The Gay Vanguard of the Conservative Renaissance
From the ashes a fire shall be woken
a light from the shadows shall spring;
renenwed shall be blade that was broken,
the crownless again shall be king.
J.R.R. Tolkien
Seems Tony Blankley agrees with me about a coming conservative renaissance. In his latest essay, he writes:
I think that Miss Noonan may have unconsciously touched on what is really going on here when she accuses Mrs. Palin – who is attracting crowds as big if not bigger than any Reagan ever drew – of being a “follower … not a leader.” Miss Noonan’s unconscious fear may be that it will be precisely Mrs. Palin (and others like her) who will be among the leaders of the about to be re-born conservative movement. I suspect that the conservative movement we start re-building on the ashes of November 4th (even if Mr. McCain wins) will have little use for over-written, over-delicate commentary.
The new movement will be plain spoken and social networked up from the internetted streets, suburbs and small towns of America. It certainly will not listen very attentively to those conservatives who idolatrize Mr. Obama and collaborate in heralding his arrival. They may call their commentary “honesty.” I would call it – at the minimum – blindness.
(Emphasis added.)
Reading the blogs, I have a sense of intellectual ferment on the right. It’s even reached the halls of Congress, conservatives looking back to the ideas and inspiration of Ronald Reagan, but forward to the problems of today.
Read the whole thing. And I mean that.
There is something happening on the right. It may not lead to victory in November, but like the goddess Athena, we focus on the long-term. An electoral setback is just that, a setback. Our ideas are on the march and won’t be diminished by the temporary triumph of our ideological adversaries.
And we at GayPatriot intend to lead the gay vanguard in this renewed push for American ideals, for freedom and personal responsibility, for love of country, a strong national defense and above all, an appreciation for the greatness of this nation and its exceptional role on the world stage.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I would recommend also looking back beyond Reagan to both the Founders like Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists, and Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressivism. And don’t be put-off by the labels, what they called “conservative” then we would label reactionary and backwards. The Federalists and The Progressives understood there was a role for government, but it wasn’t to be a nanny-state nor a wealth-redistribution scheme.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 22, 2008 @ 6:19 pm - October 22, 2008
I know what Blankley is saying, but I have a friend who will LOL if he reads that. Every successful conservative revolution, he has pointed out to me, is a revolutionary return to good writing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 8:18 pm - October 22, 2008
Count me out if Sarah Palin is to be the face of the conservative movement. If that happens, I quit. You’ll be able to find me quietly weeping in a corner with my copy of Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative.
Speaking of books:
What does that even mean? Along with the pumping for Palin, it sounds very much like a call to further anti-intelectual cretinism that seems to typify much pop-conservative “thought” and writing. “Don’t you come at me with your big words and thoughtful process!” it seems to say.
Well guess what, sometimes an idea requires “over-written, over-delicate commentary” convey the nuance and shades of grey which make up the real world where most of us live. (I have no idea about the residence of Mr. Blankley, but after reading the piece, it seems that Reality Ln. it is not.)
Comment by PSUdain — October 23, 2008 @ 3:30 am - October 23, 2008
Actually PSUdain, it doesnt. Liberalism requires over-written, over-delicate pseudo-intellectual commentary because it isnt based in understanding, its based in feelings, and because liberalism cannot make value judgements.
A person who actually understands those complicated and nuanced issues, on the other hand, the person who has true command of them, is the person who is able to sift through all that nuance and grey area and get to the underlying core issues.
The greatest writers and thinkers are not those who take complicated ideas and make them more complicated — those are the pseudo-intellectuals,found almost (with the exceptions of Rockefeller Republicans like Brooks, Buckly and Noonan) — the greatest writers and thinkers are the ones who can take complicated issues and make them understandable.
And that is what conservatism does, because unlike liberalism, it is founded in reason and a set of core values.
No, I’m not suggesting Palin is one of the greatest thinkers. Nor am I suggesting she isnt quite intelligent. What I am suggesting is that your criteria for what proves intellect is entirely bass-ackwards.
