Right Wing Thinkers - An Oxymoron?

[SoDesuKa]

I don't know if there are any thinkers on the right anymore. George Will is a phony; William Kristol is a jerk; and don't even mention Ann Coulter. That leaves thugs like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. There isn't a serious thinker in a carload of right wingers.

Granted ... the right has to be taken seriously because they have power and money. But are they all more or less as dimwitted as Bush? If the right has been coasting on their electoral successes, are they prepared for failure in the marketplace of ideas? I can't think of right wing arguments that make sense in the present political situation or might make sense in the foreseeable future.

By the looks of things, they've got nobody on their bench. Once they lose in November, what have they got lined up by way of serious proposals - anything? Bush has ruined the Republicans for at least twenty years.

[murielm99]

1. Those people don't really represent

their thinkers. They are the spokesmen.

Their thinkers are in PNAC and in the right-wing think tanks.

Not that I am defending them. :puke:

[Perry Logan]

2. They honest-to-God don't know they're screw-ups.

[Recursion]

3. Fukuyama

Hitchens. Bork. Barzun.

Bellow, Friedman, and Buckley just passed; they are three I would have mentioned.

[KamaAina]

9. But, but, but Hitchens is a true-blue progressive!

in his own mind, at any rate. :eyes:

[Orsino]

4. Supporting right-wing ideology would take genius, if it can be done at all.

So far, all the attempts I've seen boil down to "it's good to be rich." Small wonder they all managed to fall in line behind *.

[DangerDave921]

5. Of course

There are some thinkers on the right. To deny that is to engage in self-congratulatory stroking that your position is the only possibly correct one. That is nothing more than hubris.

I think George Will is intelligent (probably because he loves baseball). And Thomas Sowell is a heck of a smart guy.

The talk show hosts you mention aren't thinkers; they are entertainers. The real thinking is done behind the scenes at the Heritage Foundation and places like that.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Bushitism is nothing more than massive looting (not to mention mass killing).

Its mask is coming off. The people of the country--on their own, without the help of the fascist/corporate news media--have come to this conclusion, and many, probably a majority, have known it all along, but could not get their voices heard or their will done.

When I was young, conservatism had a far different meaning than it does today--almost the opposite of what it means today. It meant...

--conserving the financial resources of communities, and of the country--for instance, in sacrosanct Savings & Loan institutions

--responsible fiscal management, in government and business; operating in the black

--slow, careful change; conserving the integrity of communities and traditions

--reverence for the Constitution

--defense of individual rights and freedoms

--support for education, for libraries, for the arts and sciences (conserving the knowledge resources of the country; bootstrapping; giving everyone a chance)

--in some parts of the Republican Party, conservation of natural resources (conservatism at its best)

--stress on individual responsibility, and character (moral and ethical behavior; uniqueness of the individual)

--and the entire democracy rested on the white-haired old heads of the "conservative" (community-minded, tradition-loving) elder men and women who volunteered, every election, to work in our precincts and count all our votes by hand in public view.

This last item sums it up to me. That is conservatism. Conserving the two-hundred year tradition of our democracy.

Both political parties supported big military budgets--and the Vietnam War--so I can't blame that on the "conservatives." Both parties also supported exploiting and brutally repressing other peoples (for instance, in South America). So that wasn't particularly "conservative" either--until the Reagan era, when the Democrats passed a law against war on Nicaragua, which Reagan blatantly violated. That's when conservatism really began to go bad. Another red flag was the looting of the S&L's--once bastions of Republican fiscal responsibility. Apart from big military budgets, war profiteering and brutal suppression of other people, supported by both liberals and conservatives, conservatism had a distinct set of values, in the 1950s-1970s--some of which are quite laudable and attractive.

What is described today as "conservatism," isn't. It is not conservative in any way. It is wildly radical. The two-fisted robbery of the public treasury, to the 7th generation (with a $10 TRILLION deficit! Lord, Barry Goldwater must be turning over in his grave!); the shredding of our Constitution; the assault on all of our cherished, time-honored values, and the assault on all of our institutions--are not only unprecedented, they are so extreme as to almost defy labeling. Out-of-control Greed comes closest. I can't even see a purposeful, consistent nazi policy in it all. The German Nazis had a purpose--to make Germany into an industrial giant and build a great military machine to rule the world. But the Bushites are wrecking the military! As for a great industrial machine...well, you know the facts. "Banana republic" comes to mind as a description of their goals.

"Conservatism" it is not. They appropriate some of the language--especially in their unholy alliance with 'christian' nutjobs--but it is hollow, hollow, hollow. They don't really support "family values." They couldn't give a fuck for "family values." They are looters. And they'll say anything to keep on looting, until there is nothing left to loot.

So, when rightwing "think tanks" devise the P.R. for this massive, lawless robbery, it has no...what is the word? Substance. They are not conservatives. They are the liars who try to make it all sound good. Family values, patriotism, freedom, personal responsibility, individualism--it all turns to ashes in their mouths. It is the massively funded P.R. flak for global corporate predator rule. For epochal looting.

This is why those of us who closely follow political events--and increasing numbers of people in the general population--when we hear this rightwing "think tank" garbage once again, coming out of the mouths of politicians, have the following reaction...

:wow:

[SoDesuKa]

8. Disaster Capitalism

I've been reading about the looting in Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and it occurred to me that conservatives have a problem that's going to dog them for years to come. That's when I noticed the silence from the right. Right wingers are simply not addressing the extent of the calamity that is the Bush administration and its policies.

Fukuyama bailed some time ago. Hitchens may be a right winger but he's a fringe character. I simply don't respect George Will. I expect serious thinkers to actually engage the issues. Will doesn't do that. In fact if there's a common characteristic of right wing writers, it's that they talk shit and they know they're talking shit. How are these people going to regain credibility, once this Bush nonsense is over?

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Please don't conflate right wing with conservative.

George Will should not be mentioned in the same breath with Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, etc. Will is a consevative and can be very thoughtful. When all is said and done, I disagree with Will, but I don't get frustrated at how stupid he can be. In fact, he far more often stimulates my thought process.

Mr. Kristol also is a cut above the others named in the OP, but a cut below Will. Kristol thinks logically, but also thinks he's entitled to his own facts.

The others simply mistake invective for arguments. They are the real cesspool dwellers.

[SoDesuKa]

10. William the Bloody

Kristol's haughty demeanor irks me. He acts as though he's talking down to everyone as though he's vastly smarter than the rest of us. Buckley did that, and Bork does it. So does Scalia. It annoys me.

Kristol isn't right often enough to overcome my distaste for how he presents himself. I don't accept him as a truth seeker. He makes a living spinning a yarn that right wingers like to hear. That's not a writer, that's an entertainer.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. William the Bloody's demeanor irks me, too

However, it would irk me a lot less if he would at least base his argument on facts.

Major premise: All Martians are little green men
Minor premise: All big pink men are Martian
Conclusion: All big pink men are little green men.

As you see, it is possible to construct a valid argument from utter nonsense.