Conservatives have become "unserious," writes Austin Bramwell in The American Conservative's cover piece that excoriates both the conservative movement and the magazine that has long served as its flagship publication, National Review. This latter target is surprising given Bramwell's association with the magazine as a trustee, director, and occasional writer. But it's not as surprising as Bramwell's ostensibly offhand mention that William F. Buckley, after appointing him just two years ago, asked him to resign as a director and trustee of the magazine. It's the sort of inclusion that begs to be investigated.

The "movement's mainstream," Bramwell writes, "has increasingly ostracized its brightest minds." In place of those minds are conformists. Bramwell observes that the conservative movement elevates entertainment over substance, rewrites its own history when history doesn't cooperate, adopts sloganeering to identify "insiders" from outsiders," and genuflects to a hierarchy or leaders rather than to principles.

On this last point, Bramwell offers that Iraq "furnishes a telling example. In the run-up to the invasion, leading conservatives announced that conservatism now meant spreading global democratic revolution. This forthright radicalism—this embrace of the sanative powers of violence—became quickly accepted as the ineluctable meaning of conservatism in foreign policy. Those who dissented risked ostracism and harsh rebuke. Had conservative leaders instead argued that global democratic revolution would not cure our woes but increase them, the rest of the movement would have accepted this position no less quickly. Millions of conservative epigones believe nothing less than what the movement’s established organs tell them to believe." It's tough to argue with that, particularly given the '90s conservative rhetoric blasting "nation building" and America acting as "world policemen." Times have changed, and so have principles.

The article has its flaws, many of which are detailed in this friendly critique. My one major criticism is that the piece really has nothing good to say of conservatism. How does one rally real conservatives by shoveling on the negative so heavily? Perhaps the author's point is to speak the truth (which is a worthy pursuit) and leave the movement building to others. That's fair enough. But complaining, a favorite pasttime of mine, won't build a new movement on the ashes of the old one.

"Whatever its past accomplishments, the conservative movement no longer kindles any 'ironic points of light,'" Bramwell concludes. "It has produced fewer outstanding books even as it has taken over more of the intellectual and political landscape. This trend will only continue. Worse, no reckoning will be made: they hope in vain who expect conservatives to take responsibility for the actual consequences of their actions. Conservatives have no use for the ethic of responsibility; they seek only to 'see to it that the flame of pure intention is not quelched.' The movement remains a fine place to make a career, but for wisdom one must look elsewhere."

That is a very good article and the critique by Larison definitely should be read along w/ Bramwell's piece. I also thought his attacks on traditionalism were far to overreaching and his defense of modernity was confused (partly responding to strawmen and partly non sequiturs).

Since he is a lawyer in Gotham maybe I can track him down. I am very curious about the circumstances revolving around WFB asking him to resign from the board of NR, what less than two years after he hand-picked him to be on it? That has to be an interesting story in its own right on the state of the conservative movement when its "godfather" makes a move like that.

I don't think "judicial activism" can be so casually dismissed as a bogeyman as Bramwell does. It's a real issue where you have competing judicial philosophies butting heads and real consequences as a result. In Massachusetts we have gay marriage not as a result of the legislature, not as a result of an amendment, but from the court. And now the legislature is even blocking the citizens from trying to put the issue on the ballot to amend the constitution. Judicial activism has abrogated the normal processes of amending the constitution, and those legitimate means of doing so are now seen as illegitimate. It's perverse. How can a conservative not see this as a threat to order in all it's forms?

For those of you who are interested but don’t have the time to read those long pieces Dan recommended, here is the corrupting bad link in Bramwell’s chain of reasoning: “The notion of a crisis of the West, however, grossly overestimates the importance of ideas.” It is hard to see how one could overestimate the importance of ideas. All reality is filtered and mediated through ideas. I know Marxists and other materialistic determinists who refuse to face this reality, but I didn’t know there where such Conservatives (I lead a very sheltered life with few contacts with Conservatives except you all.)

And Larison demonstrates that he is not in what many would call the “American conservative” tradition when he writes “I don’t think any Antifederalists would be crying over that one. Neither do their heirs–which is what some of us consider ourselves to be.” The Antifederalists opposed the Constitution. Preserving the principles of the Constitution is a big part of my brand of conservatism. I don’t begrudge others calling themselves conservative, but I do resent being told we are corrupting conservatism in America when we strive to preserve those principles.

No wonder neither one of them understand the danger posed by activist judges or understand National Review Online.

