-
What Did Arianna Huffington Know, and When Did She Know It?
May 15, 2013 | 1 comment
-
IRS Scandal Widens: Marriage Group Says IRS Leaked Information to ‘Political Enemies’
May 13, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Is Ed Markey in Trouble in Massachusetts Senate Race?
May 10, 2013 | 2 comments
-
What Are Terrorists Teaching Your Kids?
May 8, 2013 | 11 comments
-
U.S. Must Be Prepared to Face Unexpected Threats, Retired General Warns
April 26, 2013 | 5 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Quin Hillyer is correct, as is his habit, in warning against the dangers the “pseudo-intellectual” tendency poses to conservatism. And certainly Patrick Ruffini is correct that the “Birther” conspiracy theorists are both wrong and a potential source of embarrassment to conservatives.
However, I disagree with Ruffini’s nostalgic longing for a return to the days when William F. Buckley Jr. (allegedly) reigned as the sole arbiter of what was, and was not, conservative. Such rear-view mirror perspectives neglect the reality of changes in the political landscape.
In the mid-1950s, Buckley and a relative handful of others — we might name Whittaker Chambers, Willmoore Kendall, Frank Meyer, Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver among them — created an intellectual movement quite nearly from scratch. The engagement between that intellectual movement and real-world considerations of electoral politics was, for many years, quite indirect.
There were few if any institutions through which the relatively small clique of conservative intellectuals who orbited National Review could exercise political influence, and so such institutions were built from the ground up over the course of several decades. ISI and YAF, Regnery Publishing, the Heritage Foundation, talk radio, Fox News — a few points on a sprawling graph tracing the growth of the conservative movement. A large, established, broad-based movement (Rush Limbaugh is estimated to reach as many as 20 million listeners weekly) does not function in the same way that it did when it began as a sort of intellectual rebellion in the 1950s.
Therefore, Ruffini’s wish for a latter-day Buckley, who might purge the Birthers, is to a large degree impractical. The most influential people and institutions in the conservative movement have nothing to do with the Birthers, and if some others wish to consign themselves to an irrelevant conspiracy-theory cul-de-sac — which is what Birtherism is — the rest of us cannot stop them. There is no need to purge anyone; they’ve effectively purged themselves.
Yet Patrick Ruffini is not merely a conservative intellectual, pondering philosophical truths in a cloister. He is a professional Republican political entrepreneur, whose firm, EngageDC, describes itself thus:
We help innovative political and public affairs clients seize the high ground in a chaotic new media environment defined by the 24-hour news cycle, blogs, and YouTube.
Our team is distinguished by its work on the toughest battles in recent political history, with on-the-ground experience ranging from the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, the Republican National Committee, the 2008 Romney for President campaign, and serving dozens of Members of Congress. Led by Mindy Finn, a veteran eCampaign Strategist for two presidential campaigns, and Patrick Ruffini, a former RNC eCampaign Director and a pioneer of political blogging,
Straddling the worlds of politics, commerce and intellect in such a manner must surely be a challenging task, and Ruffini manages it admirably. Yet this biographical information about Ruffini — he is young, savvy, and engaged with GOP political online operations at a high level — illustrates the distance between him and grassroots activists like Barbara Espinosa.
Grassroots conservative activists are, by their very nature, not engaged in the political process as a career. They tend to be older, well-established in non-political occupations and less concerned about the Big Picture questions than in finding immediate, practical ways to oppose the menace of liberalism. The question one hears from the grassroots is not, “Whither conservatism?” but rather, “What can I do?”
The Tea Party movement — which will host a major rally in Washington next weekend — has given the grassroots something to do, so that joining en masse to voice their opposition to the Obama agenda, they are actively engaged in the political process.
However, grassroots activism has consequences. One of the consequences of a ressurgent conservative grassroots is that their concerns, beliefs and attitudes are sometimes not in sync with the concerns, beliefs and attitudes of smart young Republican activists like Patrick Ruffini.
