Comments on: Good news for conservatives!

By: 2551 Joseph Duggan et al, Is Conservatism Dead?, The University Bookman « Octavio Islas. Director de Proyecto Internet-Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Estado de México [octavio.islas@iproyectointernet.org]

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:00:18 +0000

[...] Roger Kimball addresses the subject from his blog. [...]

By: Mongoose

Mongoose — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:55:10 +0000

One must remember that this is the Age of Equivocation. Much of which passes for “progressive” political thought revolves around taking a familiar word that has positive emotional connotations and attempting to claim that it means something that it does not. The example of “social justice” comes to mind.

Tcoob. let me help you here:. Here is a re0edit.

99.9% of what passes for “progressive” political thought are outright lies. They can do no other thing. That is the just the sort of people they are.

By: Tcobb

Tcobb — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:47:58 +0000

By the same token they paint conservatives as being folks who want to freeze society and cling to old discredited ways that are no longer appropriate or desirable in our modern society. The great irony is that behind the rhetoric liberals cling to old ideas that originated in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries that have been discredited by events whenever they have actually been put into practice. The same old “progressive” ideas are given a new name and promoted as a new and daring direction that will lead us to a bright new world. In a very real sense it is the liberals who are the ones clinging to the past.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:03:40 +0000

So why would you ever spend a dime for the poisonous product of the liberal media.

By: James Currin

James Currin — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:44:22 +0000

I’m beginning to be alarmed about the frequency with which which Liberals like Mr. Tannenhaus, while embracing none of their principles, use such ancient worthies as Burke and Disraeli to scold non-ideological conservative such as myself for our apostasy from the true faith. It is probably no accident that he has chosen Whittaker Chambers and William Buckley as subjects for biography. I think they may be the new candidates for rehabilitation, and thus useful for invidious comparisons with the likes of us. Once, at an art opening, I had a short conversation with Deborah Solomon of the NYT, in the course of which she inquired about my political views. I told her that I was in many ways more to the right than Buckley, but that I found the cultish atmosphere surrounding National Review during his editorship not to my taste. She looked a bit perplexed and then said “So you are a neo-conservative?”. I might have added, but didn’t, that his frequent Latin bon mots were somewhat off-putting to those of us who had got our Latin from public schools. It also is remarkable how many reliably liberal writers the NR spawned during this period. Gary Wills is one who comes to mind.
The question arises as to what it is that these exemplary conservatives have in common. I can think nothing better than “clubbability”. It is true that the slovenly Chambers is a little problematical in this regard, but at least he went to Princeton? , was once a Communist, and Alger Hiss liked him. The somewhat less well known, but eminent, Dartmouth professor, Jeffrey Hart, who defected to the Obama camp during the campaign, is, at least, a candidate member.

By: Bent Notes » Blog Archive » Sam has no idea how to diagnose us

Bent Notes » Blog Archive » Sam has no idea how to diagnose us — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:30:50 +0000

[...] I’d been considering for a couple of days writing a post about Sam Tanenhaus’s New Republic piece on conservatism’s death, but along comes Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media, articulating my reaction with characteristic incisivenes…. [...]

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:32:07 +0000

I came across this article while browsing the New Republic for the distortion du jour. Obviously, I knew what to expect, but enjoy picking over liberal misrepresentations and ommissions, so I began to read it. The sentence you broke down stopped me in my tracks. Instead of having to seek deeper into the article for any more nuanced distortions of conservative ideas, I could have spent all day shredding the blatant fallacies of just that sentence. Thank you for doing it for me. I am continually shocked to discover how deeply misunderstood / misrepresented conservatism is (especially by the left). Once I read the out-of-context Burke quotes, supported only by leftist assumptions about Burke’s meanings, used to denigrate the leftist assumptions about modern conservative’s intentions, I figured I’d seen enough. It makes me sick to think that writing an entire article of obviously bad history based on obvioulsy irrational assumptions can win you plaudits from such a large portion of our fellow Americans and a cushy job for a supposedly “intellectual” journal. If I didn’t have any self-respect or dignity, I would go into the liberal journalism industry, too.

By: ACJ

ACJ — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:13:22 +0000

Atlas Shrugged.
The Repulbicans will head for the hills and regroup. When they come back to civilization, they will find a another challenge to destroy. Only this time we have a collective history of their ideologies and not let them back in.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:51:28 +0000

I love it when the left fingerwags about conservative intellectual history. “You guys used to really have it together…you need to reconnect with your honorable traditions!” I’ve had a couple of lefty friends do this to me on occasion.

Of course, I had to laugh when one of these same fingerwagging friends was browsing my bookcase one day and came across my old copy of Russell Kirk’s “The Portable Conservative Reader.” He responded by rolling his eyes and muttering “oh please…”

By: Peter Boston

Peter Boston — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:42:24 +0000

Something I do not understand, and which creates a great deal of distress in me about the future of the Republic, is that too many people in positions of power and influence, like Tanenhaus, do not appear to have the ability to reason or to formulate a rational argument.

Is reality out of fashion?