Joe Biden is a great example (indeed, the entire Democrat leadership are prime examples) He uses all the “in” words, and can bloviate on any subject for remarkable amounts of time, but he hasnt got a frickin clue what hes talking about!
Reagan on the other hand was easily Bidens intellectual superior, but he was plain spoken and straight forward. As was Goldwater, whom you mention. President Bush, contrary to conventional wisdom, is himself quite intelligent, but words do not fall trippingly off his tongue, they often trip over his tongue, tumble out of his mouth and plop on the floor.
But there isnt anyone in the entire Democrat leadership, including Gore, Kerry, or Obama who is his intellectual superior.
Public speaking is public speaking, writing is writing and reasoning is reasoning. Being good at one can help you be good at the others, but it is not necessarily indicative of it.
Comment by American Elephant — October 23, 2008 @ 6:22 am - October 23, 2008
And by the way, that is why people like Noonan, Brooks and the liberal elites they hang with are so threatened by Palin: they have snookered much of America into believing that only people who come from their schools, speak like they speak, and belong to their set are qualified to lead or to tell Americans what to think about their leaders.
It is one of the greatest, if not the greatest , ills in Washington. A dangerous trend towards oligarchy that people like Noonan and Brooks are all too happy to usher in.
I mean, look at them. they arent journalists, they arent reporters, they are columnists. They aren’t finders of fact, their only job is tell Americans what to think. Jobs that rely on their ability to convince Americans that they are smarter than us. That they have insight in to what the best course for America is that we do not.
And they are ALREADY losing their influence. Traditional media are shrinking. Bleeding readership. If yokels like Palin can come along, indifferent to their conventions, if so-called “average” Americans can come along and lead just as well, or better, than those who come up through the right schools… then the mask comes off the entire ruling class. It will be plain for all to see that there is nothing particularly special about the elites, and they are finished.
George Bush, for all his stumbling speech at least went to Harvard and Yale. Sarah Palin threatens to take government back, as she has talked about many times, for the people.
Comment by American Elephant — October 23, 2008 @ 7:05 am - October 23, 2008
Noonan of the “more will than wallet” and “a thousand points of light” fame is the poster child for “not getting it.”
Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin are not just populist icons to be handled by the elite salon writers of the acceptable conservative establishment. Fred Barnes, Peggy Noonan, William Kristol and George Will all need to be interviewed by Rick Warren and exposed for the tepid conservatives they are.
Sorry, folks, but Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin have a deep authenticity that blasts forth like the rays of the sun. They need Noonan, Will, Barnes, Kristol, et. al. like a dog needs fleas.
Comment by heliotrope — October 23, 2008 @ 10:29 am - October 23, 2008
Ah, yes, it’s all so clear now. The fact that she talks like a complete disquisitional buffoon is just an indication of how normal and regular she is. God only knows that we are a wholly troglodytic nation. (HEAVY SARCASM, there.)
Look, we voted for folksy eight years ago and then again four years ago. I think we need a little more than down-home, aww-shucks folksiness in a candidate. Continuing to dumb-down the debate is NOT what we need. Continuing to remove any shred of thoughtfulness or intellectualism from our political process is the most foolhardy move we have ever conceived.
Let me say this: There is an absolute delight to be had in well-written prose. It is a good (though not certain) indicator of a healthy intellect (a la Goldwater who was no simpleton of writer–HE QUOTED CICERO FOR GOD’S SAKE–or even more so a la William F. Buckley). But the problem isn’t that she’s plainspoken. The problem is that she speaks in meaningless sound bites with no sort of rhetorical or philoshophical coherency.
The “emacs psychiatrist” text-based conversation program in my UNIX machine’s text editor (with little language tweak for political jargon instead of psychological jargon) could do at least as good a job at stringing together a cogent political statement. And it is, even by the low standard of computerized response programs, A COMPLETE DOLT.
