lack of conservative intellectuals

[castille]

The reason why there are more liberal intellectuals is because liberals are "all talk and no action".

Intellectuals are the people sipping chardonnay while discussing world problems in a comfortable home.

[Liberty Landing]

There are plenty of conservative intellectuals out there. Mike Adams, Thomas Sowell, Robert Locke, David Friedman, Charles Murray, etc.

You can find them anywhere. They are not given media coverage, really, because mostly they just write articles and kinda' stay in the background.

For the most part, liberal intellectuals outnumber conservative ones simply because of universities. Anyone who has been to a state university will know what I'm talking about; conservatives are second-class citizens there akin to India's untouchables.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by castille, The reason why there are more liberal intellectuals is because liberals are "all talk and no action". Intellectuals are the people sipping chardonnay while discussing world problems in a comfortable home.

you have a point there castille.

while liberals were debating the relative merits of invading iraq, conservatives were straight in there! WMD? we'll find them when we occupt the country!

nothing like a bit of 'shoot first ask questions later'...

[OberonDOtherseid]

From what I see, the thread starter has to define "Conservative" and "Intellectual", then compare it to his opponents definitions. This would prove to be a very interesting outcome. ;-)

[castille]

Defining "conservative" and "intellectual" will probably be impossible.

Does an intellectual have to be an academic? How many PhDs? Does an intellectual have to experience what he talks about, or can he sit in an ivory tower without caring what goes on?

And what defines a conservative? Many ultra-liberals look up to Mao Zedong as a "revolutionary", but in fact Mao was an extremist conservative. Was Stalin a revolutionary or a conservative? Bush is seen as too liberal in many Islamic fundamentalist countries (women need to be confined to the harem).

[Liberty Landing]

I'm a conservative intellectual. 8)

*has a high school diploma, starts community college in less than a week*

[rcne]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing, I'm a conservative intellectual. 8) *has a high school diploma, starts community college in less than a week*

Might a conservative intellectual be considered a capitalist? The more I think about it - the answer is yes. And I am one.

I think the reason that we are not front page college newspaper material is that we are concerned with building our own capitalistic realms - without the need to shout our message to the masses.

I honestly don't think the masses would understand the concepts anyhow.

[castille]

"He who shouts loudest, has an empty echo in the head."

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by giuliano, has anyone noticed that there is a lack of conservative intellectuals, in comparison to liberals? on various msg boards, conservatives are routinely outnumbered by liberals. in the media, there is a lack of the same. they look up to ann coulter, for crying out loud! they believe she is an intellectual. noam chomsky may be an incurable conspiracist, but he's damned intelligent. is it possible that liberals are just more intelligent than conservatives, on average? where bush goes to NASCAR races, kerry is more likely to address a college crowd. even the intelligent conservatives, like colin powell, cringe at some of the things coming from bush's or rummy's mouths. it doesn't make you more correct, just because the movement you align yourself with may be on average more intelligent. but has anyone else noticed this? do you agree?

I tend to agree. The William F. Buckley types don't get the "press" that the "take no prisoner," "insult (claiming to be...) comics" do. I think the Left is headed that way too. I think it's simple economics, that approach isn't selling. Rhetoric is getting more and more like WWF, only it's not all a show and it doesn't seem to take a lot of talent or brains.

It's going to get worse. I predict the war will end with both sides exhausted, perhaps many dead, and the public damn sick and tired of both. Hopefully it won't be like the 70's where nobody wants to talk about it anymore. Does that mean Disco is coming back? Please, NO! NO! NO! Better get the M1 warmed up. I gots some disco ball target practice to do. (Not really, but fantasy IS fun, isn't it?)

[PatrickHenry]

There are a lot of conservative intellectuals. They have jobs in conservative think tanks. These people don't bother posting on internet forums.

There are some conservatives who can think here on volconvo, too. Not all of our right-wingers are "Billy Bobs". Volconvo has its dummies of the left, too.

Here is a chart labeling the tanks' political leanings: http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/think-tanks.html

Scroll down...

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, There are a lot of conservative intellectuals. They have jobs in conservative think tanks. These people don't bother posting on internet forums. There are some conservatives who can think here on volconvo, too. Not all of our right-wingers are "Billy Bobs". Volconvo has its dummies of the left, too. Here is a chart labeling the tanks' political leanings: http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/think-tanks.html Scroll down...

Interesting chart, although I thought Brookings was more Liberal than Centrist. Perhaps that's hype or propaganda. And what separates "Progressive" from "Center-Left?" Who decides how these categories are defined? Who tallies the "results" and what criteria are used? Seems subjective beyond belief, just like the term "think tank." From the predictable results I've seen them release, most of the them seem to be anti-think tanks and propaganda propagators rather than people actually thinking about a subject.

[PatrickHenry]

I think Brookings started out liberal and leaned right when they found out where the money came from...

Here's a site that links to think tanks: http://www.nira.go.jp/ice/nwdtt/idx1/idxc1.html#United3

More here: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/psthink.html

I agree that most think tanks are more for propaganda than genuine research. If that is what you were saying, Ken Carman.

