-
Eliminating Obsolete Law
February 10, 2012 | 3 comments
-
Morton Blackwell's Kind Words for Santorum
February 8, 2012 | 41 comments
-
President Santorum
February 8, 2012 | 68 comments
-
Now Can I Get an Acknowledgement That Supporting Santorum Wasn't Meant to Help Romney
February 7, 2012 | 34 comments
-
Peace Pipe with Jeffrey Lord
February 7, 2012 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Patrick Ruffini has an extremely thoughtful and almost entirely on-the-mark essay at The Next Right about how the right needs to stop "wearing scorn as a badge of honor" and stop treating all intellectualism as if it is the equivalent of a lack of conservatism. To be sure, there is a lot of pseudo-intellectuallizing that goes on that treats either social conservatism or, less often, limited-government conservatism as if it is the province only of gap-toothed rubes (think Kathleen Parker and Mike Gerson, respectively). As a conservative on all thre levels -- fiscal, social, and defense -- I reject that pseudo-intellectualizing. But Ruffini does have a point in saying that far too many people on the right have such huge cultural chips on their shoulders that they see ANY attempt to apply formal logic and reason and learning as if it as an attack on conservatism itself and all they hold dear -- even if the attempt is itself in defense of conservatism. In short, Ruffini rightly says that we need to be open to new Buckleys, and he is right.
That said, I must offer one mild corrective to Patrick. He writes parenthetically that "It's true that Ronald Reagan was not a book learner..." No, it is not true. Not true at all. He was a tremendous book learner, an unbelievably avid reader. Bob Novak noted that fact in his memoir; I'll get the citation in a little while. Many,many others have attested to Reagan's voracious reading appetite. Not only that, but Reagan almost always was a straight-A student as well, except for one semester at college when he was struggling financially. IT does us no good to keep alive the myth that Reagan wasn't book smart. He was, and he was learned, and he was not at all an anti-intellectual.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/04/ruffini-mostly-on-target
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Barney Shuffles Off
- Useless Wonks
- Mission Implausible
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tim| 9.4.09 @ 11:17AM
"Brain and brain! What is brain?"
Anne | 9.4.09 @ 12:30PM
Quinn,
Thank you from a fellow Trinity Episcopal School alumn. Your clarity on the subject of conservatives and intellectuals is much needed in our current political climate of double and 'triplespeak'. In mainstream liberal media it appears that many citizens are willing to abdicate their responsibility to reason and apply the lessons of history and common sense in public policy. In such a climate, even those of us who know to keep coherent, life-affirming values alive appreciate your words encouraging us along the way. Thank you.
Dixie Pixie| 9.4.09 @ 12:35PM
It is simply not true that the “Right” lacks intellectual weight. It was Liberalism which drove the conservatives out of the intellectual marketplace. As a result the conservatives went into the Applied Arts and Sciences as well as the Business fields. It is well known that average conservative reads four times the books of the average liberal. Besides Liberalism has so devalued intellectualism its worth is meaningless. It has gotten to the point the terms “American Intellectual” is a contradiction in terms. Consider that Barbra Streisand, Paul Krugman, Al Gore, Gore Vidal, Obama and The Baldwin brothers are all considered intellectuals by Liberalism.
To give a further counterfactual argument which proves the case, I summon “ BOB of the Immaculate but Noisy Funnel”.
!! TOOOOOT !! HIC !! TOOOOOT !!
Oldefarte| 9.4.09 @ 12:41PM
Liberals, being the LEGEND IN THEIR OWN MINDS as they are, consider ALL CONSERVATIVES as morons; since conservatives are not [again in the minds of liberals] "intellectuals". Reagan [and Palin also]wasn't a graduate of H-A-R-V-A-R-D, Y-A-L-E, or other ivy-league university, so therfore, he wasn't smart. learned or L-E-A-R-N-E-D. The difference between Reagan and the god of liberals, John Fitzgerald Kennedy [or any Kennedy for that matter], was the fact that the former [previous to politics] had WORDED FOR A LIVING, whereas the latter was nothing but a government-teat sucking politician his entire adult life. The ONLY solution for conservatives is simply to IGNORE COMPLETELY the insanity of liberalism, and attempt to find solutions/candidates that repair/fix the socialism of liberal politicians!!!!!!!!!!
BD57| 9.4.09 @ 1:08PM
Quin:
Like you said, "mostly on target." My point of departure is the free ride he gives people auditioning for the role of "conservative intellectual" who seem to paint anyone of faith with the broad brush of "Nut who is hurting the party."
Daisy| 9.4.09 @ 1:35PM
Not only was Reagan an avid reader he wrote many of his own excellent speeches. Why should I believe anything this clown says after he screwed up this bit about Reagan?
Quin| 9.4.09 @ 2:32PM
NOTE TO ANNE: Please write me and tell me who you are! I always like keeping up with Trinity alums! (What a GREAT school!) Write my gmail at Qhillyer@Gmail.com. Thanks!