We cannot deny evidence that some grassroots conservatives are sympathetic to the “Birther” meme. (To cite one bumper sticker slogan: “Kenya Called. They Want Their Marxist Back.”) And those who are pushing that meme are diverting attention from more valid critiques of the Obama administration and its liberal policies. So they should be discouraged or ignored.
It is wrong, however, for Ruffini to long for a neo-Buckley to play the role of conservative pope and excommunicate the heretics. And it is also wrong for Ruffini to buy into liberal propaganda, to wit:
I still remember a time when success and intellectual achievement were more often than not conservative virtues, and I remember WFB looming large in this framework. Recent Democratic gains within the creative and educated classes have eroded this image, creating a media dynamic where intelligence is seen as aligning with the left within the Democratic Party, and the center within the Republican Party.
One might ponder the sources of those “recent Democratic gains within the creative class” without freaking out because WorldNetDaily publishes some article tending toward Birtherism. Considering myself both creative and educated, I do not suffer from any status insecurity about voting trends among my peers. And I do not think that a purge of Joseph Farah — who was pioneering online media when Patrick Ruffini was still a schoolboy — would be a net positive for conservatism.
You cannot build a movement by a process of subtraction.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/04/birthers-ruffini-and-the-urge
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 9.4.09 @ 3:03PM
Jon Henke Has A William F. Buckley Moment « Around The Sphere links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ran| 9.4.09 @ 4:16PM
Thanks for the post RSM.
"They tend to be older, well-established in non-political occupations and less concerned about the Big Picture questions than in finding immediate, practical ways to oppose the menace of liberalism. The question one hears from the grassroots is not, "Whither conservatism?" but rather, "What can I do?"
Ran| 9.4.09 @ 4:18PM
Ooops - here's the rest:
Yes, some. An observation: Others are looking hard at the Big Picture and seeing Big Government and asking "What can I do to remove this cancer!?" It is both a short-term and long-term question. There is a substantive - perhaps a majority? - libertarian oriented mindset activating the grass-roots, a base that's anything BUT a rabble of uninformed knee-jerkers.
Consider the combined sales of books by Mark Levin and Ron Paul, who's ideas are of particular interest to many in the Tea uprising. Not only is that an extensive audience reach, but I'll bet you a Sam Adams that their combined reach beats the combined sales of any six Squishes you'd care to name.
I hope that "professional Republicans" such as Ruffini take note that the Tea Party revolution is not a Republican phenomenon, but rather a republican phenomenon composed of independents and disaffected Republicans and Democrats. There has been a huge unmet demand for a genuine republican option because effete Republicans refuse to supply it... fear of losing the "center" and all that. They offered-up McCain and delivered Obama. I'm not saying eject the Squishes.
I'm suggesting that if Republicans want to build by the process of addition, they can start by adding their own [hitherto scorned] base. That would mean taking a determined, unequivocal and principled stand for Liberty. They will certainly be many "centrists" willing to sign-on as they did for Reagan. However, that would require a paradigm change in the Party. Whether or no, I don't see how the Party of Squish can win again.
Bob Belvedere | 9.4.09 @ 4:49PM
Spot-on Stacy.
Quoted from, linked to, and commented on at:
http://www.thecampofthesaints......2096918199
Mary Louise| 9.4.09 @ 5:52PM
What do they have, really, that is capable of invigorating? Ruffini cites Douthat and almost concedes you can't really be a solid, conservative intellectual unless you're not really that conservative.
His piece was not that thoughtful; it's all been thought before.
It's best to leave Buckley behind. Not to discard, but to travel forward as a body in motion does. And beyond all that -and even though it's probably not a bad idea to keep Reagan in heart and mind but begin to move past him too- we're not cannon fodder. Those who want to claim the mantle of conservative intellectual reveal what they think, and you don't have to have a chip on your shoulder to notice that.
Good luck to a Douthat (I don't dislike him, but he needs to get out of the library) and Brooks conservatism that doesn't have any real affinity for limited government. Each will get you to where the liberals are headed, they'll just get you there at a slower pace.
Good luck reaching those who will have to do the legwork that the "intellectuals" would never dream of doing. Good luck.