From disinfopedia: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...le=Think_tanks

A think tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors; in the words of Yellow Times.org columnist John Chuckman, "phony institutes where ideologue~propagandists pose as academics ... [into which] money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertising's suffocation of genuine debate". [1] Of course, some think tanks are more legitimate than that. Private funding does not necessarily make a researcher a shill, and some think-tanks produce worthwhile public policy research. In general, however, research from think tanks is ideologically driven in accordance with the interests of its funders. "We've got think tanks the way other towns have firehouses," Washington Post columnist Joel Achenbach says. "This is a thoughtful town. A friend of mine worked at a think tank temporarily and the director told him when he entered, 'We are white men between the ages of 50 and 55, and we have no place else to go.'" Think tanks are funded primarily by large businesses and major foundations. They devise and promote policies that shape the lives of everyday Americans: Social Security privatization, tax and investment laws, regulation of everything from oil to the Internet. They supply experts to testify on Capitol Hill, write articles for the op-ed pages of newspapers, and appear as TV commentators. They advise presidential aspirants and lead orientation seminars to train incoming members of Congress. Think tanks have a decided political leaning. There are twice as many conservative think tanks as liberal ones, and the conservative ones generally have more money. This is no accident, as one of the important functions of think tanks is to provide a backdoor way for wealthy business interests to promote their ideas or to support economic and sociological research not taking place elsewhere that they feel may turn out in their favor. Conservative think tanks also offer donors an opportunity to support conservative policies outside academia, which during the 1960s and 1970s was accused of having a strong "collectivist" bias. "Modern think tanks are nonprofit, tax-exempt, political idea factories where donations can be as big as the donor's checkbook and are seldom publicized," notes Tom Brazaitis, writing for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "Technology companies give to think tanks that promote open access to the internet. Wall Street firms donate to think tanks that espouse private investment of retirement funds." So much money now flows in, that the top 20 conservative think tanks now spend more money than all of the "soft money" contributions to the Republican party. A think tank's resident experts carry titles such as "senior fellow" or "adjunct scholar," but this does not necessarily mean that they even possess an academic degree in their area of claimed expertise. Outside funding can corrupt the integrity of academic institutions. The same corrupting influences affect think tanks, only more so. Think tanks are like universities minus the students and minus the systems of peer review and other mechanisms that academia uses to promote diversity of thought. Real academics are expected to conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second, but this process is often reversed at most policy-driven think tanks. As writer Jonathan Rowe has observed, the term "think" tanks is a misnomer. His comment was directed at the conservative Heritage Foundation, but it applies equally well to many other think tanks, regardless of ideology: "They don't think; they justify."

Anyhow the fellows at the conservative think tanks could be considered intellectuals. They are idealogues and the policy research is biased, but their intellects aren't in question are they?

[Ken Carman]

"Anyhow the fellows at the conservative think tanks could be considered intellectuals. They are idealogues and the policy research is biased, but their intellects aren't in question are they?"

I suppose my brain is just wired differently and often uses different definitions than the mainstream. I would question the "intellect" of anyone who sells out their opinion making process for cash. To me the very definition of intellect is what we are doing right here. If I were to take cash from someone or some organization who then tells me what opinions I can or can't have I would become no more than a mental prostitute, tossing away the right, indeed the necessity, of exercising the intellect, no matter who pays such bills.

BTW, great article.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Ken Carman, I suppose my brain is just wired differently and often uses different definitions than the mainstream. I would question the "intellect" of anyone who sells out their opinion making process for cash. To me the very definition of intellect is what we are doing right here.

It's more about ethics than intellect. The "researchers" are bright enough to create credible PR, even masquerading as grassroots support. You wouldn't say that only good people are smart would you? There ARE evil geniuses, correct? I question their sense of right and wrong, not their brains.

Slightly off topic: What about all the shills on talkradio and Conservative TV? Do they know what whores they are and don't care? Or are they true believers?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by PH Slightly off topic: What about all the shills on talkradio and Conservative TV? Do they know what whores they are and don't care? Or are they true believers?

Excellent question. I dont listen to them anymore. My guess is they believe it. They would slip up occasionally if they were faking it.

What do you think?

[PatrickHenry]

They make so much money. Maybe they are consummate actors or maybe there is an affective disconnect. Maybe they are mind-controlled, or on drugs.

It's also possible that the ethic of greed is so powerful that "what's right for me(money)" is "what's right."

[Aldo]

Anne Coulter and Mark Levin are two conservative thinkers who understand that there comes times in our country when we can't negotiate peace or give goodies to our enemies to appease them and make them attack other countries like the French and Canadians and Muslim countries like to do. Debating over the validity of the Iraq war shows a lack of the intelligence you liberals claim to own and a lack of a likely directionion to be taken by the Sadaams of this world. I suggest you rethink Bush's statement, "if you are not with us you are against us." It appears you liberals are against us. Too much of that happy juice as youngsters leaves you believing "we can all be friends." You who don't believe in religion as a reason for conflict, keep track of the terrorists who blow up their fellow man in the name of Allah.

[rcne]

Liberal or conservative, questioning right from wrong, what we should do or what we shouldn't do.

The diversity is what makes this system work. My concern is the sameness that many societies have and are forced to live under.

And it all begins with we are all equal. Except some are more equal than others.

Or - and this is the scary one - God speaks through me, I know what is pleasing in the eyes of God.

The greatest threat to man is equal sameness.

I'm a conservative, you are a liberal - fine - we aren't the same, nor am I required to think like you - and you don't need to think like me.

Even though I'm right - you're permitted to be wrong. (conservative wit)

[PatrickHenry]

Ann Coulter: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1212
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2528
Ann is a thinker? Coulda fooled me...

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, Ann Coulter: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1212 http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2528 Ann is a thinker? Coulda fooled me...

Aldo lithpth....

and he hath four Ann Coulter dollth.

Believe it or not, there ith thuch a thing....

On thum conthervative thiteth she ith actually referred to ath "the beautiful Ann Coulter". Honetht!

It'th what thane people call "fantathy."