At the same time I was aware of Bill Buckley’s TV show “Firing line” (hard to find and odd hours) It was hard to watch and he talked funny but I could tell it was “thoughtful stuff”. At about the same time his brother Jim Buckley ran and won a Senate seat as a “Conservative”, and not a Republican. That was my first inkling that there was a difference.

Later in the 70’s I became aware of Reagan, as someone clearly different than Nixon and “conservative” (whatever that was). Unfortunately he was mainly that actor who narrated “Death Valley Days”. There was little TV punditry (does Eric Severied count?) and no 24 hour news etc. My first votes in presidential campaigns were for Carter and Anderson (couldn’t vote for the Death Valley Days narrator; “Boraxo!”)

Through the 80’s I grew a family and inevitably became more conservative but still an independent. At that same time I witnessed the growth of TV and radio punditry. I saw those who wanted influence (i.e. Falwell) and those who wanted listenership (i.e. Limbaugh). I generally felt you didn’t watch TV opinion shows for “intellectual stimulation” but more for the “boxing match aspects” of it all (i.e. “Point/Counterpoint”; “Jane you ignorant slut!”)

And now we have the explosion of blogs and websites. Some thoughtful; some thoughtful AND loud; some just loud!

Though not a “died in the wool” conservative, I have a conservative-bent (i.e. skeptical of governmental solutions if only for the unintended consequences.) Because the idea of government “doing things” is so pervasive, it is hard to “sell” conservative ideas. It’s much easier to sell “they’re idiots”, “Our side is better!”, etc.

Intellectuals shouldn’t be judged on the volume of their words or their voices, the number of adjectives and 3+ syllable words they use and certainly not on the number of readers, viewers or listeners they have. Good arguments backed by facts and ideally research data makes for good “intellectuals”. I assume pundits and speechwriters ARE NOT intellectuals; they’re paid for word-smithing. I certainly assume that TV and radio political personalities ARE NOT intellectuals. They’re paid (and paid attention to) based on ratings. I’m pretty sure Bill Buckley’s show always had lousy ratings. A pundit/intellectual who reminds me a bit of Buckley today is Krauthammer. Maybe its the prickly personality. I don’t always agree with him (and at times he seems to speak with the knowledge that he’s on TV and has to “say it quickly and with a few ‘choice’ words”) but I believe he puts “thought” into his opinions. I note that he doesn’t have his own show; who would watch?

Oh yeah, and I would NEVER ASSUME THAT POLITICIANS ARE INTELLECTUALS. I would hope they have an intellectual foundation to their beliefs but then again I’m not as naive as I was in the 70’s (I mean c’mon, I voted for Jimmy Carter and John Anderson)

So Peggy Noonan (who I like)yes, its a brave new world out there so DEAL WITH IT!

Herewith some insightful analysis of where it is napping and some of the consequences of the snooze:

http://newledger.com/2009/10/the-rights-real-problem-too-big-to-fail/

He was a crappy sportscaster and he’s a crappy commenter on the news of the day. He’s just a crappy human being.

Not that I wish him ill or anything. Just disappearance would suit me! Maybe he could get a job in Upper Volta broadcasting hog futures!

So how much time would you devote to fixing the problem? I’m working on this.

So the changing of the guard from Noonan’s intellectual conservatism to emotionally based conservatism - as espoused by Limbaugh and others in the few corners of media where conservatives can survive - is part of the big sweeping change in conservative thought.

Conservativism gone mainstream is the real issue.

MAS
http://conservativeblog.thewebinfocenter.com

Out of curiosity, is the “slipping into a BBC Pirate mockumentary” dialogue supposed to by symbolic, impressive, or is it just another personality breaking out?

Your quasi-intellectual “Frummery” has slipped its bounds, evidenced so lucidly by continued idolization of any subject upon which Noonan pontificates. She betrayed movement conservatives for her Washington social circle “seal-of-approval” so long ago its not worth discussing the exact date such a Country-club/Rockefeller/Bush blueblood made her idealogical preferences undeniably clear! The only issue with her writings is whether she indeed harbored ANY true conservative principles to begin with.

As for you, you will join Charles J. on my list of lost causes and blogs no longer worthy of intellectual consideration.

Intellectual integrity? I opine there is none to speak of hereabouts….

Intellectual postering? Aye! There’s the real rub!

Sher is without a doubt a biased leftie . . . but she does some solid research and analysis to back up her bias. Or maybe she just looks moderate(ish) when bookended by the other two.

Personally, I’d laber her biased-but-honest rather than biased-but-manipulative. I don’t mind a bias as long as it isn’t a replacement for actual reasoned thought — that’s why I come here. I may disagree with her ultimate conclusions, but I’ve yet to see her make up wild accusations out of whole cloth.