Jonah Goldberg points to this article, mostly, I think, as sort of a jokey self-aggrandizement - it's got some thoughts on who to watch as "big thinkers" that can help change conservatism in the coming years.
I only link to it because I've been thinking about this myself, and because I think the list in the article is so terribly, terribly wrong; one columnist at a small paper in Arkansas is not necessarily the biggest deal, but conservatives losing their way is. In the past, I would have said "liberals should talk about what we know (i.e. liberals) and conservatives should talk amongst themselves." I thought - and still do, often - that the last thing a Democrat needs is advice on internal party politics from a Republican. I resisted, for a very long time, examining what conservatives thinkers were talking about; but eventually, around 1996, I'd say, I realized I needed to get serious and find out what this "conservative movement" was about. So I offer some suggestions of my own on some folks a liberal might want to pay attention to on the other side. But first, why Mr. Roebuck is off:
- Conservatives aren't going to fix what ails them with sarcasm. James Taranto's Best of The Web is interesting (I used to subscribe), but ultimately off-putting; he's more concerned with a good cheap shot than deep policy thinking. Goldberg, similarly, is glib and and often settles for dismissing things out of hand with a quick one liner than really thinking all sides through. And Malkin, though she reins it in a good bit (and has gotten much better and more serious), is still a hard charging partisan given to acid sarcasm about mainstream Democrats and how they operate.
- Roebuck's probably right about watching Gingrich as someone who will be developing big ideas - but there the question is whether he plans to be Big Idea Guy or Presidential Candidate. He can't be both, and while I think Big Idea Guy is actually more a natural fit for him, I think he takes his Presidential prospects personally - I think he considers himself the equal of a number of folks (the current President and Bill Clinton, for starters) who have the fame and the cache he'd really like to have (that whiny line during the budget crisis in 1995, about not getting the good seat on Air Force 1, was pretty telling, I've always thought). Gingrich is good at explaining deep, almost philosophical concepts in a practical way that relates to current events - not a skill needed in a President, but great for an Idea Guy.
- As for O'Reilly, I think his "common man" appeal makes him hard to ignore; but his pet theory about a "secular-progressive movement" is better suited to a boozy late night bull session than serious discussion (there's a difference. Really). Big Ideas will need an O'Reilly to sell them to the wider public; but he won't be an originator.
So who would I look to? Here's a few thoughts:
- At National Review, I'll keep reading Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry; there's less sarcasm there, and more challenging thinking, both to liberalism and to the conservative status quo. Lowry has become a remarkably clear-eyed critic on the failures of the Bush Administration, and a good idea for where conservative politics needs to go. Ponnuru doesn't buy into a lot of conventional conservative tropes, even if his Party of Death didn't particularly reframe the abortion debate in quite the way it was sold. On other issues, he's often the guy who questions the conventional view, and he's not averse to contemplating liberal ideas to help refine his thinking.
- I'd also keep an eye on Kate O'Beirne, who despite a similarly maddening anti-feminism, is a sober realist about conservative political prospects, and plugged into the Conservative Establishment as to what's developing. She knows who to watch, and she explains why in usually a quite effective way.
- In terms of understanding the current Bush Administration, I'll keep watching Bill Kristol. The Weekly Standard (Bushies) supplanted National Review (Reaganite) somewhere around 2000 in being able to get the skinny directly from the source; and Kristol is the rare insider who doesn't just buy into what he's told - something called Critical Thinking, I recall. At The Standard, I'd also recommend Matthew Continetti, as I have, early and often, here on the blog. For conservatives to relocate their sense of purpose they're going to need the ideas of True Believers like Continetti.
- Here's a couple to ignore: Fred Barnes, who can parrot the White House line with gusto, even when it makes no sense; and Dan Henninger, who's just not cutting it at The Wall Street Journal. Make that three - blogger Hugh Hewitt is even more of a Bush cheerleader than Barnes.
- As for The Journal, keep an eye on their editorials; it'll be a good measure about how much denial the Republicans are in, or how their thinking is evolving; the Washington Times editorial page, and Tony Blankley, will also be good guides.
- Also, keep an eye on who leaves Congress and goes into writing and speaking - there's sure to be some witnesses to the Republican Revolution who will turn out to be idea generators, and we just don't know about them yet.
- Finally, in terms of bloggers, I don't see a lot of conservative idea generators, but Ed Morrisey is turning out to be more nuanced in his thinking than I initially expected, and he brings in interesting links. The Volokh Conspiracy is an interesting group effort in conservative thinking, mainly around the law. And, the conversation that's going in The Corner at National Review is always interesting (and often a painful mixture of annoying and absurd, but it helps to take them less seriously than they take themselves) - and it's matched, just to put in a liberal plug, by Tapped over at The American Prospect.
As I glance over it, one obvious omission here is Andrew Sullivan, but I think he's more gadfly than movement leader at the moment - until he can get more conservatives around to his way of thinking (and it's not bloody likely), he'll be on the outside looking in. Which, I'd say, is not the worst place to be, at least for now.
Comments