Bloggingheads on Republicans

I thought Frum’s point was well written. It’s not that the Limbaugh’s and Beck’s are intrinsically bad. They aren’t. They are a needed part of the conservative movement. The problem is that the intellectual core just isn’t there. Manzi’s point, as I read it, is simply that the ideas of non-conservatives aren’t really being engaged with. Rather than engage with the strongest arguments of our opponents we simply discount them.

Manzi’s problem is that of course the books of the populists – especially the radio stars – have never been intellectually filled. At best one can say they are entertaining – like the radio shows.

As for that being a scathing attack – come one. I read worse on the Corner every day. The problem was that it was an attack on one of the main populists which is a no-no in this day and age. I’d note that none of the comments there on Manzi address his central point of avoiding engaging with the strongest arguments.

For those interested here is Manzi’s “scathing” review. Here’s his last word which helpfully links to the posts criticizing him.

While at Borders I picked up “Intellectuals and Society” by Thomas Sowell. There is a very interesting quote by Sowell on the front flap:

“One of the most surprising aspects of this study is how often intellectuals have been proved not only wrong, but grossly and disastrously wrong in their perceptions for the ills of society–and how little their views have changed in response to empirical evidence of the disasters entailed by those views.”

I guess, given an intellectual or one who has pragmatic answers, I’ll take the one with the pragmatic solutions.

Rich

First, sorry for the delay. It ended up being a busier week than expected.

I think Rich that intellectuals ought be pragmatic. And that’s not just Clark the pragmatist speaking. Rather I think a common failing of intellectuals is that they don’t sufficiently engage empirical evidence. This used to be true of Marxists especially but has recently started to be true of certain strains of thought in conservatism. Put an other way, a lot of intellectualism isn’t very intellectual. It uses rhetorical tricks to confuse. Yes, a different sort of rhetoric than that of the populists but ultimately not practically that different. I think that William F. Buckley certainly noted this with his famous quip about rather being governed by a set of random names out of a phone book than the professors at Harvard.

What bothers me is that there are very real issues confronting the United States right now. Obama and most Democrats strongly feel that the solution is to move towards a more European styled system. Republicans, as I see it, have responded by more or less denying problems are real or raising populist concerns. I think the recent health care debate is the best example. As I’ve often said one would have expected Republicans to be the ones crying for cost controls in medicare. Instead they demonized it and more or less were the ones fighting for the status quo. That was shocking to me. And it’s but one example.

I reread Frum on Manzi and I’ll have to concede that he was too hyberbolic in places. Where I fully agree with him is more on the silence of a conservative intellectual class that ought be engaging with the Limbaughs more critically. (And, I’d argue, empirically as well) I still think that portion of the essay was fantastic even if he exaggerated the nature of the NR’s response to Manzi.

A better engagement is Frum and Goldberg at Blogginheads TV this week. I think Frum makes a pretty compelling case, although I also have to agree that Goldberg is pretty compelling on the rhetoric of socialism and Obama. He also, I think, makes the point you are making pretty strongly. (Not relative to that particular post, but Frum’s general weakness)

BTW – regarding epistemic closure. I think it’s a pretty silly term, which was why I’d posted the link to the SEP. That said though I think there is a real problem of not engaging with the strongest arguments of ones intellectual opponents rather than trying to find the weakest ones in order to score rhetorical tricks. That’s fine at the populist level. Even Frum admits the importance of a populist element to the conservative movement. But one has to have that intellectual/empirical element. If only because once Republicans are in charge they have to actually successfully run things.

People have a tendency to use conservative and Republican interchangeably. This is, of course, incorrect. I think we discussed this before, in the 60s, the party was split between the Rockerfeller Republicans and Goldwater Republicans, moderates and conservatives. This split continues today. From what I have read of his writings, Frum is not a conservative Republican. He is a moderate Republican, a Rockerfeller Republican. As such I don’t believe Frum is all that objective when discussing conservatives. It would be like asking Rockerfeller to be objective about Goldwater. It ain’t gonna happen. When Frum writes about conservatives I double check his authorities because I know he is not going to be objective.

A pragmatic intellectual? It sounds almost like an oxymoron. It is much more difficult than I think you make it out to be. People own their ideas, their beliefs. It become a part of them and as such difficult to change. You’re a pragmatist and an intellectual. Also, you’re quite vocal about the need to challenge one’s beliefs. Let’s turn to your post “Health Care Finale”. You made the assertion: “I do think there are some great conservative solutions to the problem out there. However nothing seriously was offered.” When Mark D challenged you, you went on further to say “Had the Republicans come out with a specific plan in opposition to the Democrats, had a big press conference and acted a little more wonkishly I think they’d have been in a much better position.” In this same vein, you wrote in this posting:

“What bothers me is that there are very real issues confronting the United States right now. Obama and most Democrats strongly feel that the solution is to move towards a more European styled system. Republicans, as I see it, have responded by more or less denying problems are real or raising populist concerns.”

It seems to me Mark D, replying to “Heath Care Finale”, gave you the chance to challenge your own beliefs on the issue of the Republicans not willing to seriously address the issue, had nothing specific and in fact were denying the issues. You could have challenged your own beliefs very easily. Google ‘Republicans’ and ‘Health Care Reform’ and at the top of the page would be would be “Health Care – GOP Solutions for America – GOP.gov”.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

Had you done this you would have seen the SPECIFIC health care issues they wanted addressed and specifically how they wanted to address them.

• Lowering health care premiums.
• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions.
• Ending junk lawsuits.
• Prevents insurers from unjustly canceling a policy.
• Encouraging Small Business Health Plans.
• Encouraging innovative state programs.
• Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines.
• Promoting healthier lifestyles.
• Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).
• Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies.

I didn’t include the full descriptions of each point. Those are simply the categories they wished to address. The specifics of how they want to address these issue are contained in ‘Amendment to text of H.R. 3962’ which Rep Boehner offered and which you can also read as a PDF at this website.

I didn’t write this as a gotcha. If someone as pragmatic as yourself have difficulties in challenging you beliefs imagine how difficult it is for others who do not have your pragmatic background. I think it takes a lot more dedication than simply being a pragmatic intellectual.

By the way, if you want access to some of the best in Conservative thought, subscribe to Hillsdale College’s Imprimis. It’s free.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

Rich

Republicans used to be the party about cutting spending in Social Security and Medicare. Instead they became the party of “don’t cut entitlements.” Which was rather disheartening.

I think that is a bit of an over-generalization. Certainly there are a number of prominent Republicans who have been a bit opportunistic on this. In practice though, I think that was mostly a reaction to the “financing” of health care reform by pretending to make a half billion dollars worth of cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates that will never actually happen under the current system.

Medicare reform will only succeed by making the sort of systematic changes that Paul Ryan proposes (and which the Republican leadership in general has not yet been willing to endorse). Cutting reimbursement rates has been tried, and it doesn’t actually work, roughly for the same reason that price controls in general do not work.

The Republican establishment is still heavily biased towards “stick in the mud” conservatism. Like Chesterton said, “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

That accurately describes the establishment (“moderate”) wing of the Republican party. Paul Ryan style reform won’t happen until movement conservatism gains the upper hand on the right to the degree that movement liberalism has on the left. There are a number of signs that is exactly what is going on. Senator Bennett’s recent loss is a case in point.