I really do have a soft spot for intramural spitting contests among Republican intellectuals. It reminds me a lot of the stuffy air in Nassau Inn’s Yankee Doodle Tap Room, with its black and white photos of alumni like George Schultz and Donald Rumsfeld.
What, after all, are we to make of the following defense of snobbery from the retired Dartmouth English professor and National Review Senior Editor, Jeffrey Hart?
“Like the Whig gentry who were the Founders, I loathe populism,” Hart explains. “Most especially in the form of populist religion, i.e., the current pestiferous bible-banging evangelicals, whom I regard as organized ignorance, a menace to public health, to science, to medicine, to serious Western religion, to intellect and indeed to sanity. Evangelicalism, driven by emotion, and not creedal, is thoroughly erratic and by its nature cannot be conservative. My conservatism is aristocratic in spirit, anti-populist and rooted in the Northeast. It is Burke brought up to date. A ‘social conservative’ in my view is not a moral authoritarian Evangelical who wants to push people around, but an American gentleman, conservative in a social sense. He has gone to a good school, maybe shops at J. Press, maybe plays tennis or golf, and drinks either Bombay or Beefeater martinis, or maybe Dewar’s on the rocks, or both.”
Holy smokes!! Most conservative professors I’ve known have had better sense than to praise their own privileged lifestyles. Usually, they complain about how poorly they are compensated. Hart has all conservatives’ knickers in a twist. That’s what happens when one of their most revered elders leaves the reservation and starts saying stuff like this:
[William] Buckley did object to my conclusion that Bush had been the worst American president in that earlier draft. He thought it too categorical, and, at the time I was writing, he was right. That was soon after the 2004 election. But much of the evidence now is in. And I’m sure that somewhere James Buchanan is throwing a champagne party. He’s no longer the worst.
The earlier draft was more explicit:
“Bush will be judged the worst President in American history, from both a conservative and a liberal point of view, finding a consensus on the bottom, at last, and so achieving a landslide victory that evaded him in 2004.”
All this Bush bashing has created a bit of a backlash. For example:
Alston Ramsay ’04, a former editor of both The Dartmouth Review and National Review who now works for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, disagrees: “There is no doubt that Hart’s encyclopedic knowledge of literature could make even the lousiest argument take on the sheen of verisimilitude. But in his recent writings the willingness to ignore contradictory evidence, the monopolistic way he defines his terms, the baffling dislike of Evangelicals—it all adds up, and even his legitimate points become hard to discern through the haze of his own internal contradictions. About the only thing Jeff Hart has convinced me of recently is that ‘conservatism’ is what Jeff Hart says it is. No more, no less.”
Hart’s young colleagues at National Review have been equally unsympathetic: “In every generation,” wrote Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh Ponnuru in the magazine, “some conservatives will lose the intramural debates, and it will be only natural for them to feel that they have lost them unfairly. They will maintain that they alone have stayed true to the faith. Liberals will, in turn, be delighted to tout these scolds as exemplars of a good conservatism.”
But Hart isn’t taking that crap from a couple of paste-eating wannabes.
Goldberg and Punnuru are certainly correct in saying that I have lost the “intramural debate” among the ignorami who agree that Bush is conservative.
I certainly was not aboard that Ship of Fools, so-called “conservatives” as well as “neo-conservatives” – more correctly neo-trotskyites – who sailed with Bush right over Niagra Falls and smashed to pieces on the rocks of reality below.
In a just world, the whole lot of them would be caught up by a hungry mob and given over to Robespierre’s favorite instrument of death. And then we would break into their homes and drink all their Beefeaters.
It is great fun watching the windbags go after each other. I hope they continue the in fighting right through the ’08 and 10 election cycles. LOL
What percentage of the electorate do you think consider themselves gentlemen, drink expensive gin martinis, and play golf and tennis?
It must be almost enough to get a working majority, right?
LOL I think he pissed the snobs and the conservative base all at the same time and I love it.
In a just world, the whole lot of them would be caught up by a hungry mob and given over to Robespierre’s favorite instrument of death. And then we would break into their homes and drink all their Beefeaters.
This is fun reading – thanks for digging it up.
Boy, these guys sure talk purty for a bunch of tweed-coated pomps. Makes you think that their favorite recreation must be figuring out ways to tell each other to go to hell and make it sound like they’ll enjoy the trip.
I’m with Refinish, I hope they keep this up for the foreseeable future, looking down from their ivory towers on the landscape that is an America reforming itself in fitful start toward a more populist society and griping eloquently about what went wrong, how it went wrong and how they could have succeeded if it wasn’t for those meddling kids.
rats! not those blasted kids again … !!!
I think they should all be buried up to their necks outside the gates of the city where we can all take a swipe at their heads with a baseball bat as we come and go.
but not with a baseball bat.
The epilogue to Clavell’s novel Shōgun describes how Lord Toronaga defeated his rival, Lord Ishido, and buried him up to his neck. He then ordered each of his subjects, one by one, to file past Ishido and take a cut as his neck with a conveniently-placed bamboo saw.
The novel ends with the sentence “He lived two days and died an old man.”
Not that I would advocate such misuse of bamboo saws, of course . . .
Thanks, my well-read friend. (Penguins! Penguins!)
So that’s where I read about this, I couldn’t remember… It’s been a while since I read the book or watched the mini-series (which I loved BTW). I just wonder if Clavell made it up or if it’s a fine old Japanese tradition?
It came to mind as an appropriate punishment the other day when that criminal Bush was defiling my television set with his ugly face.
I don’t know either, but if it’s not historically accurate, my nodding acquaintance with Japanese history (mostly consisting of fact-checking a long-forgotten supplement for a role-playing game) leads me to believe that it’s the sort of thing they would come up with.
Of course, with Clavell who knows. The Wikipedia article on Shōgun indicates that he based the novel on historical characters and I’m sure he did quite a bit of research, but it also says he had someone in the novel practicing judo centuries before it was invented.
To give Hart one point, I believe that Queen Elizabeth took a very dim view of Evangelicals and radical Catholics: her half-brother Edward and half-sister Mary provided very bad role models for their followers.
I’d like to point out that Bill Bradley’s photo also hangs in the Yankee Doodle Taproom, and that all the photos are bolted to the walls, which one quickly discovers upon drunkenly attempting to remove them.