A few years back, when conservative books appeared all over the bestseller list, I gave a talk noting the paradox that just as the options for conservative writers were never greater the substance of conservative books was never so shallow. Now that conservative books have reemerged on the bestseller list, John Carney offers a penetrating essay lamenting the sorry state of conservative publishing. "On one level, it is tempting to greet the rise of the conservative bestseller with elation," he writes. "Our long exile from the world of letters has ended. We're on the New York Times bestseller list. We have arrived. But where?" To find out exactly where, read Carney's article.
Do you know I haven't read any of those titles but our last two author's nights featured writers, namely Leslie Carbone and Steve Hayward, who have written excellent books that I devoured cover-to-cover.
"Americans, too, are lowering their expectations, at least in one respect. According to the Census Bureau’s 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, most college freshmen in 1970 said their primary goal was to develop a meaningful life philosophy. In 2005, by contrast, most freshmen said their primary goal was to be comfortably rich — a more modest one, it would seem, given the relative frequency of wealth and wisdom."
What a bunch of crap that article was. He uses the same methodology to attack those he disagrees with that the left uses- "They just aren't intellectual enough for us high and mighty intellects of the Ivy League". Its funny how revisionist history works itself out in the left or the pseudo- rights mind- they look back to a bygone era of civility and highmindedness that never truly existed. Reagan and Howard Jarvis were called kooks and intellectual inferiors. Then Kiron Skinner released Reagans letters as did Doug Brinkley and of course after years of being an idiot Reagan was now rather okay. The high minded books of Russell Kirk of course have value- but the average American does not sit around pontificating on such and never has. I loved Buckley and Firing Line and he played a prominant role- but the mind and words of Buckley were NOT an electorate changer until they could be moved to the realm of the common man. Ie: Buckleys mention of having the first 500 names or more in the Boston telephone directory governing being preferable. Sure- some of the fare out there is rather shallow- but much such as Levin is very heavy in truth- but made for "NORMAL" human consumption. Arrogance defines the beltway and as Obamas numbers tumble and idiocy reigns the fascination with his Ivy league education becomes less and less attractive to the masses if it ever was. I finish with this- in 2007 Hannity began his critique of Obamas associations and thin resume- and of course was lambasted as a purveyor of mush. Well here we are 2 and 1/2 years later wallowing in a cesspool of his vision- Alinsky Rules pervade and yes Beck puts a funny face on it sure- but do you think for a minute that that vision would be as roundly understood if written in the hallowed words of a Will or some other Wahington egghead? I think not. And alas 52% of independents now see Obama and his vision negatively- I doubt if the Ivy league played a role.
An addendum to above:
I certainly do not want to impune every motive of the piece or of Mr. Flynn as I believe there is legitimacy to some of his critique. However I would point out the sorry case of many on the right and virtually all of the far left. I hear men like David Brooks of the NYT (or the incoherent Frum) dismiss Sarah Palin as "a joke" and of course the far left is rambunctious in its hatred and vitriol. I look at a man such as Charles Krauthammer and see a better version of the beltway- a more flexible and responsive attitude toward Palin. The point being intellectuals can be stupid and vapid in their attitudes and use epitaphs in their criticism and become intellectual morons as Mr. Flynn's book so well stated. But the intellectual right can be as rude and intellectually dishonest as the left.
I don't think Carney is being fair to Glenn Beck (but then, who is?). If he had looked past the packaging, he would have realized that in Arguing With Idiots Beck offers a lot of substantive, informed arguments against liberal canards. There is a lot more to this book than farting cows. And even they are not just there to be funny. Beck was making the point that all kinds of things, not just human activity, can produce greenhouse gases.
