McCain would be doing EXACTLY what Obama is doing. His rhetoric would be different, but his actions would be the same. So I voted for a third party candidate...I don't consider it a throw away of my vote because I really did not care who won between the two major candidates and I was able to vote my conscience.
Jen,
I listened to about half of 'The 5000 Year Leap'. But I have read 'The Naked Communist' and parts of 'The Naked Capitalist'. I actually enjoyed Skousen MUCH more than the stuff I've read from Beck.
The BYU professors were criticizing Skousen for not pointing people in the direction of more substantial works. They were suggesting that his books are like primers on American History and political thought. They are not sufficient for a solid grounding in conservative principles. They would have preferred Skousen to do a better job of making this clear in his writing. I think that is probably a fair criticism.
As for Glenn Beck, I think it was actually cruel of them to group Cleon Skousen with him. Skousen is much more reasonable. I used to listen to Glenn a fair amount, but I have a hard time with him now. I really do agree with a lot of the things he says, but I think he thrives more on the controversy that he creates. He really enjoys getting into it with his opponents and it often becomes more about personal attacks than substance. I also agree with the professors that Beck fails to point his listeners to more substantial works on conservative thought.
Post a Comment