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.