Let's get on with conserving, and stop bickering. The neocons were wrong, and it happened to be the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, but we will wait until kindgom come if we insist on their admitting this before moving on with the movement.

"It is hard to see how one could overestimate the importance of ideas. All reality is filtered and mediated through ideas." -DocMcG

Uhm, you are exaggerating the importance of ideas here. I think it is more true to say that all ideas arise from some contact with reality than it is to say that reality is "filtered" by ideas.

"That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt....But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means
follows that all arises out of experience." I. Kant

Now, I know how you guys love to hate on education. And someone like Kant probably belongs way to much to the academic tradition for you to follow, but I see a clear clash between skeptic and Kant here, I thought this debate was settled in the late 1700's...

And Obi Juan, on the subject of "judicial activism" and its "real consequences" I'm wondering what these are. I have heard other people argue that the family is the bedrock of society and if we let the family degrade allow this sort of family, than society will fall apart, become amoral, etc. I don't know if you believe this but it seem to me another conservative position on this issue could be that yes the family is important to the structure of our society, and for that very reason the government should have no role in defining it; i.e. if citizens of the U.S. desire to form family's in this form and the government doesn't allow it, the government is dictating to the people and not serving the people. Just a thought...

R.c.

We "hate on education" here r.c? Read the site often?

You think Immanuel Kant "settled" epistemology in the 1700's? He was a great philosopher but he didn't even understand Hume correctly.

DocMcG, just noting that the anti-Federalists were opposed to the Constitution is misleading since the context is important and what they defended (the Articles and having an explicit Confederation)was based on sound American conservative principles. I think that your interpretation of the nature of our constitutional federal system is likely very much in line w/ what the anti-federalists wanted as well. There fears of what the stronger federal government could become seem to me to be the exact same things that conservatives have traditionally complained about and fought against. The fact that you think this conservative defense of limited government can be made w/in the context of the Constitution is not that seriously a divergence from Larison who thinks those same arguments are arguments of the anti-federalists. He never indicated in his review essay that he blames the constitution for allowing the federal government to become what the anti-federalists feared it might.

Modern American Conservatisim is a dangerous authoritarian movement that must and will be defeated by patriotic Americans of all politcal stripes.

Bruce,

Yeah, I do think that this site has a problem with Academia (admittedly I said education, so I guess there is room for a distinction here). Didn't Dan used to work for Accuracy in Academia, a group that has problems with (i.e. hates on) the status quo of acadamia? Didn't asdf just refer to a group as the "thinking elite" in the "thou shalt not kill*" post?

And for the record I didn't say Kant settled epistomolgy. I was addressing skeptic, who has somehow achieved a notion of "reality" that is apart from ideas, and pointing out that Kant (whether or not he understood Hume, or you understand Kant's understanding of Hume) made a fairly obvious point that thoughts shape our experience and our experience shapes our thoughts.

At least the history of philosophy tells us that before this point people used to think it was one or the other, and if people are still debating this in epistemolgy I'm glad I don't study that ridiculous circle jerk that defines contemporary American/English philosophy.

r.c.

So we hate on academia here and you dismiss contemporary Anglo-American philosophy as a "ridiculous circle jerk." I don't even need to comment.

r.c.: whatever Poindexter! Who is this guy you quoted? Cant? Never heard of him. Give me Sean Hannity anyday!

good call.

Bruce,
I'm going to take a John Kerry-esq position here, the obvious hypocrisy that you noted in my speach was a botched joke.

Ever since I took one class on epistemology in college I've held a grudge against the subject, so I was taking a cheap shot at that, you know the whole Searle, Kripke, Putnam, crowd.

So while I'd really like to defend my position here, actually I've got nothing to say.

I've never said that I wasn't a hypocrite.

r.c.

R.C.,

We are all hypocrites some of the time, that's human nature. I just didn't see the cause in calling Flynn Filers in general anti-academic and via your latest concession (biased against current anglo-philosophy, etc.) I see that maybe you are willing to blunt your earlier dismissive criticism. There is a difference between critiquing some given popular theory, or the "intellectual class," etc., and "hating on" education. I notice a lot of criticism of intellectuals here, and AIA certainly has been critical of certain trends in higher education over the years. I think though that like your antipathy for epistemology as currently debated, reasoned criticisms of academia are possible and no cause for exaggerated alarm.

Kant... he was the guy who was a "real piss-ant," right?

"Ever since I took one class on epistemology in college...."

I thought I detected I high level of expertise. Set em straight, R.C.

What does this conversation have to do with Mr Bramwell's piece? Talk about trolls...