Some Thoughts For Conservatives By A Liberal

I'm a liberal.

Being a liberal, I'm not the target audience for a project like Next Right, and the conservatives who do form that target audience would, in fact, do well to weigh what I say in light of that. I'll admit, very forthrightly, that I don't want the conservatives to rule. I do, however, want them to be credible and effective, so the liberals will be forced to be the same. The American right has, instead, been progressively disintegrating for years, now, becoming little more than the home of assorted kooks and crackpots.

That's not good for conservatism, but, more importantly, that's not good for the country. When one's ideas never face serious challenge, they become stagnant. An intellectual laziness and decadence sets in. The level of public discourse sinks. Real choices simply stop being offered. It's the worst of all worlds.

I initially came here because I was intrigued by the efforts to separate the WorldNutDaily loonies from the larger conservative movement. I think that's a positive step, though the approval of those of my particular political bent isn't necessarily the kind that's being sought, or, I imagine, is even desired. Some of the conservatives who post here dislike the anti-WND talk, which is unfortunate.

It's also emblematic of the same problems faced by conservatism that WND represents. The fact that the three words with which I began this post will lead many reading them to dismiss anything that comes after them is an example of these problems, as well.

Conspiracist crackpots--those whose contributions to the public discourse are "ideas" like Obama is a Muslim, Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, Obama has death panels in his health care bill, addressing school children is  a problem, death books, czars, etc.--aren't the problem, themselves. They're also symptoms. The reason conservatism is, today, overrun by conspiracist crackpots is an ideological sickness that infects the movement and allows germs like that to run free and grow almost entirely unchecked. One of D.P. Moynihan's most quoted remarks is that you have a the right to your own opinion, but you don't all have the right to your own facts. A large segment of conservatism believes it does, indeed, have a right to its own "facts," though, and has insisted that truth, itself, is subject to partisan consideration. There are reasons why this is the case, but it isn't really my purpose to get into them, with this post.

I have a strong sense of right and wrong. I always strive for intellectual honesty. I always try to keep my facts straight. I don't always succeed--I'm only human--but I have no interest whatsoever in asserting, as "facts," things that aren't, nor do I cling to things I've been shown aren't true. I take such things seriously.

None of this can be said for far too much of the conservative movement today. Pop conservative icons like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity aren't just politically backwards (which is my view); they're fundamentally dishonest (which is demonstrable). The more extreme elements are even worse, on both counts. The likes of Michael Savage, Pat Robertson, Cal Thomas pimp for politics that are outright fascist, and, in doing so, there isn't an honest bone in their bodies. Because of rampant anti-intellectualism, there's a high tolerance, on the right, for outright idiocy, totally divorced from the truth in every meaningful way (Bill O'Reilly, Thomas Sowell, everyone I just named, and more others than can be easily listed), and, conversely, a striking absence of much in the way of intellectual discourse. A few of my liberal brethren have advanced the notion that this is because conservatism is inherently anti-intellectual, and, as tempting a view as that may seem when faced with such a mountain of nonsense as is presented by contemporary conservatism, I've always resisted it. I think it's one of those signs of creeping intellectual laziness. I do have a lot of trouble refuting it, given the evidence, and I admit I have toyed with it myself at times.

The reason I started writing this is because I'm curious about what the conservatives here, who can identify WND as a clearly poisonous entity, think about all of this. How far to you think this poison extends? There is some solid evidence of it being as widespread as I portray it. Polling over the summer showed that 58%-62% of Republicans have adopted "birther" views, and comparable numbers believe in "death panels." This sort of thing is regularly invented,  credulously accepted, met with enthusiasm, and allowed to spread like wildfire on the right because of this poison I've been describing, another aspect of which is an almost complete lack of any corrective mechanism. The body of conservatism hasn't just been stripped of its immune system, when it comes to fighting off nonsense--it has had that system replaced with a sort of anti-immune system that nurtures, instead of battles, poison and disease. Those among the conservatives who resist nonsense won't make much of an effort to correct it (and when they do, they're accused of acting on behalf of the other side), while those who try to correct it but aren't of the right are dismissed out of hand. And, of course, many conservatives who DO know better choose to spread the poison anyway, because they think it's in their interest to do so (witness Grassley and the death panels, and Joe Wilson and the illegal immigrants).

What say you, conservatives? In your view, how far into conservatism does this extend?

(And if you made it this far, thank you for your time--hopefully, I haven't give you any cooties!)

http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/