She has talked on and on, and still has said next to nothing of any import.
And yet, people seem to call on this as a strength. In the words of Christopher Buckley, “WHAT FRESH HELL IS THIS???“
Comment by PSUdain — October 24, 2008 @ 3:32 am - October 24, 2008
PSUDain, I think you got the pronoun wrong in the first paragraph. She is feminine singular third person so it cannot apply to Joe Biden for whom you’d use “he,” the masculine singular unless you’re being catty like some gay men.
I totally agree that we don’t need to dumb down the debate. It’s why I wonder at Obama’s selection of Biden who does so by the mere act of speaking. He does talk on and on and say next to nothing of any import.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 24, 2008 @ 3:51 am - October 24, 2008
No, you see, while he may be blustery, he, at least is capable of constructing an argument.
As for your statement’s first paragraph, want to talk about convoluted prose…? Perhaps you trying to be sly and cuttingly witty. But it just came off as circumspect.
Give me a break with this Palin love-fest. She’s all-around a pretty awful selection, catering to the anti-intelectual set, and other extreme elements in the party. Maybe she can stand on her own two feet, politcally, but as Peggy Noonan pointed out (along with scads of others) she has given no indication of such. As I said before, I think the requirements for office are a little higher than an ‘aww-shucks’ folksy demeanor. The are also higher than being a good speaker. But the ability to construct an argument is a good indicator, perhaps not always of true intellect, but at least that a person has given thought to an issue.
My biggest problem with Palin, which I tried to get at with my allusion to computerized response conversation programs (in a manner that was also relatively circumspect, I’ll admit) is that her responses seem to just come according to a very simple ‘algorithm’. They’re seemingly light on novel thought and consideration or argument, heavy on endlessly repeated folksy anecdotes and platitudes. That is not the direction we need to take, ‘arguing’ in punctuated sound bites.
And that is why she troubles me so.
Comment by PSUdain — October 24, 2008 @ 1:43 pm - October 24, 2008
PSUDain, perhaps your comment might make more sense if you could defend yourself by showing a knowledge of Palin’s record.
Biden, capable of constructing an argument? Have you listened to him when he he chaired the Judiciary Committee and tried to engage thoughtful conservative nominees? It’s embarrassing. Have you addressed all the facts he made up in the vice presidential debate?
I agree the requirements for office are higher than being a good speaker. It’s why I question all the adulation for Obama.
As to Peggy’s criticism, well go back to the 1980 campaign and see what some intellectuals were saying about Reagan. Near identical to what they’re now saying about Palin.
This is not to say Palin is today where Reagan was then, but to put that criticism in perspective. So, make sure to read this post–Sarah Palin’s Reaganite Potential.
You haven’t once addressed anything Palin has said or done, only offered abstract arguments untethered to actual facts. Which is why Ameican Elephant’s comments above are so apropos to this discussion.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 24, 2008 @ 1:53 pm - October 24, 2008
PSUDain: I agree that what I have heard from Sarah Palin during the debate and the limited times we’ve heard her did not sound pithy or erudite. On the other hand, neither did Obama’s, McCain’s, or Biden’s. None of them have said anything that didn’t sound like a talking point–all of it emotional rhetoric with no thought behind it. But that’s obviously what the campaign directors are telling the candidates to do. It’s all appallingly banal, but I don’t think it is an accurate estimate of the thinking ability or leadership ability of the candidates.
Obama’s incredible stuttering when he doesn’t have a speech in hand is just embarassing. There are better speakers in my local Toastmasters club, including those for whom English is a second language. Naturally, however, the mainstream media does not show these moments on TV–only radio programs play the clips of these public speaking moments.
Comment by Vivian — October 24, 2008 @ 2:57 pm - October 24, 2008
Not that I agree with your ever word , Vivian, but, on the whole you make a solid point.
My main disagreement with you would be on Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican national convention –and her concluding remarks in the vice presidential debate.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 25, 2008 @ 5:20 am - October 25, 2008