It's cheap and easy to blame conservative schizophrenia on the Plumberization of conservatism.
The truth is conservatism has been out of ideas (real ideas, not tinkering on the margins stuff) for a long time. And Hayek's piece on conservatism's defects still resonates and indicts.
Conservatives are best known right now for war. What can a conservative republican do best? He can make war. Buckley's concessions to the New Deal were for war, weren't they?
The schizophrenia is unnerving, and no matter what happens in '10 it will remain.
Good luck to Brooks, Frum, Bartlett and company. They don't want to teach they want to dictate and get a kind of cannon fodder that pleases them as they head out for the grass.
He's worrying about the Birther-kooks while the liberal left he cites as having the power to draw the intellectuals has a Truther Czar, no doubt accidentally on purpose.
The conservative intellectuals are not a likeable lot. They don't sell a lot of books, do they? Who wants to read them? You might as well head ad fontes and read Burke and Kirk and Randolph and Calhoun, and that crazy Ames yourself.
I like to read. And I like to learn, but I don't like these men and they don't have what it takes to lead any free thinking, high spirited people.
Anathema Sit!
A Collier | 9.4.09 @ 7:55PM
I'm tired of hearing about how the 'birthers' are wrong. The Constitution lays out very few qualifications to be President, and one is simply to be a natural born citizen. Obama's Certificate of Live Birth is not the same thing as a birth certificate and does not prove that he was born in Hawai'i. Obviously, the founders felt that it was of utmost importance for our President to be a natural born citizen. Why doesn't Obama simply release his birth certificate instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep it hidden, along with other important records, such as his educational records. For the most part, American Spectator is a great magazine, but they're not doing they're readers any service by ignoring the facts.
Skip MacLure| 9.4.09 @ 9:30PM
All disparaging comments and all the bullbleep from 'high minded' repubics aside...you know the ones I mean...those who reek of simpering accommodation and across the isle, (mostly behind ours backs in the dead of night), deals that would make a skunk want to practice projectile hurling? These are the same ones who want us to believe that we don't need to actually SEE a valid birth certificate for the most powerful post in the world...just take their word for it...like we are supposed to take their word for Tax and Trade or Unhealthy for America Care. When I was in the United States Marine Corps and wished to apply for a clearance..AT ANY LEVEL...they investigated everyone in my family back to my great grandparents........Well gee whiz, just go away and believe us...we saw his birth certificate...Umm who saw it? When? Can anyone produce a REAL copy of it? Other than a suspiciously altered looking 'certificate of live birth'? I had to produce birth certificates...Real birth certificates for my children just so they could play Little League baseball and Pop Warner football........why does this Marxist community organizer get a pass? Semper Vigilans people..... Semper Vigilans.....
Semper Fi
Skip MacLure
Pingback| 9.6.09 @ 12:54PM
Right Wing Nut House » MOVEMENT CONSERVATIVES vs. THE PRAGMATISTS: THE BATTLE IS JOIN links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.8.09 @ 9:37AM
The Urge to Purge links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Buckley fan| 9.8.09 @ 12:40PM
Bill Buckley did the sound thing when he disassociated from anti-semites, Birchers (many of whom argued Ike was a communist) and Randites, who sought to theologize Ms. Rand's view of the world and in the process ridicule the faith of our ancestors.
Asking to see definitive proof of Mr. Obama's birth certificate is, well, a natural question for folks but reputable conservatives who have investigated seem convinced it is a non issue.
For myself, I share more Bill's concerns about statism and I hardily recommend Mark Levin's latest book to those who need to brush up on the issue.
Pingback| 9.11.09 @ 4:17PM
Are Birthers Really The New Truthers? [Conspiracies] | Newstion.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
bje| 9.22.09 @ 5:35AM
This was, at worst, a decent argument until the final sentence was added.
"You cannot build a movement by a process of subtraction."
I'll let the author spot the absolute flaw in that contention.
mike w| 4.4.10 @ 1:16AM
Let's put this to bed. Produce the real birth certificate, not the COLB. Produce it! Just producs it, and shut the birthers down.