Posted under Academia & Conservatism & Uncategorized
In 1872, a political reporter made this statement after a faction of the dominant Republican Party went ahead and nominated the radical newspaper publisher Horace Greeley as their candidate for President:
“there was too much brains and not enough whiskey at the convention.”
So are there too many brains in the conservative establishment? That’s what this writer is saying in an article Filmer was kind enough to bring to my attention. I agree with many of the thoughts in the articles, that so-called conservative think tanks have become top heavy with scholars fleeing universities and colleges. That they’re paid a lot of money and make comfortable living talking to each other and saying the same things they said 30 years ago and so long as the money keeps coming in, the continue on in this way.
A donor who would rather see his money well spent rather than thoughtlessly getting the tax write-off, would be wise to find think tanks outside the Beltway and the coasts, the home of the cosmos, outside of the big cities, for fresh and different approach that could pay off towards something substantial if the resources are provided. But that’s the rub isn’t it? Many of these donors are corporations who sensibly don’t want to fund groups that question their power and influence or would promote the politics of decentralization. They spend on the same ones because they know its a safe investment. The early conservative movement depended upon individuals like oil wildcatters and family trust foundations for its support. But as soon as big money rolled in after 1980, the cosmo think tanks stopped thinking and simply repeated what they were told. It easier to raise money that way.
Well, you get what you pay for.
James on 16 Mar 2010 at 10:31 pm #
This is an important but often untoled stoy of the Conservative Movement; its institutionalization and how that has lead it to become more mainstream (ie. less conservative) and taken it away from the concerns and values of the American people who sparked the movement in the first place and still form the core of its support, both financially and electorally. Paul Gottfried’s history of the Conservative Movement does a good job of discussing this for the Movement’s history up until the mid-1990′s.
Weaver on 17 Mar 2010 at 12:01 am #
People should give to new private high schools and promote home schooling with the right values – invest in the future.
Educate children, and they’ll know whom they are: they’ll know to stop mass immigration and bring jobs back, etc.
Culture wars are good too, but you could fight that by training children in the arts and educating them on their history.
How much is my speeding ticket for, I was going 49 in a 35, in Cobb, County GA? | Free Cobb Home Search | Free Cobb Home Search | Homes for Sale | Home for Sale | Realestate | Houses for Sale | House for Sale | Property for Sale | Cobb County Realtor | Wa on 17 Mar 2010 at 1:12 am #
[...] “Too much brains and not enough whisky” | Conservative Heritage Times [...]
Jay Madison on 17 Mar 2010 at 2:36 am #
Shouldn’t there be a change in labeling? Is neo-con still accurate? Wouldn’t PAYOLAcon be more accurate than neo-con? Limbaugh truthfully admits that its just good business to shill for the GOP. Faux News/Cable has never been an advocate for Constitutional government. How often do you hear the Constitution cited, let alone discussed, by the professional chattering class in the mainstream or alternative media? Do you think Sean Hannity has ever read The Federalist, or heard of the Anti-Federalist?
Payolacons only need to know what entertains and how to use their media time to subtly distract from root problems. They can spin, jest and even act seriously concerned. When their politicians and policies parade around the public square without any Constitutional clothes, rather than agree with what even a homeschooled child can see, they disrobe and cavort with their Emperor in naked obscenity. The pseudo-brain trust is no different!
Weaver on 17 Mar 2010 at 6:15 am #
Sounds like Burnham’s replacement of the old bougeoise elite with the new managerial elite.