Julian Sanchez at
Ars Technica:
What seems to be playing out on the right of late, by contrast,
is a frenzy of mutual demonization. Pace some of my progressive
friends, I don't think the recent flurry of activity in the
fever swamps reveals any deep, eternal truths about
conservatism per se; it's just what's filled the gap created by
the paucity of useful leadership from conservative
intellectuals. What's needed right now is less tactical
refinement, and more conversation about the agenda tactics are
supposed to serve.
That's a wonderful little bit of kicking the can down the road
there, a common statement of intent from the journalistically
inclined right. See, we need a discussion about "What We
Believe." Forget for a moment how we define who "we" are. Or how
"we" get into the conversation. "We" need to arrive at some kind
of consensus, and these messianic intellectual leaders, whoever
they are, will facilitate the process.
That's a problem. For one thing, I don't know who Julian is
referencing when referring to these people, and I kinda doubt he
does either. It would help if we could define intellectual
leadership. All I know is that in the wake of William F.
Buckley's death, there were all kinds of tributes as to how nice
and smart a guy he was, but then people went back to doing the
things that didn't quite follow the Buckley Model of Doing Good
Works. What follows is not a criticism of what Julian
Sanchez posted. My criticism for what he has written is only,
"Clear that up for your readers."
I realize that people the world over love to reference how great
Bill Buckley was, and all these cool things he did, but I'd like
to stress that, particularly in Washington, it's all talk.
Buckley is credited with assembling an ideological AND political
coalition at once. This is a difficult thing to do, and his
success should be a model for others. This means more
analysis ought to be applied as to how he consolidated
the respect of his peers, and how he enabled others to
succeed.
Too often I'm overhearing conversations, however, where someone
as "the next Buckley" is being contemplated. Right now, all you
have to do to deserve a comparison to the patron saint of
conservatism is to try to cast out some part of the right wing
fever swamp or say that your own views are the ones that would
make political victory possible. If your response to this is that
"We all know Buckley was more than that," I'd like to remind you
that it's not enough to assert that the man could write and think
or sail a boat. It's not enough to say, "He had style." That
doesn't nearly address the fact that he was, himself, an
organizer of men, and did so with class, and further,
did so with political goals in mind.
So what are the things we should expect of "intellectual
leaders"? Hm. Well, let's compile a list of things gleaned from
the various books written by or about him:
- Don't cloister yourself from political activity and party
causes. Political involvement provides insights into the process
you're attempting to influence. How on earth would you expect to
change it otherwise?
- Mentoring younger people who, in all likelihood, may never
have the chance repay your kindness. Interns can't impress you if
you're not patient.
- Maintain intellectually purity, but become socially
promiscuous; If all your friends are people inclined to agree
with you, you're probably having boring, self-referencing, or
maybe just ironic conversations. Also, nothing creates a healthy
debate like a healthy relationship between opponents.
- Bite your tongue: The temptation to become outraged over an
issue can be strong, and blogging or email are a wonderfully
passive aggressive weapons. Picking up the phone is a great olive
branch and route to understanding.
- Please at least be somewhat aware of when you're practicing
the
Dougherty Doctrine.
If these are the qualities necessary to be an "intellectual
leader," then I'm all for it. All of these things trump the
technological changes necessary to step forward. They are, after
all, the human parts of a campaign to actually achieve something.
You can snipe back and forth using blogs and social media all you
like, but it takes more to move the ideas you agree with into the
leadership of a movement.
